mises.org — Larry Vance finds that the advocates of the FairTax have backpeddled on many of their most far-flug claims for the merits of their plan. But they still aren't admiting just how terrible this idea is, nor that the US government should never pass a budget that is in the trillions. With taxes, it is size, not the type of tax system, that matters.
Oct 9, 2006 View in Crawl 4
fyngyrzOct 10, 2006
Now, I want readers to look up at my nearest above post and observe the down-mods. I don't mind them, that's not the point. My point is that there are no cogent arguments against the position I put forth, just the evidence of frustration as visible in the mods.It must really piss those people off to read the truth and realize they've been so stupid all along. Fun! :-)
joybranOct 10, 2006
@ rationalist"Unfortunately, one of the consequences of the war on community and civilization (disguised as the "war on government"), is a dramatic reduction in basic education of our populace in critical thinking, civics and participatory democracy. So, we end up with childish idiots who spout myths about the evils of government, using an Internet created by government funding."If you think your rant is rational, you must be a product of that government "education" system that has been reducing the critical thinking ability of our populace. The philosophy of libertarianism is based on the ethics of liberty, which proves that individuals have the right, the ability, and the responsibility to voluntarily create their communities and social institutions, rather than having those institutions forced on them by some group of elites who use force to rule them. It teaches that the best allocation of limited resources occurs when individuals have the freedom to pursue their own self-interests and to find voluntary solutions to the problems of existence, rather than having "solutions" forced on them by their rulers.There is nothing about libertarianism that is opposed to morality or to community or to charity. Libertarianism is only opposed to the use of force or fraud to kill, enslave, or rob individuals. Governments are the institutions that claim the legal right to kill, enslave, and rob individuals, for the "greater good" of course. This is why libertarians are opposed to governments. We believe that sacrificing some individuals for the sake of other individuals is never a "greater good." In other words, we believe that the ends NEVER justify the means. If the means are evil, as all acts of agression are, then the ends will be evil.If you look objectively at the history of our country (and I don't mean the propaganda taught in our government schools), you will see that all the goods and blessings of our great nation have come from our relative freedom. You will also see that all the problems that have plagued us have come from the continual growth of our federal government, as was predicted by the so-called anti-federalists in 1788. To use your own example, the Internet was a useless government boondoggle until it was opened to private development, which made it the wonderful communication tool it is today.
joybranOct 10, 2006
@ Bioshocker""So you're saying if you don't have money, your house will burn down, your kids can't go to school and the police won't protect you?"Basically, yes, that is what they are saying. Libertarianism is 100% individualist, 0% society-minded. They don't care about you or your standard of living, what they care about is that they will be better off without taxes. Taking money from them involuntarily to pay for services for other people is, in their minds, theft. The assumption is that the needs of those not well off enough to survive in their brave new world, will be met by charity and charitable donations."That is not what we are saying at all. I am the most extreme libertarian, an individualist anarchist. What we are saying is that freedom is the best thing for society. Killing, enslaving, and robbing individuals is NEVER good for society, no matter how much our rulers want us to believe it is. Government is what causes poverty. It is what drains all the wealth from society to feed itself and its minions who prop it up. It uses fear to convince people that they could not survive without it. Without government interference into relationships between individuals, we would all be so much better off that poverty would be a thing of the past.Without government, anyone who is willing to work would be able to find work and would be able to keep all the money he earned. There will always be a tiny minority of people who are so physically or mentally disabled they can't do any kind of productive work, but technology makes that number smaller all the time. With the wealth possible in a free society, the need for charity would be negligible. That's why we are so sure that charity would be able to take care of those few people.The problem with freedom is that it doesn't allow lazy people to live off the work of others. Freedom means responsibility, and the people who currently live off government handouts of one kind or another would have to go to work. They are the biggest opponents of freedom, and there are an awful lot of them.
fyngyrzOct 11, 2006
@joybran: "It is not your money if you have to give your name and address to the government and wait for them to send you a check. That makes you a welfare recipient and the fact that you have to get money that way in order to avoid paying 30% taxes on the things you absolutely can't avoid buying makes you a prize sucker. What a great way to control anyone who voices the slightest disagreement with our rulers. Just withhold their monthly check."The opportunity to withhold is there, certainly, but at this point in time it is a bugaboo; the opportunity to fine the individual is there as well, and no one is talking about that, either. The plan is to prebate everyone, there are no conditions or penalties. I'll go with that, rather than imagine ways it can be misused.Look: I am a libertarian. Not quite as extreme as you are, but not that far off, either. But what you and I want is not going to come to pass from where we stand today. People do not see things the way we do, and we can discuss it until we're blue in the face, and they'll still come out the other side thinking what they thought in the first place. Look at all the blindness you faced here in the messages you replied to. And these are moderately clever people. We can play the blame game -- intelligence, lack of education, lack of vision, indoctrination -- but that won't change anything either, other than to annoy the pig, as the saying goes. The FT seems just barely viable in terms of being made to come to pass, and as such, is an opportunity to possibly -- not certainly, but possibly -- reduce the complexities of the taxation system by a considerable amount. That serves my purpose, as it puts the cost of government in the citizen's face every time they buy anything. There is a side effect I mentioned elsewhere that I like as well; it allows citizens to be miserly when the government is particularly out of line (ie, the Iraq war) and spendy if they do something right (ie, forbid taking people's property.) It makes taxes into a functional feedback mechanism, which I see as a very good thing, certainly as compared to where we are now.Coming back to libertarianism and further: I can't buck everything on the earth that isn't 100% compliant with my beliefs as to what would be better for everyone. I don't have that kind of power. So if I see a chink in the wall, I stick a crowbar in it.When I was 16 and had just finished proving I wasn't nearly as clever as I thought I was, my father told me that society is like an old, thick stone wall. If you insist on running into it head-on, you'll only break your head. Hit it hard enough, and stones from high up will rain down on you and crush you, to boot. But if you walk up to it, and examine it without battering yourself against it and trying to make it unstable, you will find the stones are uneven, there are cracks, and every one of them is an opportunity. You can use them to climb or even go over the wall if you're clever and have some luck. But running into the wall just won't work.The FT is a potential crack. Supporting it serves as a metaphorical crowbar. I'm just quietly pulling on it to see if I can make that crack into a reality. Might be some sunshine on the other side.
fyngyrzOct 12, 2006
@joybran: "All money that the government has is stolen money, whether stolen through taxes or stolen through inflation or stolen by forcing people to buy unwanted, over-priced "services" from government monopolies."Ok. Here's how I see it. Under the FT, the government will be mugging me for, say, $300.00 each month. This is a certainty. If I accept a $300.00 check from them at the beginning of each month, I am accepting *my own money back* and I do not find this to be ethically bankrupt.If a mugger takes my watch, he has stolen it. It is stolen property. If I accept it back, I am not ethically bankrupt -- it is *my* watch!If the government takes $300 from me, it has stolen it. It is stolen property. If I accept it back, I am not ethically bankrupt -- it is *my* money!Your scenario seems a little confused to me; perhaps you are thinking that when you get that money back, you're accepting someone *else's* stolen property. Not so. It's yours. The mugger's just having the rather odd habit of giving it to you before he steals it, that's all. I mean, don't worry -- he's going to steal a lot more from you, and he's already mugged you before for a lot more money and you won't get *that* back, but at least you'll get this fraction.Please explain to me, if possible, where I have this wrong, or else tell me if you've changed your stand, and why / why not.
joybranOct 13, 2006
"Your scenario seems a little confused to me; perhaps you are thinking that when you get that money back, you're accepting someone *else's* stolen property. Not so. It's yours. The mugger's just having the rather odd habit of giving it to you before he steals it, that's all. I mean, don't worry -- he's going to steal a lot more from you, and he's already mugged you before for a lot more money and you won't get *that* back, but at least you'll get this fraction."Money is fungible. If you get your watch back, you know it is YOUR watch and nobody else's. You can't know that with money. The mugger may have spent your money and what you are getting back is someone else's money. Another difference is that, if you get your watch back (or even money back) from a mugger, it is restitution for the crime of stealing from you. It is not a "rebate" or "prebate" that the mugger is generous enough to give you. It isn't an odd habit; it's an attempt to convince you that the mugger isn't really stealing from you.But that really isn't the most important consideration. As I said, I understand the justification for trying to get some of your stolen money back. The real problem is that you are accepting money from a thief on the condition that you don't object to his theft. You can't accept that monthly check and then say the sales tax is theft, even though it is. Government survives on the sanction of the victim. You have to remove that sanction, and you can't do it by accepting hush money, even if that hush money was originally stolen from you.
bacon_skodaOct 13, 2006
not a nightmare to me. maybe you are not smart enough.all the "complexities" are adjustments and answers to different situations.if you work at mcdonalds, live in your parent's basement, then your 1040EZ is SIMPLE!!!if you own a mcdonalds and own rental property and live in a house that's also a business, your taxes will be "more complex". The "complexity" is adjustments for fairness. If you would rather make it simple, then overpay it. Instead of hours and hours of work to come to $48,879. just pay $60,000. nice round simple number folks.
gdedollarsMar 16, 2009
nice information guys..thanks.
jwalk82Jun 20, 2009
you're retarded. think about what you're saying. do you really believe someone should be penalized (taxed more) for working harder and/or smarter (earning more)? friggin moron. that concept is what destroys motivation to succeed.