- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: National Sales Tax - why not?
Posted on 12/3/16 at 3:09 pm to TrueTiger
Posted on 12/3/16 at 3:09 pm to TrueTiger
quote:
If you don't want to pay the tax, don't buy the merchandise
The author of the article I linked addresses sales taxes/ consumption taxes. Tell me where his logic falls short. I have tried to find the flaw in his argument and I have failed.
At best, all I can do is rationalize the theft as a necessary evil. That's not a good thing, imo.
1
Posted on 12/3/16 at 3:21 pm to tigerpawl
quote:
Why can't this work and why doesn't it get more support?
because it doesn't, it disproportionately affects the poor, and finally its stupid
Posted on 12/3/16 at 3:21 pm to Tiger4Liberty
Theft is a loaded word that doesn't really apply in the case of taxation and governance. A government has the right to tax its civilian base. If it's an illegitimate government then yes it's theft, but we don't have an illegitimate government.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 3:22 pm to AUbagman
quote:
No they're not. That is being disingenuous. When you sign an employment contract, purchase a home, buy a good or service, you're agreeing to pay the tax. It is very much possible to avoid them, but we all know that life wouldn't be all that grand. When you're robbed, you have zero say in the matter.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong.
The simple test is to ask, "Can I opt not to pay? If I don't pay, will force be used against me?".
Does anyone, other than me, own my body and the fruits of my labor? If not, I should be the only person who has a say in how the fruits of my labor are used.
My argument isn't one of pragmatism in governing. My argument is a simple moral truth.
More accurately, Frank Chodorov makes said argument, and I find no way to logically refute him.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 3:23 pm to Zach
quote:
No. Not at all. It's actuarial tables. If a normal single person living alone needs 10K of purchases to survive then you get 1K sales tax prebate. You pay zero taxes if you live that way.
Someone gets to decide how much I need to survive, how has anything changed?
Posted on 12/3/16 at 3:33 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Someone gets to decide how much I need to survive, how has anything changed?
Someone already decides how long you will live. It's called life insurance.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 3:36 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
A government has the right to tax its civilian base.
Read the article and then tell me who gives them that right.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 3:40 pm to Tiger4Liberty
In the case of the US we the people did, and continue to do so by electing representatives that don't repeal every tax nor pass constitutional amendments barring the governments power of taxation.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 3:40 pm to tigerpawl
Because this is a federation. What's the point of state lines if we all have the same damn rules. We are supposed to be 50 economic laboratories.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 3:59 pm to DavidTheGnome
Chodorov's reply:
quote:
If we assume that the individual has an indisputable right to life, we must concede that he has a similar right to the enjoyment of the products of his labor. This we call a property right. The absolute right to property follows from the original right to life because one without the other is meaningless; the means to life must be identified with life itself.
If the state has a prior right to the products of one's labor, his right to existence is qualified. Aside from the fact that no such prior right can be established, except by declaring the state the author of all rights, our inclination (as shown in the effort to avoid paying taxes) is to reject this concept of priority. Our instinct is against it. We object to the taking of our property by organized society just as we do when a single unit of society commits the act. In the latter case we unhesitatingly call the act robbery, a malum in se
Posted on 12/3/16 at 4:09 pm to Tiger4Liberty
That quote also explains the reason why libertarians consider 'liberty' and 'property' synonyms. You cannot have one without the other. But IRL it takes me forever to explain it to people.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 4:10 pm to progodlegend
quote:
progodlegend
Alter
Posted on 12/3/16 at 4:31 pm to tigerpawl
I'm in
Posted on 12/3/16 at 6:35 pm to tigerpawl
Why should the government get a cut whenever I decide to buy a guitar, a burger or a pair of boots?
Posted on 12/3/16 at 6:41 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
we the people did,
What do you mean "we"?
I've never voted for anyone who was for raising taxes.
My consent was never given.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 7:02 pm to Creamer
quote:
The negatives I have heard discussed are that it makes people less likely to make large purchases because of the substantial 25% tax put on the price tag. This would hurt the car mfg in the US. The counter to that is people don't care how much cars cost anyway, as long as their monthly payment is at a certain level.
The Fair Tax is better. Removed corporate and embedded tax. Allows car manufactures for example to bring products to market cheaper. When the higher tax rate is applied the consumer more or less spends the same amount they are now.
Posted on 12/3/16 at 7:14 pm to AUbagman
quote:
Regardless of sales taxes on a state/national scale, basic necessities for survival - essentially food/utilities - should not be taxed. Naturally, the wealthy will consume more non-essential items. People scraping by paycheck to paycheck should not be taxed just to put food on the table.
This. Nicely done
Posted on 12/3/16 at 7:35 pm to HooDooWitch
quote:
The Fair Tax is better. Removed corporate and embedded tax. Allows car manufactures for example to bring products to market cheaper. When the higher tax rate is applied the consumer more or less spends the same amount they are now.
This was explained in another thread as: a 23% fairtax (for example) doesn't raise the price of goods because everything you buy already has a similar % of the price that accounts for corporate taxes. To me, that's also what you are saying. This is where I have a big problem with understanding the fairtax. If the above premise is true, then the fairtax only replaces corporate taxes, which currently account for less than half of federal revenue. Add in the fact that we are going to give everyone a monthly stipend to cover the tax on essential items (the prebate), and one of two things (or both) have to happen for the fairtax to generate the same amount of revenue that corporate taxes and federal income tax currently do...either the fairtax % has to be significantly larger than whatever % of the price of goods currently goes towards corporate taxes, or people have to start buying over 2x the amount of non essential goods. So which is it? Or is the original premise wrong?
Posted on 12/3/16 at 7:42 pm to Tiger4Liberty
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/10/21 at 10:22 am
Posted on 12/3/16 at 7:48 pm to tigerpawl
Because it would never go away and they would tax income too. Gasoline tax was supposed to supplement and help lower income tax. It is 17 cents a gallon and doesn't help lower anything.
A tax is like herpes. It is permanent.
A tax is like herpes. It is permanent.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News