Thread: What tax rate IS Fair? Is there REALLY a fair flat tax rate anymore?

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

Right. The only two social possibilities are anarchy or socialism. Nothing in between.

The ironic part is that you were the one who said to him that if he is for freedom then you don't have to obey any laws. And here you are trying to pretend to act outraged. Tsk tsk.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

The ironic part is that you were the one who said to him that if he is for freedom then you don't have to obey any laws. And here you are trying to pretend to act outraged. Tsk tsk.

Once again, I have no idea what you're babbling about.

You don't? My, your memory is quite poor. You went with the rhetorical argument that freedom means "then I can walk onto your property any time I want?" To which I replied that you apparently never graduated kindergarten. It was quite amusing. And like I said, here you are, acting all outraged. Awww, poor wittle guy. Awwwwwwwwww.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

You don't? My, your memory is quite poor. You went with the rhetorical argument that freedom means "then I can walk onto your property any time I want?" To which I replied that you apparently never graduated kindergarten. It was quite amusing. And like I said, here you are, acting all outraged. Awww, poor wittle guy. Awwwwwwwwww.

I always enjoy it when someone thinks they can divine my emotional state in a text-only forum. It leads them to say hilariously stupid things, like you just did.

But yes, complete freedom means that you do not have to obey any laws. And living in a society means you trade away some of your freedoms for the protections and advantages that the society affords you (including, in my example to jviehe, property rights). Do you disagree? And please, try to frame your answer in the form of non-babble. Thanks in advance.

Like I said, irony. And he doesn't even understand why. It's quite amusing.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

Like I said, irony. And he doesn't even understand why. It's quite amusing.

A lot of us are having a hard time understanding what the heck you are talking about.

Really? That doesn't say much for you. Here, I'll make it quite simple for you, but this makes me sad.

Earlier, AdamKadmon said that if someone is "for freedom," that means that he can enter your property any time he wants. In other words, he is saying that wanting freedom necessarily means that you must take the extreme position of total anarchy.

Now, AdamKadmon is defending his own position by saying that it is false that the only positions are socialism or anarchy "with nothing in between." That contradicts his own argument and also indicts his own manner of argumentation earlier. It's called "self-ownage."

There you go, kid.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

Really? That doesn't say much for you. Here, I'll make it quite simple for you, but this makes me sad.

Earlier, AdamKadmon said that if someone is "for freedom," that means that he can enter your property any time he wants. In other words, he is saying that wanting freedom necessarily means that you must take the extreme position of total anarchy.

Now, AdamKadmon is defending his own position by saying that it is false that the only positions are socialism or anarchy "with nothing in between." That contradicts his own argument and also indicts his own manner of argumentation earlier. It's called "self-ownage."

There you go, kid.

Once again, you are unable to understand my argument... or, as near as I can tell, anybody's argument. I guess this is why you constantly tell people what you think they really mean, rather than address what they are actually saying.

The point I was making was that when you live in a society, you are accepting a certain amount of limits on freedom; therefore, the debate is not freedom vs. non-freedom (as jviehe implied) but about what level of restriction on freedom is acceptable.

Nice try, though.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

Once again, you are unable to understand my argument... or, as near as I can tell, anybody's argument. I guess this is why you constantly tell people what you think they really mean, rather than address what they are actually saying.

The point I was making was that when you live in a society, you are accepting a certain amount of limits on freedom; therefore, the debate is not freedom vs. non-freedom (as jviehe implied) but about what level of restriction on freedom is acceptable.

Nice try, though.

*fistbumps AdamKadmon*

well said matey. as a poster once put it, this be not the "United States of Jviehe".

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

*fistbumps AdamKadmon*

well said matey. as a poster once put it, this be not the "United States of Jviehe".

- MeadHallPirate

Thank you kindly, sir.

And a fistbump in return.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

And I'd be happy to see you go. But as long as you insist on living in this country, you're kinda stuck in this society. Not exactly the one I'd have chosen, either, if I got to create one from scratch, but as I said, life is full of tradeoffs.



Right. The only two social possibilities are anarchy or socialism. Nothing in between.



And where is that?

Right here. We go our seperate ways. California has whatever tax system it wants, and florida has whatever tax system it wants. Thats fair.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

Once again, you are unable to understand my argument... or, as near as I can tell, anybody's argument. I guess this is why you constantly tell people what you think they really mean, rather than address what they are actually saying.

The point I was making was that when you live in a society, you are accepting a certain amount of limits on freedom; therefore, the debate is not freedom vs. non-freedom (as jviehe implied) but about what level of restriction on freedom is acceptable.

Nice try, though.

And the point I was making is that your idea of freedom is telling me to pay for your wants. My system is reducing govt to needs only and then having everyone pay equally. Which system sounds more fair?

Originally Posted by C-B-M

Yes, I do. Because to you, the most important thing is that you get money and whether you do so in a fair manner is secondary. To me, you can only get money in a fair manner. That's the difference between conservatives and liberals, though. You don't even grasp the problem with your position.

Once again, you blow it totally.
In order to escape the confines of reality, which is that taxes pay for the government, you grasp for some nebulous concept called "Fair", and of course you define "Fair" to mean that your desired outcome is implemented, anything else would not be "Fair".

But I define "Fair" as far as taxes go as free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice.

But every tax is "unfair" to some degree by it's very nature. The income tax is only paid by honest people who file their taxes, dishonest people who hide their income go tax free, that's not fair, but it's reality.
Income taxes only tax income, but a person can make billions of dollars, that don't count as income, and pay no taxes. That's not fair, but it's reality.
To me the fairest tax is the property tax, it's the easiest to collect, the hardest to cheat on, and the most transparent. But the wealthy prefer the income tax and the sales tax, because the property tax hits those with property.
A flat income tax is not fair, because it does not account for the marginal utility of money.
So a graduated income tax is fair, or at least more "fair" than a flat tax, because a graduated tax attempts to compensate for the marginal utility of money.

That's the problem with "Fair", it's imprecise.
When I say that taxes should raise enough money to fund the government, that's a fairly precise goal.
There is a number, a precise number, that defines the revenue target.

Now "Fairness" is how you divide that burden.
And the vast majority of Americans believe the wealthy should pay more, and that's fair...