The Paul File

[786]

Name ONE successful country that doesn't use a Progressive income tax.

Most of them are in big trouble. you can get away with income tax but the problem is spending. The point is if government spends little then the income tax becomes unnecessary, so there is no reason to quote any country.

Just because all governments like to tax and get more money thus adopting similar taxing policies doesn't mean they are successful as a country because of that

 

[Michael]

And it is also explicitly allowed by our Constitution.

Worse, the Cattle are FORCED into using USD which are printed by the Fed wiping out another 3-5% per annum. This is also stealing.



So the answer is to . . . tax the masses more? An odd conclusion.

How about we tax less? Also, we have alternative currencies. This is the reason why people left places like England, or left the colonies to move out West. To be free from the government. There's really no place left to go, so, we'll have to make our stand here.

Name ONE successful country that doesn't use a Progressive income tax.

This is like a person in the 1700s saying: Name ONE successful country that doens't use Slave labor. ame ONE successful country that doens't have a King. Name ONE successful country that allows woman the same rights as men.


As for a successful country: China in 1400CE, Rome 150CE, USA 1900CE.


This isn't a new story:

...new envoys, new bearers of letters, come from the Imperial offices and those men are recommended to a few well-known men for the mischief of many. For them new gifts are decreed. The powerful levy what the poor are to pay, the courtesy of the rich decrees what the multitude of the wretched are to lose. They themselves in no way feel what they levy.
- -Salvian the Presbyter, The Governance of God, circa 450

 

[adoucette]

This is like a person in the 1700s saying: Name ONE successful country that doens't use Slave labor. ame ONE successful country that doens't have a King. Name ONE successful country that allows woman the same rights as men.

Plenty of countries had outlawed slavery by 1700 Michael.
Switzerland was free of a Monarchy by 1322
Sparta gave women full rights.
So all these things can be found if one cares to look as the world is a big place.

But let's not be silly Michael, try to deal with modern times and countries as the issues of the 1700s aren't particularly relevant today.

So come on, if repealing the income tax leads to all these great changes, show us a reasonably large modern country which has done it.

Or how about this, find a list, reasonably structured on real issues, that ranks countries based on the Quality of Life available to the average citizen, and list how many have no income Tax?

You can start with this list:

http://thewondrous.com/list-of-top-20-countries-with-best-quality-of-life/

 

[adoucette]

Most of them are in big trouble. you can get away with income tax but the problem is spending. The point is if government spends little then the income tax becomes unnecessary, so there is no reason to quote any country.

Just because all governments like to tax and get more money thus adopting similar taxing policies doesn't mean they are successful as a country because of that

How are most of them in big trouble?

Clearly the top countries on the list are not in big trouble.

So I'll put the same question to you then:

There are quite a few well researched lists of countries ranked by Quality of Life of the average resident.

Show which of those have no income tax (or even a very low income tax)

I'll help with both lists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

Vs Taxes

 

[iceaura]

This is the reason why people left places like England, or left the colonies to move out West. To be free from the government.

As with most of your assertions about economics, history, etc, that is simply false.

The early colonies in North America were extensions of their home governments, not escapes from them. Most of the inhabitants were expanding their home governments, imposing them on new territory for profit and reward, as citizens and loyal subjects; some were convicted criminals, sentenced not to freedom but to punishment; even the minority (mostly thug Scotch Irish imports after 1750) who did view the new continent as an opportunity to escape their former government were eager to form and join a new one - often, to escape the impositions of ungoverned corporate interests (the fur trade monopolies, the shipping monopolies, the pirate operations, the tribal claims of ownership and control, the afflictions of the ungoverned with only their individual strength of arms to defend their interests).

And that eventual revolt and formation was precipitated by a tax break - a tax break given to a large corporation. It was the last straw - they weren't fools, and could recognize the effects of allowing that much impunity and advantage to a big company like that.

 

[Michael]

Plenty of countries had outlawed slavery by 1700 Michael.
Switzerland was free of a Monarchy by 1322
Sparta gave women full rights.
So all these things can be found if one cares to look as the world is a big place.

But let's not be silly Michael, try to deal with modern times and countries as the issues of the 1700s aren't particularly relevant today.

So come on, if repealing the income tax leads to all these great changes, show us a reasonably large modern country which has done it.

Or how about this, find a list, reasonably structured on real issues, that ranks countries based on the Quality of Life available to the average citizen, and list how many have no income Tax?

You can start with this list:

http://thewondrous.com/list-of-top-20-countries-with-best-quality-of-life/

The relevance is to the TYPE of argument you're attempting to make. The pragmatic fallacy is not only illogical it has the additional problem of defining what "works".

That's why I brought up the "Slavery" and "the Cotton needs a pick-n" example. No one could have looked into the future and said: We should get rid of slaves because one day one man sitting in front of a magic box will use GPS guided machines to harvest thousands of miles of cotton using machines that run on dinosaur juice. AND, if they had, they'd be considered a nut.

This is the type of argument you're trying to make. Michael, you're a nut and things work well with a progressive tax. I'm saying it's Immoral and maybe we don't know what the future holds, but we do know what is and is not moral.

Of course, we can't cancel progressive income tax and keep all other things the same. The ENTIRE monetary system will need to be overhauled. While that may seem "crazy" I'm sure no more so than ridding the world of slavery sounded to a cotton farmer.

 

[adoucette]

All a strawman argument Michael.

You claim that getting rid of a progressive tax system would lead to a better life.

But there are plenty of countries in the world which clearly provide very good lives to their inhabitants but also have a progressive tax system.

So it kinda shoots a big hole in your argument.

More to the point, you CAN'T show one reasonable example of a country which has followed your advice and had success with it.

So if your idea is so great, why is NO ONE doing it?

 

[Michael]

All a strawman argument Michael.

You claim that getting rid of a progressive tax system would lead to a better life.

But there are plenty of countries in the world which clearly provide very good lives to their inhabitants but also have a progressive tax system.

So it kinda shoots a big hole in your argument.

More to the point, you CAN'T show one reasonable example of a country which has followed your advice and had success with it.

So if your idea is so great, why is NO ONE doing it?

I didn't put forward a stawman argument, I showed, through example, you're making a logical fallacy when you suggest there's a pragmatic reason for why we should have progressive income tax.

This of course makes the assumption we must have a central bank and a government controlled money supply. This simply wasn't the case until recently. With a private money supply detached from a central government, I think things could be a lot better at a local level. Of course, this means people will have to actually give two shits about what the F is going on, or else their own local currency will be devalued.

 

[iceaura]

Michael, you're a nut and things work well with a progressive tax. I'm saying it's Immoral and maybe we don't know what the future holds, but we do know what is and is not moral.

Yes we do: and maybe people refusing to pay the bills they owe for the economy they used to enrich themselves beyond history's wildest dreams should be tarred and feathered and run out of town, like any other scammer that gets caught.

But we are more pragmatic than that, and content ourselves with a legal and open system of taxation.

 

[Michael]

Yes we do: and maybe people refusing to pay the bills they owe for the economy they used to enrich themselves beyond history's wildest dreams should be tarred and feathered and run out of town, like any other scammer that gets caught.

But we are more pragmatic than that, and content ourselves with a legal and open system of taxation.

Yes we know the future?

Really? Do tell....


I'll make a prediction. Under the current monetary system the rich will get ever more richer and the poor will get ever more poorer. I don't care if you elect Obama (who will most likely win) or Mitt Romney (who will most likely get the GOP nomination). Other than this, nothing will change because people just can't see a system drastically different than the one we have - even when it's destroying their lives.

 

[billvon]

I'll make a prediction. Under the current monetary system the rich will get ever more richer and the poor will get ever more poorer.

Both have on average been getting richer, at least here in the US over the past 200 years. What do you think will change?

 

[The Esotericist]

Both have on average been getting richer, at least here in the US over the past 200 years. What do you think will change?

Not since the 1950's. Why don't you back that up with some proof?

Really, the only ones getting more wealthy are the upper quarter, upper five percent of society. No indeed, the poor are not really more wealthy, they just have better shit in the the thrift stores, garage sales, and garbage dumps to sift through. Not what I would call more equitable.

 

[Michael]

Both have on average been getting richer, at least here in the US over the past 200 years. What do you think will change?

The last 200 years doesn't mean much. Try the last 25.

 

[iceaura]

Yes we know the future?

Really? Do tell....

No. Yes we know what is moral and what is not. Refusing to pay for one's extremely profitable use of other people's stuff, for example, is immoral.

I'll make a prediction. Under the current monetary system the rich will get ever more richer and the poor will get ever more poorer.

Which is a bit of a puzzle, since that was not true of the very same monetary system for so many years.

Perhaps we can look very, very carefully for some kind of change? Maybe - - -

The last 200 years doesn't mean much. Try the last 25.

there's a clue!

Maybe it's not the monetary system, but the political system, the governance and regulatory setup, the thing that changed 25 years ago, that counts? On the evidence, see.

 

[Michael]

No. Yes we know what is moral and what is not. Refusing to pay for one's extremely profitable use of other people's stuff, for example, is immoral.

What other people?

Let's take airfreight, communication, shipping and roads as examples. Lots of businesses use FedEx to ship airfreight. They pay for it. Done. One may ask why they don't use the USPost? That's the government equivalent.

Lot's of businesses use ships. They pay for it. Done. One may ask why we don't just tax the public, build large bloated bureaucracies to ship all these goods around the world. I wonder why?

Lot's of businesses use/used Blackberry. Now many use iPhone. Do you think it'd be better if we the tax payer paid for these services instead?

How about roads. Oh, yes, the gasoline we buy pays for the roads. It's a form of tax.


The point being. Most successful cheap efficient and productive human enterprise seems to NOT be performed by the government. Do you even have an idea of the billions and billions and literally hundreds of billions - trillions, wasted by the military? The absolutely massive amount of money wasted by the government? People go into these institutions because they want the job security, medical benefits and high pay. I know, because I know plenty of people who work for the government. Ironically, most of them are doing so well they've decided to go into the slum-lord business. Which is just classic. As if the public welling means anything to them.



What are your ideas on the Central Bank?

 

[adoucette]

Let's take airfreight, communication, shipping and roads as examples. Lots of businesses use FedEx to ship airfreight. They pay for it. Done. One may ask why they don't use the USPost? That's the government equivalent.

The FAA, the NTSB and the safe daily operation of the nations air transportation system is a Federal agency, paid by taxes.

As to the comparison with the US Post, again you are wrong.

FedEx was allowed to skim the cream.
Ship just high value packages overnight to locations of it's choosing.

Which is why no business sends out it's flyers, promotions or monthly bills via FedEx.

The US post has to deliver mail to every location for the same price.

FedEx will not deliver letters from Atlanta to Hawaii, Bangor, Key West and Nome all for the price of one stamp each.

How about roads. Oh, yes, the gasoline we buy pays for the roads. It's a form of tax.

No Michael, our State and Federal Gasoline tax only pays about half the cost of our roads. Federal Income tax provides about 20% and State Taxes (varies based on state, but State income tax is the most common) pays for the remaining 30%.

http://subsidyscope.org/transportation/direct-expenditures/highways/funding/state/

Most successful cheap efficient and productive human enterprise seems to NOT be performed by the government.

Which is why we don't use our Government to make our products.
No one is claiming that Govt would be a good replacement for Apple, Boeing or IBM.
But without the Govt to make sure competitors didn't cut corners to beat their competition, we would have much worse issues with the environment and product safety etc.

Do you even have an idea of the billions and billions and literally hundreds of billions - trillions, wasted by the military? The absolutely massive amount of money wasted by the government?

No Michael, and you've provided nothing to support your contention of how much waste there is.

But regardless, the fact that there may be waste is not necessarily a reason to do away with the Govt, but to continue to work to improve it.

 

[billvon]

The last 200 years doesn't mean much. Try the last 25.

Not since the 1950's.

Yes, if you cherry pick your data to support your favorite politically correct opinion you can find the trend you want.

Nevertheless, over the course of the US's existence poverty overall has declined dramatically. Since the 1950's it has declined as well, if you use the number of people below the poverty line as a metric. Since the 1990's it has remained pretty flat, going up and down with the economy. And that assumes that the "number of people below the poverty line" is a good metric, which I don't think it is. When our definition of poverty includes "you can't afford a third TV" and "you can only afford basic cable" we have a pretty screwed up image of what poverty is.

Of course that doesn't support the "poor are getting poorer" meme so it will have to be disregarded. So I'll give you the numbers you want - between 2007 and 2009, the number of people below the poverty line went from 13% to 14.3%, and now it's 15%!

 

[Syzygys]

If this is the thread where people are crying about Paul got robber by voter fraud, here is a statistical discussion of the subject:

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/qb9ea/reddit_can_you_debunk_this_some_people_with/

Warning: long thread and some of the discussion gets very technical>>>statistics

For those who don't wnat to read 1000+ posts:

"TL,DR: To conclude I would say that whoever wrote this has produced some nice charts but is nowhere near a statistically valid analysis of this data. Any conclusions made from this analysis are highly suspect and not statistically sound. This work has nothing to do with a good scientific statistical analysis except using some of the tools from a statistics textbook."

 

[Michael]

The FAA, the NTSB and the safe daily operation of the nations air transportation system is a Federal agency, paid by taxes.

As to the comparison with the US Post, again you are wrong.

FedEx was allowed to skim the cream.
Ship just high value packages overnight to locations of it's choosing.

Which is why no business sends out it's flyers, promotions or monthly bills via FedEx.

The US post has to deliver mail to every location for the same price.

FedEx will not deliver letters from Atlanta to Hawaii, Bangor, Key West and Nome all for the price of one stamp each.

Listen to your argument.

You say FedEx skims the cream. But how does this jive with the US Post delivering to the same demographic? How does FedEx "skim the cream"? You could pay the US Post to deliver those same "cream" packages? Why wouldn't you want to use the US Post?

Price. The US Post costs more.

Why does it cost more? It's actually subsidized by the government. If anything, it should charge less. But, it can't, because it's forced to pay high salaries and benefits to government employees. It's forced to send a letter from Hawaii to Florida at the same price as sending a letter from Florida to Georgia. It doesn't come for free. We PAY in our tax for people who live in Florida to have the nicety to send letters all week long to Hawaii. Why on earth would anyone want to do that? It's a total waste of fuel. It doesn't make any sense. A letter to Hawaii SHOULD cost more money. It's going to freaken Hawaii for Christ's sake!

It's NOT "free". That costs our tax money. Money that could have went into making a better modern school with an extra few teachers in Kentucky instead went to subsidize some idiot who sends letters all day long from Maine to Hawaii.

Everything has a cost. If you want to send a letter to Hawaii, then you'll pay more to do so. Either through your tax NOT going to hire an extra desperately needed teacher OR to subsidize a government employee who works at the US Post.

Someone's IS going to pay one way or anther. There's no free lunch. In a free market the price is what it is. If it costs $5 then that's what it costs.


As for "roads". Yea, half is subsidized through a gas fee (which is pay as you go and is fair) and the other half is subsidized through American, Iraqi, Iranian and multitudes of other people's lives. Does THAT sound GOOD to you? So you get to drive your gas guzzling SUV cheap? No, again, it's not fair. People SHOULD pay the price at the pump so that they know what the F*ck it costs to run an SUV on the roads.



As for Corzine. Let's make this clear. $1.2 BILLION dollars was stolen. It's well known where the money went. Money is easily tracked. It doesn't just "disappear". Anyone else stealing THAT much money would be in prison for LIFE. This little asshole is sipping margareta's on his $200 million dollar Yacht in the Mediterranean. Corzine won't do much more than a slap on the wrist - when he should do life in Prison. He's like the banking version of OJ Simpson. And, not just him, thousands of Bankers should rot in prison. But, they won't. Because the public is on the whole to busy watching Britney puke on herself and trading their foodstamps for pot to give two flying f*cks.

 

[adoucette]

Listen to your argument.

You say FedEx skims the cream. But how does this jive with the US Post delivering to the same demographic? How does FedEx "skim the cream"? You could pay the US Post to deliver those same "cream" packages? Why wouldn't you want to use the US Post?

Because all they deliver is high value packages.
That's why it's called skimming.
People don't mind paying 10 or 20 dollars to get a high value package somewhere, but they won't pay it for a letter.
But FedEx doesn't have to deliver those low value letters.