 |
| |
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
The business would need to be totally separate from the government currency system... that is receive and distribute no currency whatsoever, otherwise, you agree to value any transfer in currency terms, for purposes of corporation tax and or income tax.
Then you get to the problem of valuation. Revaluation of paper and coin currencies were/are necessary, because
a) there aren't enough precious metals to cope with the value in the world economy (there are money multipliers)
b) you need expertise and equipment to valuate face-value currency
Essentially, you could cheat people by shaving gold currency, for instance.
And you STILL have the problem of getting every business that you deal with to accept that currency, otherwise you couldn't use those services, be they essential or non-essential.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
they should carve out a libertarian country somewhere and let us live there in peace. |
That would be sweet. Seriously. If you guys got your own patch of land to set up a libertarian paradise, it would be one of the greatest social experiments in history. And if you were still an actual viable country after 10 years - never deviating from libertarianism, mind you - I'd move there.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Why "SHOULD" they carve this piece of land out?
Since Libertarian principals partly involve freedom to own... shouldn't you be purchasing this land, outright, rather than being given it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
The business would need to be totally separate from the government currency system... that is receive and distribute no currency whatsoever, otherwise, you agree to value any transfer in currency terms, for purposes of corporation tax and or income tax.
Then you get to the problem of valuation. Revaluation of paper and coin currencies were/are necessary, because
a) there aren't enough precious metals to cope with the value in the world economy (there are money multipliers)
b) you need expertise and equipment to valuate face-value currency
Essentially, you could cheat people by shaving gold currency, for instance.
And you STILL have the problem of getting every business that you deal with to accept that currency, otherwise you couldn't use those services, be they essential or non-essential. |
I'm sure it's not legal. After all the US govt has been taxing us from the beginning and a national currency was not used until some time after the revolution. So if you can't avoid taxes by not using dollars, then it doesn't seem fair to me to say that the govt should have the right to tax us simply because we use their currency. The govt has the right to tax us because we have agreed to allow them to tax us, not because we use their currency.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
Why "SHOULD" they carve this piece of land out?
Since Libertarian principals partly involve freedom to own... shouldn't you be purchasing this land, outright, rather than being given it? |
Because hopefully it would put an end to the libertarian whining. Let's face it, there aren't enough libertarians anywhere to ever get their policies implemented in a democratic society, so let's just give them someplace and let them sort it all out themselves.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm sure it's not legal. After all the US govt has been taxing us from the beginning and a national currency was not used until some time after the revolution. So if you can't avoid taxes by not using dollars, then it doesn't seem fair to me to say that the govt should have the right to tax us simply because we use their currency. The govt has the right to tax us because we have agreed to allow them to tax us, not because we use their currency. |
Actually national currency predates income tax...
quote:
(History of the United States Mint)
On April 2, 1792, Congress passed The Coinage Act , which created the Mint and authorized construction of a Mint building in the nation's capitol, Philadelphia. This was the first federal building erected under the Constitution.
|
Income tax didn't exist until the civil war in 1861... and even then was a temporary emergency measure, which was repealled and not reinstituted until 1894
quote:
(EVOLUTION OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX WITHHOLDING)
An income tax was first employed in the United States during the Civil War. Although many, including the secretary of the Treasury, desired longer retention of the Civil War income taxes, the taxes were widely viewed as emergency measures and were repealed in 1872. This was a time when even the commissioner of Internal Revenue recommended repeal of the income tax, writing to the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee that he regarded the income tax as ``the one of all others most obnoxious to the genius of our people, being inquisitorial in its nature, and dragging into public view an exposition of the most private pecuniary affairs of the citizen'' (U.S. House 1871: 1). Such opinions provide a baseline against which to assess later changes in public sentiment.
Though proposed many times, income tax legislation was not enacted again until 1894. Consistent with a transaction-cost-manipulation model, Congress labeled the 1894 law ``An act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the government, and for other purposes.'' When challenged in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, the income tax law was held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court because it established a ``direct'' tax on real property and invested personal property deemed unconstitutional without apportionment among the states according to population as mandated by the Constitution (157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601, 1895).[f8]
|
While State taxation has always existed, all federal currency transferal charge taxes post-date institution of federal currency.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
The argument is that the government retains ownership of it's currency (and you should note that the "other" currencies fell into disuse, because of their disadvantages and inferior guarantees) and that it can charge fees for its use and transaction... just like a modern licensing fee, for example.
If you don't like it... then you need to utterly opt out of the system, which is impractical for most any individual living in that country... therefore the other opt-out method would be to leave.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
quote:
Not forcing people to give kidneys is called justice. Utilitarian principles are always termpered with justice. Berzerker always makes these crazy arguments that have nothing to do with reality.
|
Nah. principles are principles. Either utility it's the ethic, or it's not. It's just like those annoying moderates, talking about rights. At least libertarians are consistent.
Utilitarian ideas are very in parallel with most people's "common sense". However, sometimes, there are deviations from the "common sense". In that case, it's the utilitarian principle that is more important, and the most correct, not the "common sense". |
I meant that people know what is fair, and maybe there are no utilitarian 'principles' only principles of justice, but in general people want to do the most good for the most people
Last edited by Kidicious on 24-02-2004 at 23:13
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:34
|
|
Nah. the concept that "the people" know what is fair, is false. "The people" in the middle ages would support horrific acts, for example. This is only one of many, of course.
The utilitarian principle is derived from the basic human desire of happiness. That's what all people want, happiness. Therefore, the more happy the people, the better. Bentham distanced from the importance of the number of people involved, probably due to prevalent thinking of his time. I say that the number of people is extremely important, since if everyone's happiness is equally improtant, therefor, the happiness of the few is less important than the happiness of the many. Of course, there are also varying degrees of happiness, so it adds up well to represent the many, and the few, respectively.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
It wouldn't be just a matter of opting out. The federal govt used it's power to establish the national currency. It coerced the banks and the people to use its currency only. It imposed a tax on the state currencies for the purpose of forcing them out of circulation. The govt can't just retain ownership of it's currency without the approval of the people. The people give the govt its authority, not the national currency. |
The coersion wasn't being forced, but was based in advocacy for a superior product: a superior guarantee, and a universal acceptance, without exchange deviation.
People choose to use the national currency because it was superior, and the people also chose to institute an income tax through a consititutional amendment, which met with almost universal support.
Government ownership of currency is implicit, because the currency isn't valuable in and of itself, but is a promisary note, to pay the bearer. The federal government is the guarentor and owner of that note.
"People" don't own currency, they are the current bearers of currency.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
Nah. the concept that "the people" know what is fair, is false. "The people" in the middle ages would support horrific acts, for example. This is only one of many, of course.
|
People always know what is fair, but their ethics differ. Fairness does not mean ethical. Fortunately, justice is the dominate model for ethics in most modern societies. Moral rights and utilitarian principles are secondary models.
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
The utilitarian principle is derived from the basic human desire of happiness. That's what all people want, happiness. Therefore, the more happy the people, the better. Bentham distanced from the importance of the number of people involved, probably due to prevalent thinking of his time. I say that the number of people is extremely important, since if everyone's happiness is equally improtant, therefor, the happiness of the few is less important than the happiness of the many. Of course, there are also varying degrees of happiness, so it adds up well to represent the many, and the few, respectively. |
It depends on what kind of happiness you are talking about. Why should some be happier than others? Maybe a little, but to some extent the few shouldn't have to pay for the many to be happy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
The coersion wasn't being forced, but was based in advocacy for a superior product: a superior guarantee, and a universal acceptance, without exchange deviation.
|
It was the group who advocated it, but individuals had to be coerced into using the national currency.
quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
People choose to use the national currency because it was superior, and the people also chose to institute an income tax through a consititutional amendment, which met with almost universal support.
|
True, but 'people' is the group, not individuals. Individuals are forced to use dollars and pay income tax by the group (people).
quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
Government ownership of currency is implicit, because the currency isn't valuable in and of itself, but is a promisary note, to pay the bearer. The federal government is the guarentor and owner of that note.
"People" don't own currency, they are the current bearers of currency. |
I don't know what this argument is for. The govt has the power and authority to tax based on the constitution created by our representatives. The govt derives its power from the people, not the currency that it issues.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
The rule is that all people should be treated equally.
I think you can make all of them happy. |
u can't make everyone happy anymore than u can make everyone rich.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Deity Dude
|
|
Westland, Michigan
Aug 2000
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Big Crunch
You are not being consistent.
Sales taxes are often absorbed by the seller, unless the product being sold is extremely price inelastic. Therefore people making the product or service are in essence being taxed on the fruit of their labour by placing sales taxes on them. |
I am being consistant. The seller determines his price based on his cost. If he chooses to absorb sales tax - he chooses. The government doesn't set the price.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-02-2004 22:10
|