Total Posts:87|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

New Tax Code

Republican95
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 2:13:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I just came up with an increadibly simple tax code that the federal government could enact.

It is as follows:

SECTION 1.
Abolishes the income tax for any person making under $12,000 a year.

SECTION 2.
Sets the income tax rate for those making between $12,001 and $999,999 a year to 3%.

SECTION 3.
Sets the income tax rate for those making between $1,000,000 and $4,999,999 a year to 15%.

SECTION 4.
Sets the income tax rate for those making between $5,000,000 and $19,999,999 to 20%.

SECTION 5.
Sets the income tax rate for those making between $20,000,000 and $49,999,999 to 25%.

SECTION 6.
Sets the income tax rate for those making over $50,000,000 to 30%.

SECTION 7.
Enacts a national sales tax on any product bought in the United States. This tax rate is to be set to 1%.

SECTION 8.
Enacts a "lottery" or "game show" tax on any earnings a person receives as a result of winning a lottery, game show, or other events of the like. This tax rate is to be set to 50%.
Republican95
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 2:22:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 2:19:36 PM, Nags wrote:
That's pretty much the tax code of now.

Except tax rates are much lower on the middle class, and there is a national sales tax.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 2:25:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 2:22:15 PM, Republican95 wrote:
At 1/31/2010 2:19:36 PM, Nags wrote:
That's pretty much the tax code of now.

Except tax rates are much lower on the middle class, and there is a national sales tax.

The Top 10% already pays 70% of income taxes, so you're not really doing anything. And a national sales tax is ridiculous if you keep an income tax. Way too much taxes.
Republican95
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 2:26:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 2:25:19 PM, Nags wrote:
At 1/31/2010 2:22:15 PM, Republican95 wrote:
At 1/31/2010 2:19:36 PM, Nags wrote:
That's pretty much the tax code of now.

Except tax rates are much lower on the middle class, and there is a national sales tax.

The Top 10% already pays 70% of income taxes, so you're not really doing anything. And a national sales tax is ridiculous if you keep an income tax. Way too much taxes.

I do not know what American cannot afford to pay one cent on every dollar when most states enact a sales tax of 7-10%.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 2:36:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 2:26:28 PM, Republican95 wrote:
I do not know what American cannot afford to pay one cent on every dollar when most states enact a sales tax of 7-10%.

One, raising taxes amidst a recession is, well, dumb. Two, plenty of people can't afford to pay one cent on every dollar when they're already paying much more than that from other taxes. Three, the tax is regressive, so you're not helping middle class or poor people which I assume you are trying to do. Four, government doesn't need extra money to spend on useless stuff - taxpayers are much more skilled at spending their money than government.
Republican95
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 2:42:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 2:36:21 PM, Nags wrote:
At 1/31/2010 2:26:28 PM, Republican95 wrote:
I do not know what American cannot afford to pay one cent on every dollar when most states enact a sales tax of 7-10%.

One, raising taxes amidst a recession is, well, dumb.
One, raising taxes is not dumb when the national debt is close to 1.5 trillion dollars.

Two, plenty of people can't afford to pay one cent on every dollar when they're already paying much more than that from other taxes.
So, if you go out to buy a $100 DVD player, you can't afford to pay 1 extra dollar?

Three, the tax is regressive, so you're not helping middle class or poor people which I assume you are trying to do.

I am not trying to do either of those things. I am trying to alleviate the national debt. And secondly, its not regressive its consumption based. The more you buy the more you pay.

Four, government doesn't need extra money to spend on useless stuff - taxpayers are much more skilled at spending their money than government.

By useless stuff you mean Education, Medicare, Social Security, National Security, etc?
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 2:50:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 2:42:07 PM, Republican95 wrote:
One, raising taxes is not dumb when the national debt is close to 1.5 trillion dollars.

The budget deficit is ~$1.5 trillion, the national debt is over $12 trillion. The solution is cutting spending, not raising taxes. Raising taxes means that less goods will be bought. When less goods are bought, the revenue of companies drop. When the revenue of companies drop, companies are forced to lay off workers

So, if you go out to buy a $100 DVD player, you can't afford to pay 1 extra dollar?

The dollars add up, fyi. Many people need those dollars to pay their bills, or to buy a loaf of bread.

I am not trying to do either of those things. I am trying to alleviate the national debt. And secondly, its not regressive its consumption based. The more you buy the more you pay.

Actually, I guess you're kinda right. If you were replacing the income tax with a sales tax, then it would be regressive. But you just want to increase taxes all around.

By useless stuff you mean Education, Medicare, Social Security, National Security, etc?

Yes to all four. Federal education policies are a joke. Medicare and SS can be privatized. The USFG already accounts for 48% of the world's spending on defense.
Republican95
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 3:39:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 2:50:44 PM, Nags wrote:
At 1/31/2010 2:42:07 PM, Republican95 wrote:
One, raising taxes is not dumb when the national debt is close to 1.5 trillion dollars.

The budget deficit is ~$1.5 trillion, the national debt is over $12 trillion. The solution is cutting spending, not raising taxes. Raising taxes means that less goods will be bought. When less goods are bought, the revenue of companies drop. When the revenue of companies drop, companies are forced to lay off workers

Unfortunatley spending cuts are not the only answer. The defecit is so high that it is almost impossible to balance it without tax reform. Also, the nation seemed to do just fine before the Bush tax cuts, in fact the markets were in boom. So, the whole "economy crash because of tax hike" argument is negated. Aslo, the main buyers (the middle class) actually pay lower tax rates then they are now. This means that they have more money to spend, not less.

So, if you go out to buy a $100 DVD player, you can't afford to pay 1 extra dollar?

The dollars add up, fyi. Many people need those dollars to pay their bills, or to buy a loaf of bread.
This might be true, but in my plan those making under $12,000 would pay no income taxing and those paying under 1,000,000 would pay only 3%. Those tax rates are incredibly low compared to the current rates. So, yes, even when adding the national sales tax, the money the middle class saves on their income tax would be enough to "buy bread".

I am not trying to do either of those things. I am trying to alleviate the national debt. And secondly, its not regressive its consumption based. The more you buy the more you pay.

Actually, I guess you're kinda right. If you were replacing the income tax with a sales tax, then it would be regressive. But you just want to increase taxes all around.
Those making under 1,000,000 pay only 3%. That is a huge tax cut for them. I only increase taxes on the rich, who should have no problem paying for it.

By useless stuff you mean Education, Medicare, Social Security, National Security, etc?

Yes to all four. Federal education policies are a joke. Medicare and SS can be privatized. The USFG already accounts for 48% of the world's spending on defense.

Unfortunatley, privatizing SS and Medicare is pure political suicide and its not going to happen anytime soon...so, MOVE ON. Federal education policies are needed as they set a standard for the states, which means that every children is guarenteed an at least somewhat satisfactory education. And the massive defense spending is nessecary, we're the world's largest military and fighting in 2 wars might I remind you.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 3:47:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I have a simpler tax code.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 3:55:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Btw, say you're making 950,000 dollars.

You can make an extra 100 thousand by working harder and producing more product.

Except under your tax code you'd lose about 30 thousand dollars by doing so.

Real progressive tax codes nowadays are at least well thought out enough that they only disincentivize producing more relative to the variable value of leisure time.

Yours takes it all the way down to disincentivizing it in absolute terms.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 3:56:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 3:48:58 PM, Republican95 wrote:
At 1/31/2010 3:47:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I have a simpler tax code.

And that would be?

"Taxes are hereby abolished."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Republican95
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 3:58:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 3:56:42 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/31/2010 3:48:58 PM, Republican95 wrote:
At 1/31/2010 3:47:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I have a simpler tax code.

And that would be?

"Taxes are hereby abolished."

That comment is so ignorant that I do not see it worth my time to even write a half-hearted response.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 3:59:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
You can't even structure a tax code well enough to avoid ABSOLUTE disincentivization of production and you call me ignorant?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 4:05:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Now, to be fair, the user fee code gets significantly more complex.
But that doesn't change the sheer simplicity of the tax code.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 4:06:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
My suggestion:

Chop the Income (and company profit) tax all together, and instead have a sales tax on luxury goods.

The more useless and "luxurious" the items, the more taxed it gets.

Basic necessities, and investments in companies, not being taxed at all.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Republican95
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 4:07:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 3:59:31 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
You can't even structure a tax code well enough to avoid ABSOLUTE disincentivization of production and you call me ignorant?

Heads up: Most people can't. Any tax deincentives production.

However, your claim that taxes be done away with entirely is the best thing to do. Wow. No taxes means no government, no government means no order, no order means no wealth creation. So, no taxes would actually be worse on the economy. Would you do business in a unstable country?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 4:13:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 4:06:12 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
My suggestion:

Chop the Income (and company profit) tax all together
All together?
As in abolishing the corporate income tax?

Otherwise you're taxing incomes made by corporate means at exactly double the rate,unless you don't count it as income.

and instead have a sales tax on luxury goods.

The more useless and "luxurious" the items, the more taxed it gets.
Just imagine all the lobbying to get things declared "not a luxury."

Heads up: Most people can't. Any tax deincentives production.
Heads up: I said in absolute terms. Any tax disincentivizes production if you take into account leisure value. Yours disincentivizes it even if you don't, which means it disincentivizes it much much more than taxes in the real world.
This is incidentally neither good for most people nor good for gathering tax money.

However, your claim that taxes be done away with entirely is the best thing to do. Wow. No taxes means no government,
No, it doesn't, see the stuff about "user fees."

no government means no order,
Define "order."

no order means no wealth creation.
While I am not an anarchist, it is the height of absurdity to claim that wealth is never created in an anarchy, to the extent anarchy is a meaningful concept.

Would you do business in a unstable country?
Define "unstable." And compared to what?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 4:16:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 4:13:35 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/31/2010 4:06:12 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
My suggestion:

Chop the Income (and company profit) tax all together
All together?
As in abolishing the corporate income tax?
yes, that's just income of a group of individuals

That is, at the end of the day; income of individuals.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 4:16:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 4:07:30 PM, Republican95 wrote:
no government means no order

This does not follow.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Republican95
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 5:03:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 4:06:12 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
My suggestion:

Chop the Income (and company profit) tax all together, and instead have a sales tax on luxury goods.

The more useless and "luxurious" the items, the more taxed it gets.


Basic necessities, and investments in companies, not being taxed at all.

Not many Americans spend as much money on diamond jewellrey and yachts as they do on "non-luxury" items. Also, you run into a problem when defining what a luxury is and what it is isn't. Is a car a luxury item? Does it depend on what kind of car? A car is a car, it moves people; so, can it really be considered a luxury?
That would generate close to no income I hope you know.
Republican95
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 5:15:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 4:13:35 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

However, your claim that taxes be done away with entirely is the best thing to do. Wow. No taxes means no government,
No, it doesn't, see the stuff about "user fees."
User fees? really? I thought you were for economic production...if you have to pay a user fee to use a federal highway, it would just hurt the businesses that want to move goods across the federal highway.

no government means no order,
Define "order."
Order-a state in which all laws are enforced and obeyed.
Without a government who would enforce the laws? It would have to either be the guy with the biggest wallet or the guy with the biggest gun. Not in the history of the planet has a government-less state propersed.

no order means no wealth creation.
While I am not an anarchist, it is the height of absurdity to claim that wealth is never created in an anarchy, to the extent anarchy is a meaningful concept.
If there is no government then nobody can enforce the laws, meaning that (unless they have high moral standards) no one will follow the law. If that were to happen, society would turn into a mob rule with power either distributed to the extremley wealthy or extremley powerful.

Would you do business in a unstable country?
Define "unstable." And compared to what?
Unstable-Somalia.
Somalia's government is very weak, and I do not expect Somalia to become an economic powerhouse anytime soon. Why? Because everything's just too volatile. There is no guarentee that the government, and hence order, will be there tomorrow.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 5:29:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 4:07:30 PM, Republican95 wrote:
No taxes means no government,
Why yes, indeed it does.

no government means no order,
No top-down order, anyways.

no order means no wealth creation.
That's an interesting statement, considering civilization arose from anarchy.

Let me rephrase that - the division of labor and voluntary free exchange were thought up and used in pre-civilization times; before governments. There was certainly no order then, hell, they didn't even have relative order in relation to their environment. You think of "disorder" as in human against human crimes; people in the past had disorder in health, food, water, shelter, and a hell of a lot of other things we don't even think about until we see things like Katrina and Haiti. They weren't saved from that by "order" or "government". They were saved by ingenuity and intellect, making work more efficient so more could be done, more problems solved, and therefore, more luxuries made.

Did they need order to create the foundation for the wealth we had today?

On the contrary, disorder is why they started it.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Republican95
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 5:36:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 5:29:14 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 1/31/2010 4:07:30 PM, Republican95 wrote:
No taxes means no government,
Why yes, indeed it does.

no government means no order,
No top-down order, anyways.

no order means no wealth creation.
That's an interesting statement, considering civilization arose from anarchy.

Let me rephrase that - the division of labor and voluntary free exchange were thought up and used in pre-civilization times; before governments. There was certainly no order then, hell, they didn't even have relative order in relation to their environment. You think of "disorder" as in human against human crimes; people in the past had disorder in health, food, water, shelter, and a hell of a lot of other things we don't even think about until we see things like Katrina and Haiti. They weren't saved from that by "order" or "government". They were saved by ingenuity and intellect, making work more efficient so more could be done, more problems solved, and therefore, more luxuries made.

Did they need order to create the foundation for the wealth we had today?

On the contrary, disorder is why they started it.

Yes, but it would be quite stupid of the human race to go back to battering as the only economic exchange wouldn't it?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 5:38:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 5:15:25 PM, Republican95 wrote:
At 1/31/2010 4:13:35 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
no government means no order,
Define "order."
Order-a state in which all laws are enforced and obeyed.
Without a government who would enforce the laws?
I find it very funny how you believe that the government actually enforces laws as of this moment. Unless you're one of those people who are like, "whatever the government does is the law", as opposed to "what is written in the law is the law". In which case I'll laugh even harder.
It would have to either be the guy with the biggest wallet or the guy with the biggest gun.
That's how it is now. Biggest wallets are the corporations, biggest guns are the government.
Not in the history of the planet has a government-less state propersed.
Red herring, I think it was called.

no order means no wealth creation.
While I am not an anarchist, it is the height of absurdity to claim that wealth is never created in an anarchy, to the extent anarchy is a meaningful concept.
If there is no government then nobody can enforce the laws, meaning that (unless they have high moral standards) no one will follow the law.
Are we saying that Somalians have high moral standards, then? Their crime rate is about the same as Mexico's.
If that were to happen, society would turn into a mob rule with power either distributed to the extremley wealthy or extremley powerful.
That's how it is now.

Would you do business in a unstable country?
Define "unstable." And compared to what?
Unstable-Somalia.
Somalia's government is very weak, and I do not expect Somalia to become an economic powerhouse anytime soon. Why? Because everything's just too volatile. There is no guarentee that the government, and hence order, will be there tomorrow.
What guarantees that the government will protect order tomorrow?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 5:40:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 5:36:53 PM, Republican95 wrote:
At 1/31/2010 5:29:14 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 1/31/2010 4:07:30 PM, Republican95 wrote:
No taxes means no government,
Why yes, indeed it does.

no government means no order,
No top-down order, anyways.

no order means no wealth creation.
That's an interesting statement, considering civilization arose from anarchy.

Let me rephrase that - the division of labor and voluntary free exchange were thought up and used in pre-civilization times; before governments. There was certainly no order then, hell, they didn't even have relative order in relation to their environment. You think of "disorder" as in human against human crimes; people in the past had disorder in health, food, water, shelter, and a hell of a lot of other things we don't even think about until we see things like Katrina and Haiti. They weren't saved from that by "order" or "government". They were saved by ingenuity and intellect, making work more efficient so more could be done, more problems solved, and therefore, more luxuries made.

Did they need order to create the foundation for the wealth we had today?

On the contrary, disorder is why they started it.

Yes, but it would be quite stupid of the human race to go back to battering as the only economic exchange wouldn't it?

Currency also arose in anarchy. I think you might also want to read and attempt to understand my post, as it was about the relation between disorder and entrepreneurship, not an advocation of returnig to primitive times.

You really like fish, don't you? Now you're projecting, too.

I know there's a disorder for this somewhere.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 5:47:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I had to come out of exile for a minute to p*ss off Rezz:

While it is true that governments have not always existed, and that in hunter-gatherer societies existed with essentially no centralized or state-like control, there has always been some form of coercive order present in human society.

For early societies, order was imposed by the belief in deities that would essentially come and exact revenge if you didn't behave. Priests and other religious figures could be considered "rulers" because of the perceived connection they had with the divine, and their ability to essentially read out what was right and wrong. However, this only worked in small hunter-gatherer societies, because the population was essentially familial, meaning everyone knew everyone and if you did anything wrong, people would know. So, this idea of "early societies were anarchist" is only true in the sense that there was no central government. And indeed, if you tried to live this way with the large population centers we have today, you'd find chaos would be rather rampant.

As well, Rezz is also false in stating that the division of labour came out of "anarchistic" societies. There is no evidence of hunter-gatherer societies truly considering the division of labour. However, there is ample evidence of advanced cultures that were ruled by governments, including the Sumerians, that had division of labour. In fact, if you would simply Google things, you'd figure this out quickly; because division of labour has only been present in societies where there is a central, coercive, authority that can direct this kind of concept, and mainly because of the need for increased productivity to benefit that authority.
Republican95
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 5:47:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 5:38:28 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 1/31/2010 5:15:25 PM, Republican95 wrote:
I find it very funny how you believe that the government actually enforces laws as of this moment. Unless you're one of those people who are like, "whatever the government does is the law", as opposed to "what is written in the law is the law". In which case I'll laugh even harder.
In the United States, murdereds are punished, as are thieves and rapist. People who avoid paying taxes are punished. What laws are the government not enforcing at the current moment?

It would have to either be the guy with the biggest wallet or the guy with the biggest gun.
That's how it is now. Biggest wallets are the corporations, biggest guns are the government.
But at least in this country the citizens can throw out the guy...in an anarchy, not so much.

Not in the history of the planet has a government-less state propersed.
Red herring, I think it was called.
I'm not trying to divert the conversastion. This conversastion is about whether or not a taxless society could foster economic growth. History hasn't provided an example, so, therefore, it is relevant.

no order means no wealth creation.
While I am not an anarchist, it is the height of absurdity to claim that wealth is never created in an anarchy, to the extent anarchy is a meaningful concept.
If there is no government then nobody can enforce the laws, meaning that (unless they have high moral standards) no one will follow the law.
Are we saying that Somalians have high moral standards, then? Their crime rate is about the same as Mexico's.
Well, if the people of Smalia is so great then why don't you move there? The crime rate of Mexico is extremley high compared to the U.S., in case you didn't know. And Mexico nor Somalia is a economic superpower.

Would you do business in a unstable country?
Define "unstable." And compared to what?
Unstable-Somalia.
Somalia's government is very weak, and I do not expect Somalia to become an economic powerhouse anytime soon. Why? Because everything's just too volatile. There is no guarentee that the government, and hence order, will be there tomorrow.
What guarantees that the government will protect order tomorrow?
Because it is in there best interests...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2010 5:49:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/31/2010 5:15:25 PM, Republican95 wrote:
User fees? really? I thought you were for economic production...if you have to pay a user fee to use a federal highway, it would just hurt the businesses that want to move goods across the federal highway.

What? Businesses having to pay for their own costs? What the state is doing now is called subsidy and it causes disruption of efficient want-satisfaction.

Order-a state in which all laws are enforced and obeyed.

There were a bunch of laws passed by the Roman Empire that have never been repealed and are not enforced today. Do you we live in chaos?

"Anarchy is order - Government is civil war." - Proudhon

Without a government who would enforce the laws?

Private arbitration agencies.

It would have to either be the guy with the biggest wallet or the guy with the biggest gun.

False dichotomy.

If there is no government then nobody can enforce the laws, meaning that (unless they have high moral standards) no one will follow the law. If that were to happen, society would turn into a mob rule with power either distributed to the extremley wealthy or extremley powerful.

What we have now is mob rule with power distributed to the extremely wealthy and extremely powerful.

Somalia's government is very weak, and I do not expect Somalia to become an economic powerhouse anytime soon. Why? Because everything's just too volatile. There is no guarentee that the government, and hence order, will be there tomorrow.

"Life expectancy is higher today [in Somalia] than it was in the last years of government's existence; infant mortality has improved 24 percent; maternal mortality has fallen over 30 percent; infants with low birth weight has fallen more than 15 percentage points; access to health facilities has increased more than 25 percentage points; access to sanitation has risen eight percentage points; extreme poverty has plummeted nearly 20 percentage points; one year olds fully immunized for TB has grown nearly 20 percentage points, and for measles has increased ten; fatalities due to measles have dropped 30 percent; and the prevalence of TVs, radios, and telephones has jumped between 3 and 25 times." - Peter Leeson[1]

[1]http://www.peterleeson.com...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran