Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Why is the Question, “Should Taxes be Limited?” So Scary?
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2  Send TopicPrint
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) Why is the Question, “Should Taxes be Limited?” So Scary? (Read 131 times)
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3828
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Why is the Question, “Should Taxes be Limited?” So Scary?
Sep 5th, 2018 at 3:22pm
Print Post  
Even the moderate libertarians on here are afraid to answer that question.

Defining a moderate libertarian as someone who supports theft but only when necessary for a good government, several of you have run from that question like a welfare dolee from a job fair.  Like a subsidy farmer from a combine.  Like a corporate welfare dolee from a profit and loss statement.

Why?

Tired of pulling teeth so I’ll just tell you.

That question is scary for someone who insists that we have to pay “some” taxes to support the vital functions of government.   Asking them to set a limit forces them to either admit they think taxes should be unlimited or to name a percent figure for a limit they advocate. 

So?

So naming a limit would either be so high that it would clearly bear no relations to libertarianism or would be so low that it would not realistically pay for all they think government should do.  So they duck and dodge the question, which is the best of the bad options they have in front of them. 

The seemingly good option of admitting that they are wrong and that taxes are the problem and no part of any conceivable solution actually bad for them because admitting a mistake is their greatest phobia.

Better to ignore the question while I verbally bop them around at will.  Kind of like Muhammad Ali’s rope-a-dope strategy of covering his face and cowering.  It’s not a winning strategy, it’s an avoid losing strategy.


  

"Taxes are morally justified theft" - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 34367
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Why is the Question, “Should Taxes be Limited?” So Scary?
Reply #1 - Sep 5th, 2018 at 4:14pm
Print Post  
I stand by what I've said about the existing limitations on the taxing power contained in the Constitution. I really have nothing else to say.

Others wil chime in I'm sure... thermie? What do you think?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3828
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Why is the Question, “Should Taxes be Limited?” So Scary?
Reply #2 - Sep 5th, 2018 at 4:18pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 4:14pm:
I stand by what I've said about the existing limitations on the taxing power contained in the Constitution. I really have nothing else to say.

Others wil chime in I'm sure... thermie? What do you think?


The limits in the constitution are about the type of taxes, not the amounts or percentages.

So there's one admitting he thinks taxes should be unlimited.

Anyone else?


  

"Taxes are morally justified theft" - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 34367
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Why is the Question, “Should Taxes be Limited?” So Scary?
Reply #3 - Sep 5th, 2018 at 4:26pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 4:18pm:
The limits in the constitution are about the type of taxes, not the amounts or percentages.

So there's one admitting he thinks taxes should be unlimited.

Anyone else?


Limitations are limitations, and those in the Constitution are very effective in keeping taxes very low, but only if they are followed.

It sounds like you are searching for an upper limit? Don't. That's what "progressives" have been trying to do since they first implemented the unconstitutional progressive tax.

Look for ways to minimize taxation.

thermie could explain it to you, but not so you could understand...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3828
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Why is the Question, “Should Taxes be Limited?” So Scary?
Reply #4 - Sep 6th, 2018 at 10:55am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Sep 5th, 2018 at 4:26pm:
Limitations are limitations, and those in the Constitution are very effective in keeping taxes very low, but only if they are followed.

It sounds like you are searching for an upper limit? Don't. That's what "progressives" have been trying to do since they first implemented the unconstitutional progressive tax.


As you know, I'm asking all tax advocates if there is a reasonable lupper limit to expect people to pay in taxes?  If so what is it? 

10%?

20%?

50%?

99%?

The simple question is, "how much is too much?"  Your answer is, "There's no such thing as too much taxation!"

Bottom line is that tax advocates, be they "progressives" or "constitutionists" are by definition unable to propose such a limit.  That's because they know that government has a large appetite for cash and that feeding it only makes that appetite grow. 

Their limit would be surpassed by the "needs" of government almost as soon as they stated it and they would be forced to backtrack and raise the limit.

Quote:
Look for ways to minimize taxation.


I have found the one and only way.  Stop taking taxes at gunpoint.  Even if you still let government use force, not letting them point guns at citizens for tax evasion would slow the tax man down considerable.

Seriously, even if government were still allowed to use clubs, rocks, fists, boots with razors and brass knucks, taking away the guns would seriously limit their ability to collect taxes. 

Why do you think that progressives want to take away guns from taxpayers?  Because taking our guns would seriously limit our ability to resist taxes.

Quote:
thermie could explain it to you, but not so you could understand...


I never understand nothin' that dude says.  He's obviously the sock of someone on here *ahem* who writes in that fingers on the wrong keys style to cover up.

  

"Taxes are morally justified theft" - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 34367
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Why is the Question, “Should Taxes be Limited?” So Scary?
Reply #5 - Sep 6th, 2018 at 11:08am
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Sep 6th, 2018 at 10:55am:
As you know, I'm asking all tax advocates if there is a reasonable lupper limit to expect people to pay in taxes?  If so what is it? 

10%?

20%?

50%?

99%?

The simple question is, "how much is too much?"  Your answer is, "There's no such thing as too much taxation!"

Bottom line is that tax advocates, be they "progressives" or "constitutionists" are by definition unable to propose such a limit.  That's because they know that government has a large appetite for cash and that feeding it only makes that appetite grow. 

Their limit would be surpassed by the "needs" of government almost as soon as they stated it and they would be forced to backtrack and raise the limit.


I have found the one and only way.  Stop taking taxes at gunpoint.  Even if you still let government use force, not letting them point guns at citizens for tax evasion would slow the tax man down considerable.

Seriously, even if government were still allowed to use clubs, rocks, fists, boots with razors and brass knucks, taking away the guns would seriously limit their ability to collect taxes. 

Why do you think that progressives want to take away guns from taxpayers?  Because taking our guns would seriously limit our ability to resist taxes.


I never understand nothin' that dude says.  He's obviously the sock of someone on here *ahem* who writes in that fingers on the wrong keys style to cover up.

If you would put your mind to it, think at a Doctoral level, I'm sure you would be able to understand how the Constitutional limitations on the taxing power would operate to keep taxes very low, as well as uniform and fair, if only we used them.

Edit: To get you started thinking, assume that Congress wants to raise $100 billion in revenue by taxing wages and salaries. Assume there are 100 million people in America working for wages and salaries. How much would each worker have to pay? $1000. That would probably work...

Suppose Congress thinks more revenue is necessary, so they decide to tax profits, you know money derived from invested property. So the add up the total of corporate profits, interest, dividends, rents etc. and discover that taxing profits uniformly at a rate of 10% will bring in another $trillion in revenue.

Surely, that is already way to much revenue, unless they plan to redistribute it...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7655
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Why is the Question, “Should Taxes be Limited?” So Scary?
Reply #6 - Sep 6th, 2018 at 11:26am
Print Post  
Some taxation is necessary to sustain essential gov't function (imo).

Indirect Taxes such as Sales Tax, Excise Tax, Tariffs, Customs duties, etc., can provide adequate funding to sustain essential gov't function.

There is no need for Direct Taxes (Income Tax), and thus, it should be eliminated.

The limit on all Indirect Taxes should be 8% (imo).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 34367
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Why is the Question, “Should Taxes be Limited?” So Scary?
Reply #7 - Sep 6th, 2018 at 11:30am
Print Post  
I should mention, the Whiskey Tax was unconstitutional for lack of uniformity. Excise taxes and tariffs must be uniform. If Congress wants to raise $X by means of an excise tax, all they have to do is figure the value of all the goods that are sold in America and calculate the percentage of those total sales necessary to raise the revenue and apply a Y% tax to all sales, not just whiskey sales and uniform means no different rates for different products. The same goes for import tariffs, they must apply uniformly to all imports, no fair helping out some people and not others, or penalizing some people with taxes but not others.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3828
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Why is the Question, “Should Taxes be Limited?” So Scary?
Reply #8 - Sep 6th, 2018 at 11:41am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Sep 6th, 2018 at 11:30am:
I should mention, the Whiskey Tax was unconstitutional for lack of uniformity. Excise taxes and tariffs must be uniform. If Congress wants to raise $X by means of an excise tax, all they have to do is figure the value of all the goods that are sold in America and calculate the percentage of those total sales necessary to raise the revenue and apply a Y% tax to all sales, not just whiskey sales and uniform means no different rates for different products. The same goes for import tariffs, they must apply uniformly to all imports, no fair helping out some people and not others, or penalizing some people with taxes but not others.


Yet, Washington rode out with a posse of night gunmen to collect that unconstitutional tax.  Proving my point that no piece of paper will stop a government once it has been granted license to steal.


  

"Taxes are morally justified theft" - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 3828
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Why is the Question, “Should Taxes be Limited?” So Scary?
Reply #9 - Sep 6th, 2018 at 11:51am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Sep 6th, 2018 at 11:08am:
If you would put your mind to it, think at a Doctoral level, I'm sure you would be able to understand how the Constitutional limitations on the taxing power would operate to keep taxes very low, as well as uniform and fair, if only we used them.

Edit: To get you started thinking, assume that Congress wants to raise $100 billion in revenue by taxing wages and salaries. Assume there are 100 million people in America working for wages and salaries. How much would each worker have to pay? $1000. That would probably work...

Suppose Congress thinks more revenue is necessary, so they decide to tax profits, you know money derived from invested property. So the add up the total of corporate profits, interest, dividends, rents etc. and discover that taxing profits uniformly at a rate of 10% will bring in another $trillion in revenue.

Surely, that is already way to much revenue, unless they plan to redistribute it...


So, are you claiming that the limit can be set at 10%, because any number above that would indicate that the government plans to redistribute the money?

If you are, I respect that, seriously.  You are the first tax advocate I every conversed with willing to set a hard limit.  Have you thought through whether ten percent will be enough to fund all the expenditures you favor?  Military, police, schools etc?  I hope you're not meaning 10% only for the Federal government and the states can have a field day with the other 90%?


Do you believe that the constitutional limits on taxing power (which you know were never respected by the government), were intended to protect an individual right?  If so, what right is that?

I believe that the only purposes of such a restriction could possibly be:

a)  to ensure everyone pays a fair share, regardless of how much that share would be.

b)  to keep the size of government manageable by limiting its ability to grow through increased taxes.

c)  to protect the individual right to property.

If the answer is a) to ensure fairness, then almost any tax the government imposes would be acceptable so long as there was some plausible way to claim the fairness motivation.  For example, the government could tax at one hundred percent all income above the national average.  That would level incomes and make it fair since we would all have roughly the same wealth.  That isn't your or my definition of fairness, but it is the definition that "pretty much everyone agrees" on, so you couldn't complain.

If it is b) to keep government from over-growing, I don't see how that would work.  Taking a little from everyone instead of targeting specific people brings in more revenue, not less.  That's why most businesses rely on volume sales, not high dollar sales to an elite few.

If it is c), to protect an individual right to property, then that is the definition of compromise so we shouldn't be surprised that our rights have been lost.  We either have a right to not be robbed or we don't.





  

"Taxes are morally justified theft" - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Why is the Question, “Should Taxes be Limited?” So Scary?
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy