Universal Basic Income Has Never and Will Never Work OR Where Does Wealth Come From?

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, LDSGator said:

I feel the same way about the military industrial complex, but I don’t get pay my salary with tax dollars! 

I don't disagree.

[CommanderSouth]

Just now, Grunt said:

No, you did right here:  

I'm sorry, did I offend you?  I don't understand why you're being evasive.  I responded to your first post with this, sure.  I was saying I don't think Taxation is theft, which you replied to saying you did.

I am trying to understand why you feel taxation is theft, which is generally considered wrong, with the idea that it is ok to do.  I'm not trying to twist you up, I'm just legit confused.

[Grunt]

Just now, CommanderSouth said:

I'm sorry, did I offend you?  I don't understand why you're being evasive.  I responded to your first post with this, sure.  I was saying I don't think Taxation is theft, which you replied to saying you did.

I am trying to understand why you feel taxation is theft, which is generally considered wrong, with the idea that it is ok to do.  I'm not trying to twist you up, I'm just legit confused.

I'm not sure where you got the idea I'm offended.  I have zero emotional attachment to this discussion.  I apologize if you feel that way.   Theft is a legal term, just like murder is a legal term.  I can kill someone without it being murder.   I can take money forcibly from someone without it being theft.   Where it changes from legal to illegal with both terms changes with time.  What was a legal killing 200 years ago might not be legal today.  Same with taking money.  

I think some taking of money is immoral, even if legal.  I think some killing is immoral, even if legal.   Heck, we fought a revolution largely based on what we felt was the immoral, though legal, taking of an individual's money.  I think much of our taxes are immoral.  I consider them theft, though they are legal.   

I hope that clears things up.

[LDSGator]

12 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I don't disagree.

I’m not a military guy. What I know about the military could fit into a thimble. In fact, you had to explain to me the difference between “Officer” and “Enlisted”. Again, I also agree with you fully on taxation being theft and that our military is used incorrectly. How do you justify your beliefs while being a part of it? It’s a fair question. 

[CommanderSouth]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

I'm not sure where you got the idea I'm offended.  I have zero emotional attachment to this discussion.  I apologize if you feel that way.   Theft is a legal term, just like murder is a legal term.  I can kill someone without it being murder.   I can take money forcibly from someone without it being theft.   Where it changes from legal to illegal with both terms changes with time.  What was a legal killing 200 years ago might not be legal today.  Same with taking money.  

I think some taking of money is immoral, even if legal.  I think some killing is immoral, even if legal.   Heck, we fought a revolution largely based on what we felt was the immoral, though legal, taking of an individual's money.  I think much of our taxes are immoral.  I consider them theft, though they are legal.   

I hope that clears things up.

I won't lie, I started with an emotional attachment, but as we went along, I started to detach, and just discuss.  But when I made the comment that I felt YOU had brought up theft, I did so in the context of a question.  I was incorrect in the fact that you didn't say the word first, but you had just replied Theft as a term didn't apply, and then described an idea that didn't answer my question, and then did not answer my question otherwise in the post.  To me it felt like you had started to split hairs and were just avoiding the crux of my post for whatever reason.  I typically only see that in a situation where someone is responding emotionally.  Thus my reaction.

It does sound like we agree in principle.  It sounded at first like you were saying ALL taxation was immoral (and then said you agreed with it), but as you expounded it sounds like you think the DEGREE of taxation is immoral, not the act itself.   Which I can agree with.

[Grunt]

2 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I’m not a military guy. What I know about the military could fit into a thimble. In fact, you had to explain to me the difference between “Officer” and “Enlisted”. Again, I also agree with you fully on taxation being theft and that our military is used incorrectly. How do you justify your beliefs while being a part of it? It’s a fair question. 

My beliefs have changed over time.  I don't know if I would have joined if I believed how I do now.  That said, I still believe the military is necessary.  The nature of my specific service is very much in line with my beliefs.

[LDSGator]

Just now, Grunt said:

My beliefs have changed over time.  I don't know if I would have joined if I believed how I do now.  That said, I still believe the military is necessary.  The nature of my specific service is very much in line with my beliefs.

Fair enough. I also think the military is necessary.  

[Grunt]

9 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

I won't lie, I started with an emotional attachment, but as we went along, I started to detach, and just discuss.  But when I made the comment that I felt YOU had brought up theft, I did so in the context of a question.  I was incorrect in the fact that you didn't say the word first, but you had just replied Theft as a term didn't apply, and then described an idea that didn't answer my question, and then did not answer my question otherwise in the post.  To me it felt like you had started to split hairs and were just avoiding the crux of my post for whatever reason.  I typically only see that in a situation where someone is responding emotionally.  Thus my reaction.

It does sound like we agree in principle.  It sounded at first like you were saying ALL taxation was immoral (and then said you agreed with it), but as you expounded it sounds like you think the DEGREE of taxation is immoral, not the act itself.   Which I can agree with.

It's ok.  I'm the kind of guy that likes to sit around the fire with my friends and a good scotch or IPA (pre-convert, before I get excommunicated) and have hard discussions with friends.   I don't mind having them online but it's tedious and not always easy to infer what someone is trying to say or how they are saying it.   Also, people often demand answers or the splitting of hairs.   In person, it's much easier to simply say "I don't know" or expand upon an idea to help someone understand the background that leads you to hold your views.  

This thread is a good example.  Were we sitting around a fire, there likely wouldn't have been any emotional investment in the discussion because we could look each other in the eye.  We would have gotten to the point we are at now much faster and probably with deeper understanding.  Then we'd be off discussion the speculation of where "the line" should be and likely admit ignorance on a few examples along the way.

Edited December 6, 2023 by Grunt

[LDSGator]

What separates from me from “pure libertarianism” is that I think we need some form of taxation. I swing between a sales tax and a land tax. I find a straight income tax to be horrific. 
 

Even in the “best” cases taxation is a necessary evil. 

[Grunt]

Just now, LDSGator said:

What separates from me from “pure libertarianism” is that I think we need some form of taxation. I swing between a sales tax and a land tax. I find a straight income tax to be horrific. 
 

Even in the “best” cases taxation is a necessary evil. 

The problem with a sales tax is it is far more variable and difficult to plan for community budgets in smaller communities.   However, this likely wouldn't be an issue if governments also reduced spending.  My ideal situation would probably be a sales tax with a pre-pay budget.   In FY23 you collect sales tax, then on the eve of FY24 you have a town meeting (or city warrants ballot) and say "we raised X dollars for next year, where do you want to spend it".

[CommanderSouth]

I’m on my way out of this bad boy, but to make sure I understand you Grunt. 
 

I understood you to mean that

A) Theft is immoral. 
B) The current RATE of taxation is “theft” or that a possible rate may be, but the action of taxation itself is not immoral. 

Do I have that right?

[LDSGator]

6 minutes ago, Grunt said:

However, this likely wouldn't be an issue if governments also reduced spending

I totally agree with you. 

 

6 minutes ago, Grunt said:

My ideal situation would probably be a sales tax with a pre-pay budget

That, but Henry George wrote excellent pieces on how a land tax is the most moral form of taxation. 
 

https://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2006/0306gluckman.html

 

This link is just an introductory article. 

Edited December 6, 2023 by LDSGator

[LDSGator]

2 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

I’m on my way out of this bad boy,

I love this thread so far. I’ve had hundreds of debates with my friends about tax policy. We’re real fun at parties. 😎

[CommanderSouth]

2 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I love this thread so far. I’ve had hundreds of debates with my friends about tax policy. We’re real fun at parties. 😎

If I’m being honest it’s not that I don’t enjoy a good sparring session.  I enjoy debate. But I get tired it I have to go too in depth. And in my exchange with grunt, I feel like there was some miscommunication between us and it ended up tiring me out

[LDSGator]

@Grunt

 

[Grunt]

17 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I totally agree with you. 

 

That, but Henry George wrote excellent pieces on how a land tax is the most moral form of taxation. 
 

https://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2006/0306gluckman.html

 

This link is just an introductory article. 

I've never read that but will when I have time.  I completely agree that land tax is the best system we have currently.

[Grunt]

9 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

@Grunt

 

I'm flying to FL tomorrow, so I'll add that to watch on the plane.

[Traveler]

I believe it is important to do research before we settle upon an opinion.  Here is a sketch of my research.  There is in history a few examples of successful programs for a stable society dealing with their poor.  The problem we have with the few examples that exist is that we have little information about the policies or the implications of policies and principles.  The one example that specifically states that poverty was illimited is in the Book of Mormon of the society of the Nephites following the appearance of Christ.  We therefore do know that poverty can be eliminated.

We also know that the economic policy that we have information on, with the most success in advancing economic development, technology, education and increased living standards is capitalism.  Many (including myself) believe that the current economic system employed in the USA is not capitalism but rather a corrupted version of capitalism.

Let us take a look at our current poverty program, where it came from and what are its flaws.  The beginning of the poverty programs in the USA began with the 1960 census.  This census was the most complete census ever undertaken and recorded in human history.  It is from this census that the progressive liberals developed a theory to eradicate poverty.  They demonstrated from the 1960 census that if 2% of the nation’s GDP was transferred to the poor that poverty would be eradicated.  In other words that all the individual falling under their definition of economic poverty could be financially lifted out of poverty.

In 1965 then President Johnston launched in congress what was called “The Great Society”.  With the backing of the 1960 census Johnston and the Democrats created programs to end poverty and create an environmentally friendly (pollution free) society.   The 2% of the GDP needed to end poverty since then has increased to over 20+% since I last checked over a decade ago.  Now with over 25% of our GDP siphoned off for poverty the result today is that poverty in the USA is even worse now than before any of the programs of the Great Society were even initiated.

I have been unable to determine how much has been spent on environmental programs since 1965, but the results of all that has been spent – according to Democratic propaganda (Please note my use of the terms propaganda and Democrat we could just say Political rhetoric) – our environmental concerns (currently global warming and climate change) have increased substantially and our environment is in more danger now than in any time of human history.

Might I suggest that seeking any government solution in such manners is counterproductive.

 

The Traveler

[Grunt]

20 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

I’m on my way out of this bad boy, but to make sure I understand you Grunt. 
 

I understood you to mean that

A) Theft is immoral. 
B) The current RATE of taxation is “theft” or that a possible rate may be, but the action of taxation itself is not immoral. 

Do I have that right?

I hate black and white responses, because if I say "yes" someone will provide an example against it that I agree with.   

Suffice it to say that I believe a level of taxation is necessary, and in some cases moral.  Where that level ends is debatable.   It's tough for me to definitively lay claim to the fruits of one man's labor.

[LDSGator]

6 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I'm flying to FL tomorrow, so I'll add that to watch on the plane.

 

7 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I've never read that but will when I have time.  I completely agree that land tax is the best system we have currently.

If you’ve never read Free to Choose I highly recommend it. Life changing book. Also, I have to add F.A Hayek’s Road to Serfdom.   

[CommanderSouth]

15 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I hate black and white responses, because if I say "yes" someone will provide an example against it that I agree with.   

Suffice it to say that I believe a level of taxation is necessary, and in some cases moral.  Where that level ends is debatable.   It's tough for me to definitively lay claim to the fruits of one man's labor.

I am in no way trying to hold your feet to the fire, I was just curious as to how you might reconcile the statement that taxation is theft (which is how it was worded initially) with the statement that you also felt that we should do it.  

When it became clear that you felt that taxation as an act is not inherently immoral, then I understood that it was just about the LEVEL being the issue, which I totally agree with  

I’m not trying to look for exceptions to run you through the wringer on. Just to see if the main thrust is the same

Edited December 6, 2023 by CommanderSouth

[zil2]

32 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Were we sitting around a fire,

...you could have tossed your opponent in by now and then you wouldn't having to worry about him....

Just now, CommanderSouth said:

... trying to hold your feet to the fire...

Note to self: Never sit around a fire drinking scotch with @Grunt or @CommanderSouth!

[CommanderSouth]

6 minutes ago, zil2 said:

...you could have tossed your opponent in by now and then you wouldn't having to worry about him....

Note to self: Never sit around a fire drinking scotch with @Grunt or @CommanderSouth!

Man. I missed that   I just love that phrase. I use it all the time when I’m talking to sales people. I always say I just want a rough idea. I’m not holding your feel to the fire. 

[Grunt]

6 minutes ago, zil2 said:

...you could have tossed your opponent in by now and then you wouldn't having to worry about him....

Note to self: Never sit around a fire drinking scotch with @Grunt or @CommanderSouth!

I suppose my early years in the infantry could leave me with the predisposition.  

[askandanswer]

Where I used to live, and where my kids still live, the government there is about halfway through a 20 year scheme to replace a form of sales tax with a land tax. The sole reason is to smooth out fluctuations in government revenue. At the moment, when you buy a house you pay a kind of tax known as stamp duty that is only paid on house purchases. When you are in the house you annually pay what is known as rates, with the amount you pay being calculated on the value of your land. The plan, over 20 years, is to gradually reduce stamp duty to zero, and to replace that revenue by increasing rates. At the moment, when the property market is on the rise the government has lots of money and when it tanks, the government has very little. By linking their primary revenue stream to rates rather than stamp duty, the government is hoping to have a more stable revenue stream. Other states have had a look at the scheme but are generally scared off by the 20 year time frame. Economists and tax experts seem to think it is a good idea.