Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thekillersrock)
    Once again, a nice copy and paste job there big o... :rolleyes:
    What's your point? I never said it was my words. It seems to me your a very vindictive, bitter person.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    From the feedback i've received it appears that many consider tax to be theft but still justified. There is also great doubt over the practicality of a contract fee way of funding government, however an Objectivst friend provided the following to show how such a system is practical in the USA for example.


    In 2005, the Federal government will spend $2,479, 404,000,000. (That is 2.479 trillion dollars. Source: Office of Management and Budget website) In addition, in 2005 the 50 state governments are expected to spend $1,735,196,370,000. (That is 1.735 trillion dollars. Source: Rockefeller Institute of Government’s Fiscal Studies Center) So, total government spending for 2005 is $4,214,600,370,000.

    Gross Domestic Product for 2005 is estimated to be $12,220,000,000,000. (12.22 trillion dollars). Thus, at present total government spending is consuming 34.5% of GDP, a horrendous burden that obviously demands coercive taxation.

    However, let us examine the spending for the valid functions of government, which Objectivism holds to be national defense, police and the courts.

    Here are the 2005 spending estimates for what I consider the valid government functions. (Source is the same as the totals.)


    2005 Federal Spending on Valid Functions

    National Defense $465.871 billion
    (All branches of the military plus CIA, NSA, etc.)


    Veterans Benefits $67.649 billion
    (Pensions and health care for retired military)


    Justice Department $40.657 billion
    (Includes the FBI, Federal courts, Federal Judges, etc)


    General Government $19.117 billion
    (Costs of the national Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches, etc)


    Sub-Total $593.294 billion

    2005 State Spending on Valid Functions

    Law Enforcement $54.687 billion
    (State patrol, local/city police, county sheriffs, etc)


    Courts & Corrections $64.492 billion


    Total Valid Spending $712.473 billion

    % of GDP 5.83%


    Spending for the valid functions of government is only 5.83% of GDP.

    Thus, a fee of 6% on all commercial transactions in the United States would pay the entire cost of government.

    Please note that this is very much a worst-case analysis. There is a great deal of waste and improper spending at present even in these “valid” functions. For instance, under this system we would not spend money enforcing drug laws. So the total cost of a proper government is undoubtedly even smaller than the numbers above.

    This is a worst-case analysis in another sense as well. Freed of the current mass of government regulations, rules, restrictions and taxes, Gross Domestic Product would be much higher.

    So we can say with confidence that the 6% figure is a maximum. The real fee is likely to be considerably lower. Thus to ensure a contract one would pay 6% of the value of the contract to insure the 'deal'. Though this is a mere suggestion, it could perhaps be a fixed sum for all regardless of how much they are risking, though given that cases involving large amounts of money are probably going to last longer and so cost the courts more to look at, this is perhaps a better system.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by homoterror)
    Where do you get reason from at that level? What is reason? Reason is how we choose what to do, but I can't think of any other way to choose at that level than your emotions.
    I think reason is not really choosing what to do, but making a judgement about the truth/falsity of something.

    You follow a process of logic, starting out with a few truths (empirical, or from a priori principles. You must assume some principles, of course if you want to use empirism. You must assume that your eyes don't deceive you, that you are real, that there are certain definite rights or wrongs. These principles are not derived from any process of logic and can unfortunately be wrong . But they are unavoidable.). Then from these truths you use contradiction and/or inference to work out everything else.

    Then you decide, according to your emotion - or if you are trying to be objective, solely on your reason - what to do, or how to act.

    Or i could be wrong... make a reasonable judgement. :rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i doint think depriving people of SOME of their hard earned cash when they have more than enough of it anyway is harming.

    But its immoral. Morals are morals, they are qualative not quantative, something is not right just because its less wrong. My criteria is life - that which preserves it is good and vice vera, the best way to do this is to give people the freedom to keep the wealth they have earned from their labours, otherwise they do not have access to those things which allow them to survive. The argument that its only part of their income ins wrong not only because something is still immoral it dosent matter about the degree but also socialism leads to communism as Hayek argues.

    capitalist people are the most corrupt anyway- it isnt the powerless work force who are corrupt is it?
    Capitalism punishes those who are corrupt, just look at Enron. The most corrupt are those government officers who have the power of life and death and control of monopolies, as they have no reason not to be corrupt they still keep their jobs because they can pass the buck and blame it on others, after all beaucracries are so large and there unions defend them.


    is is the people obsessed with money, as you are.
    Not money, freedom as i have stated.

    money is the root of all evil.
    Is it evil to want to give to chairty, to drive a nice car, to treat your family, to feel happiness and that you've achieved something? You have also misquoted the book of Timothy, which says its the 'LOVE of money which is root of all evil. I never said people should love money rather freedom and money gives this.


    absolute power corrupts absolutely
    And absolute power does not exist in capitalism becuase someone is always free to set up a rival unlike in say communism where absolute power corrupts absoloutly. Your also using the quote of a classical liberal, Acton, thus i very much dobt he would agree with you.




    the fact is poverty is still here, and we who want equality dont want it to.the people at the top dont care, because if they did, then they wouldnt mind giving money to the government.
    But the government doesnt get rid of pverty it creates dependency. Of course capitalists want to eradicate poverty, after all while there poor they are not buying. Also after massive funds into the welfare state the government still admits poverty has not been done away with. Government is not the solution, its the problem.

    .the reality is that the country needs tax.
    I show in my past posts this is not the case due to the vol tax contact scheme.

    the reallity is that the majority- if not all- of the wealthy countries in the world expect tax.when will you people just get over that.dont see the money as your own.if tax takes 40% of your earnings, then that 40% was never truly yours to begin with.
    Why? If i worked for it why is it not mine? Whose is it than? You should read Locke.


    i just feel a terrible pang of sadness for people like you- people so angry with the world, people absolutely obsessed with money.
    I assure you there's no need to feel sad for me. I'm not 'so angry with the world', i just feel passionate, perhaps in a similar way to how you feel passionate about Live 8 for example.

    Its not a question of money, but freedom.

    no point in really taking this any further is there, because i hate petty rows.
    Its called a debate.

    i shouldnt have made personal comments about you- for that i apologise.
    Accepted.

    lucky for us they never seem to be able to get into power recently........
    Not recently but time will tell.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    But its immoral. Morals are morals, they are qualative not quantative, something is not right just because its less wrong. My criteria is life - that which preserves it is good and vice vera, the best way to do this is to give people the freedom to keep the wealth they have earned from their labours, otherwise they do not have access to those things which allow them to survive. The argument that its only part of their income ins wrong not only because something is still immoral it dosent matter about the degree but also socialism leads to communism as Hayek argues.



    Capitalism punishes those who are corrupt, just look at Enron. The most corrupt are those government officers who have the power of life and death and control of monopolies, as they have no reason not to be corrupt they still keep their jobs because they can pass the buck and blame it on others, after all beaucracries are so large and there unions defend them.




    Not money, freedom as i have stated.



    Is it evil to want to give to chairty, to drive a nice car, to treat your family, to feel happiness and that you've achieved something? You have also misquoted the book of Timothy, which says its the 'LOVE of money which is root of all evil. I never said people should love money rather freedom and money gives this.




    And absolute power does not exist in capitalism becuase someone is always free to set up a rival unlike in say communism where absolute power corrupts absoloutly. Your also using the quote of a classical liberal, Acton, thus i very much dobt he would agree with you.






    But the government doesnt get rid of pverty it creates dependency. Of course capitalists want to eradicate poverty, after all while there poor they are not buying. Also after massive funds into the welfare state the government still admits poverty has not been done away with. Government is not the solution, its the problem.



    I show in my past posts this is not the case due to the vol tax contact scheme.



    Why? If i worked for it why is it not mine? Whose is it than? You should read Locke.




    I assure you there's no need to feel sad for me. I'm not 'so angry with the world', i just feel passionate, perhaps in a similar way to how you feel passionate about Live 8 for example.

    Its not a question of money, but freedom.



    Its called a debate.



    Accepted.



    Not recently but time will tell.
    indeed time will tell...all of what you say depends on your perception and you opinion of tax.you think it is immoral.i dont.so none of what you say has any wash with me.and you are being so pedantic(if you wanna get pedantic then, i will too.please chek your spelling- they are more than just typing errors believe me.).please stop referring people to philosphers or whoever they are, we dont need their views.all of you views, rather like an indoctrinated religious nut who has had beliefs pushed at them their whole lives, are based on stuff you have read.you arew not really thinking about it, or going with your gut feeling, you are just spouting out stuff you have had hypodermically shot at you.the money isnt yours because you know that it is being taken as tax.why do you expect it?you shouldnt miss what you have never had.if you never had the money, and knew you werent going to get it, why do you care.if you earn 100,000, you know that only 60,000 of it is yours to spend.so the normal person would just think, "i earn 60,000". anywya, enough money talk, please.it really doesnt bother me.im going to ignore the live 8 comment. ok i wont- geldoff is soo annoying.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    all of what you say depends on your perception and you opinion of tax.
    Well obviously.

    you think it is immoral.i dont.so none of what you say has any wash with me
    .

    All that tells me is you have a very closed mind.

    please stop referring people to philosphers or whoever they are, we dont need their views.
    Heaven forbid people should learn!!!




    the money isnt yours because you know that it is being taken as tax.
    That is one of the most stupid things i have ever read. I know Jews were killed in Nazi Germany but their lives weren't theirs because they were being taken.



    why do you expect it?you shouldnt miss what you have never had.if you never had the money, and knew you werent going to get it, why do you care
    .

    Its called PRINCIPLES.

    if you earn 100,000, you know that only 60,000 of it is yours to spend.so the normal person would just think, "i earn 60,000".
    No just a person who dosen't think.




    anywya, enough money talk, please.
    Are you being ignorant on purpose? I have said again and again its a question of freedom not money.

    im going to ignore the live 8 comment. ok i wont- geldoff is soo annoying
    Why dont you ignore it? You've ignored everthing else. When people can't counter, it shows they can't understand.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Well obviously.

    .

    All that tells me is you have a very closed mind.



    Heaven forbid people should learn!!!






    That is one of the most stupid things i have ever read. I know Jews were killed in Nazi Germany but their lives weren't theirs because they were being taken.



    .

    Its called PRINCIPLES.



    No just a person who dosen't think.






    Are you being ignorant on purpose? I have said again and again its a question of freedom not money.



    Why dont you ignore it? You've ignored everthing else. When people can't counter, it shows they can't understand.
    i am countering- the only problem is i cant contest your points too well, because they arent yours.i fing it quite hard to form arguemts against philosphers who have studies years for their points- and that is all you are spouting about. now you are comparing jews deaths to money.what next?
    people with money have freedom.you have money, therefore you have freedom.as long as its enough to have a good life.your analogies are actually the stupidest things i have ever read!and yes, i shall admit, i do not understand your way of thinking. why money is compared constantly to slavery, stalin, jews, easter eggs.....
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i am countering- the only problem is i cant contest your points too well, because they arent yours.
    You can't counter them because you lack the ability. Not mine? Many of them are actually, either way do you think there's such a thing as an orginal idea? Everthing takes something from something else and than rebrands it.

    i fing it quite hard to form arguemts against philosphers who have studies years for their points- and that is all you are spouting about.

    Your just wrong. Where do you get your views from? Books, tv, other people etc. Your not just wrong, your a hyprocrite or just plain ignorant of reality.


    now you are comparing jews deaths to money.what next?
    You said 'the money isnt yours because you know that it is being taken as tax'. i said 'I know Jews were killed in Nazi Germany but their lives weren't theirs because they were being taken'. Now look at this: 'I know MONEY WAS TAKEN in Nazi Germany but THEIR MONEY wasnt theirs because it was being taken away'. This is the point you made. Now the word 'Jews' represents tax, killed represents 'taken', lives = freedom. You argue their lives/freedom was not taken/killed because it wasnt their lives/freedom. Surely you can you see? An analogy is not supposed to be identical, rather representative.


    your analogies are actually the stupidest things i have ever read!
    I thought they weren't my analogies. Come on, have some consistency!!



    and yes, i shall admit, i do not understand your way of thinking.

    Than you have something wrong with you or your 11 years old.


    why money is compared constantly to slavery, stalin, jews, easter eggs.....

    Analogies are used to make instances simple, therefore i can't see how you find it hard to understand, perhaps they are not simple enought.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    You can't counter them because you lack the ability. Not mine? Many of them are actually, either way do you think there's such a thing as an orginal idea? Everthing takes something from something else and than rebrands it.




    Your just wrong. Where do you get your views from? Books, tv, other people etc. Your not just wrong, your a hyprocrite or just plain ignorant of reality.




    You said 'the money isnt yours because you know that it is being taken as tax'. i said 'I know Jews were killed in Nazi Germany but their lives weren't theirs because they were being taken'. Now look at this: 'I know MONEY WAS TAKEN in Nazi Germany but THEIR MONEY wasnt theirs because it was being taken away'. This is the point you made. Now the word 'Jews' represents tax, killed represents 'taken', lives = freedom. You argue their lives/freedom was not taken/killed because it wasnt their lives/freedom. Surely you can you see? An analogy is not supposed to be identical, rather representative.




    I thought they weren't my analogies. Come on, have some consistency!!






    Than you have something wrong with you or your 11 years old.





    Analogies are used to make instances simple, therefore i can't see how you find it hard to understand, perhaps they are not simple enought.
    seing as i know what an analogy is, i dont need you to explain it to me.and if i needed a person to explain it better the last person on the list would be you, u use the worst analogies iv'e ever heard.your arguments are not your own.but only you could destroy what piffle they are even further by using your stupid "analogies" of course analogies are not supposed to be identical.but they have to at least hold some thread.how are lives comparable to money.you cannot compare the jews being killed to being taxed!i am saying the money shouldnt be seen as YOURS to begin with.the jews' lives were theirs to begin with.so how do you compare the 2?i am not saying that because something is taken you shouldnt say it is yours.it was your, but not anymore.with tax, it never was yours, as it comes automaticaly out of how much you earn.there is no loss, u should not miss what you do not have in the first place, as a jew would miss having their life that was theirs in the first place.i cannot stress how mediocre your analogies are.oh, and your attempts at being patronising are quite pathetic.when you learn how to spell correctly, come back and try to teach me a thing or two about stuff. anyone with money has freedom.you are not arguing about freedom; how are you not free?what is being taxed stopping relatively wealthy people from doing?going on one less holiday? money money money.stop being patronising, stop using analogies-that dont hold, stop using arguments you -dont -really -understand- yourself -but- use- them- anyway- because -you -think- they- sound -good- and- think- they- make -you -look -clever -when -we- all- know- that- you -cant- be -as -clever -as -you -think -you- are -because- you- aren't- very- good- with- your -grammar-or- spelling, and stop teling me i dont understand myself and that i dont have the ability to contest you.if i didnt, then why are your analogies lying scattered in ruins.in fact, keep using them, i love telling you how you are wrong.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    seing as i know what an analogy is, i dont need you to explain it to me.
    You obviously do need it explaining.
    and if i needed a person to explain it better the last person on the list would be you, u use the worst analogies iv'e ever heard.your arguments are not your own.but only you could destroy what piffle they are even further by using your stupid "analogies" of course analogies are not supposed to be identical.but they have to at least hold some thread.how are lives comparable to money.
    Without money lives are not free as people lack independence. Read the bible lately? If you think my analogies are strange, you obviously haven't read the bible. Read the parable of the sower where the word of God is represented by a seed for example. 'How can that possibly be right after all a seed can't talk etc etc' is the type of response I would expect from you.

    you cannot compare the jews being killed to being taxed!i am saying the money shouldnt be seen as YOURS to begin with.
    I've addressed this. Read my earlier threads. After all I don't want to be repetitive

    the jews' lives were theirs to begin with.so how do you compare the 2?
    I've argued that the fruits of mans labour is his to begin with if you were not so lazy you would know this

    i am not saying that because something is taken you shouldnt say it is yours.it was your, but not anymore.with tax, it never was yours, as it comes automaticaly out of how much you earn.there is no loss, u should not miss what you do not have in the first place, as a jew would miss having their life that was theirs in the first place.

    Firstly how would they miss life if they were dead? Secondly just because someone has never had something does not bring morality. Your argument is that something is immoral but it always has been that way so it has gained morality. This is of course complete stupidity. A slave has not known freedom, as they were born into it, thus is that right? After all how can they miss what they have not had?

    i cannot stress how mediocre your analogies are.oh, and your attempts at being patronising are quite pathetic.when you learn how to spell correctly, come back and try to teach me a thing or two about stuff. anyone with money has freedom.you are not arguing about freedom; how are you not free?what is being taxed stopping relatively wealthy people from doing?going on one less holiday? money money money.
    You’re saying what you said in a past post and I have countered this. Stop repeating yourself. You'll find the answer in the paragraph in which I make reference to Hayek.


    stop being patronising, stop using analogies-that dont hold, stop using arguments you -dont -really -understand- yourself -but- use- them- anyway- because -you -think- they- sound -good- and- think- they- make -you -look -clever -when -we- all- know- that- you -cant- be -as -clever -as -you -think -you- are -because- you- aren't- very- good- with- your -grammar-or- spelling,
    1) You don't understand them as shown by your FAILURE to counter them.
    2) Can dyslexia people not be clever? What about people who have hand deformities and so can’t type well, does that mean they can't be clever.
    Think before you type. Your ignorance and backwardness and embarrassing for you.


    and stop teling me i dont understand myself and that i dont have the ability to contest you.if i didnt, then why are your analogies lying scattered in ruins

    They are not. Your either just plain stupid or delusional.

    in fact, keep using them, i love telling you how you are wrong.
    You need to get a hobby than.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: June 22, 2005
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.