Jer Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 The name is an oxymoron imo but FairerTax.org just doesn't have the same ring to it. Apparently the Fair Tax is coming up for a committee vote in the US house. Basic idea behind it is a flat sales tax and abolition of the IRS. I advocated for this before I came to be an anarchist and I'm wondering what other FDR members think of it. Abolishing the IRS would serve to severely limit government power and the ability to give out sweetheart tax breaks to the well connected. I feel like that's the reason it will never happen. I've heard people call this a voluntary tax, but there will certainly be government violence enforcing it. Is it hypocritical to ask for more gentle assrape from our overlords? Maybe it's simply a waste of time?
LanceD Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 I'm not opposed to trying to reduce theft. It seems like a good idea. Though this will never happen
dsayers Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 Is it hypocritical to ask for more gentle assrape from our overlords? Maybe it's simply a waste of time? If you mean in the context of calling your "representative," then I'd say yes. Abolishing the IRS would serve to severely limit government power and the ability to give out sweetheart tax breaks to the well connected. I feel like that's the reason it will never happen. Not just tax breaks, but nailing people that they couldn't otherwise nail if they were to follow their own rules. Like Capone. I agree that for these reasons, it will never happen.
LanceD Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 Also they just made the IRS the people responsible for enforcing Obamacare. They can't get abolished.
Jer Posted February 19, 2014 Author Posted February 19, 2014 If you mean in the context of calling your "representative," then I'd say yes. I was thinking more along the lines of talking to statist acquaintances. Perhaps I could just use it as a conversation starter to point out the immorality of taxation and the corruption of the irs
dsayers Posted February 19, 2014 Posted February 19, 2014 I was thinking more along the lines of talking to statist acquaintances. Perhaps I could just use it as a conversation starter to point out the immorality of taxation and the corruption of the irs That depends. Are they interested in the truth or avoiding the truth? If they're interested in the truth, the moral argument is all that is needed. If they're interested in avoiding the truth, discussing the minutia would just be wasting time that could be spent engaging people interested in the truth. This dichotomy is a general enough rule of engagement that it doesn't just apply to taxation/IRS. Don't forget that people that adhere to propaganda haven't arrived there by logic, reason, or evidence. So logic, reason, and evidence could not convince them otherwise. If instead we spend our time with people who are interested in the truth, it will become widespread. Once widespread, it will simply be uncomfortable for those who adhere to propaganda to continue doing so. In other words, the best way to convince people of the truth who are not interested in the truth is to convince those that are. And of course to live our values. A person has less reason to consider your position if to not do so only leads to a disagreement. Were you to take a principled stand by keeping people out of your life that wish for you to be stolen from for their gain, they have a greater incentive to consider your position.
Mike Fleming Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 That depends. Are they interested in the truth or avoiding the truth? If they're interested in the truth, the moral argument is all that is needed. If they're interested in avoiding the truth, discussing the minutia would just be wasting time that could be spent engaging people interested in the truth. Not necessarily. I knew the moral truth of the state before I came to be an anarchist. I just couldn't drop the idea of the minimal state initially. I acknowledged it as an evil, but called it a necessary evil. I had to explore the ideas and mechanics of anarchy, specifically in my case how law and order would work, before I was able to let go of the "necessary evil" idea. I think there are broadly 2 type of people who come to anarchy. Those who accept the moral arguments pretty much straight away and those who need a little information and reassurance that things can work without the state. I was in the second category. State brainwashing goes deep for many of us.
MrCapitalism Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76B4pUxO_Nk
dsayers Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 I knew the moral truth of the state before I came to be an anarchist. I just couldn't drop the idea of the minimal state initially. I acknowledged it as an evil, but called it a necessary evil. This isn't the description of somebody who accepts the moral truth. "Necessary evil" means that evil is okay if we claim there is a benefit. A rapist would agree. If evil could be necessary, "evil" would have no meaning. Plus, people who believe it can be necessary will not be looking for the right answer, such as non-coercive alternatives. I still get your point. I just think that somebody that DOES accept the moral truth and is interested in the minutia falls into the first category I mentioned, not the second. Also, there would be nothing wrong with passing up somebody who doesn't accept the moral argument today, but might tomorrow. There's tons of material out there for anybody making that transition, and plenty of people that will help them once they've accepted the moral argument.
LovePrevails Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 it's a good idea because it would make the tax system less able to be manipulated by special interest groups
tasmlab Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 As I understand it, replacing income tax with sales tax would spell the unemployment for about 90% of accountants, 50% of lawyers and the IRS. All those people would have to go do something productive! Peter Schiff does a nice piece on it in Crash Proof (if I remember correctly). He advocates for it as being an improvement over income tax. Ron Paul was proposing that tip income would be tax exempt, which I thought had a nice sneaky implication. It sounded fairly harmless, but I could imagine every business owner in the world re-categorizing their revenue as tips, creating a huge end-around of the tax system. It would be neat if some new tax regulation, like the fair tax, inadvertently allowed every one to duck their tax bill. On the downside, if they were able to tax every step of the supply chain every product would be loaded with taxes. I.e., a sales tax on the steel when the screw manufacture buys it, a tax on the screw when the sub-assembler buys it, a tax on the sub-assembly when the engine manufacturer buys it, onward until the car you buy is 90% tax.
Jer Posted February 21, 2014 Author Posted February 21, 2014 On the downside, if they were able to tax every step of the supply chain every product would be loaded with taxes. I.e., a sales tax on the steel when the screw manufacture buys it, a tax on the screw when the sub-assembler buys it, a tax on the sub-assembly when the engine manufacturer buys it, onward until the car you buy is 90% tax. The FairTax is a single-rate, federal retail sales tax collected only once, at the final point of purchase of new goods and services for personal consumption. Used items are not taxed. Business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services are not taxed. A prebate makes the effective rate progressive. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=FAQs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76B4pUxO_Nk Good info. He was saying mostly the same stuff I was thinking except I didn't realize that some people would get more back in the "prebate" than they pay in taxes. And his conclusion is spot on, the problem is out of control gov spending much more than how they collect the money.
LovePrevails Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=582729618479293&set=a.582729598479295.1073741826.393437997408457&type=1&theater me 8 years ago in a previous incarnation ;0
LanceD Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 The problem with the fair tax is that without a constitutional amendment we won't be able to prevent the congress from passing a new income tax. So eventually we will just wind up with both a giant national sales tax and an income tax.
Jer Posted February 22, 2014 Author Posted February 22, 2014 The problem with the fair tax is that without a constitutional amendment we won't be able to prevent the congress from passing a new income tax. So eventually we will just wind up with both a giant national sales tax and an income tax. Yes, I kind of assumed a constitutional amendment abolishing the income tax was implied.
LanceD Posted February 22, 2014 Posted February 22, 2014 Yes, I kind of assumed a constitutional amendment abolishing the income tax was implied.Well in that case, this will never ever happen. It will be hard enough to get a favorable bill through congress and the president. Then you think we can get an amendment through two thirds of the state houses? It's just never going to happen. The system we have in the US is simply going to get worse and worse until it can no longer sustain itself. Then hopefully we can peacefully transition to something more favorable.
Daniel Unplugged Posted February 24, 2014 Posted February 24, 2014 The only fair amount of tax is zero. It is unfair, not to mention immoral, to have any of your property stolen, even 1% of it.
fractional slacker Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=582729618479293&set=a.582729598479295.1073741826.393437997408457&type=1&theater me 8 years ago in a previous incarnation ;0 Not so common for a lefty make the leap into the abyss of reason and evidence. Congratulations.As for the 'fair tax.' Like dsayers has implied, it's an argument from effect. The problem is it would quickly be reversed or even worse, have an income tax added at some point in the future when any number of special interests experienced a negative effect. The power to be a victim and claim others owe you is too ingrained in the western world.
LovePrevails Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 Not so common for a lefty make the leap into the abyss of reason and evidence. Congratulations. Looking back I'd say I was a very reasonable person, it's just that all the conservative/free-market people around me were so out of personal sentiment rather than based on any analysis of reason and evidence so I consistently bested them in debates. Plus I never met a person on the economic-right who wasn't on "the right" ie. pro-war, etc. so I associated the free market with being pro-war and pro-corporations. I would love to go back 10 years and and debate my 18-yo self and see what I came up against. I think over the course of 3-5 conversations I could win him round.
Recommended Posts