Flat tax + Citizens Income...

[pperrin]

I saw Basic Income Guarantee was done a few months ago - but I am interested in a different angle...

 

Starting with the UK (where I live, and is an island with good resources etc...) my basic idea is that as every person could be called upon to defend the island (with their lives) there is an argument that it is equally owned.

 

i.e. In WW1 or 2 a soldier with 10,000 acres and a man with none were both risking the same (their lives) but one's reward was to keep their 10,000 acres from enemy occupation (theft) while the others reward was... errr... to let the other guy keep his 10,000 acres(!). Not very fair... Landless man should have refused to fight unless he got half the spoils of victory (surely?).

 

So if every citizen owns the land equally - that is 50mil acres and 50mil people - a nominal 1 acre each. In principle 5 acres is enough for a self-sufficient small holding for a family so on paper everyone could live tax/service/government free except for a call to arms to protect the country.

 

However we aren't all farmers and not all land is farmable so.. pool all the land and rent it out (for whatever it can be let for) and share the proceeds of the rent between all citizens. The rent paid is your 'tax' and the proceeds you receive are your 'citizens income' - how much it would be are entirely unpredictable! but by definition it is enough to rent at least an acre and be self sufficient, so that is your safety net.

 

That is pretty much it - it is a basis 'in principle' for a citizens income and tax. The only 'duty' is effectively conscription - fight to protect the country if attacked... Its not complete (not accounted for seas/fish/minerals etc)... but as a minimum imposition on free men I quite like it...

 

Thoughts?

[dsayers]

there is an argument that it is equally owned.

Which argument is that?

 

Not very fair... Landless man should have refused to fight unless he got half the spoils of victory (surely?).

If "fair" is the standard you're putting forward, how would getting half of land man's land be fair to land man? Also, how did you arrive at "fair" as a standard to begin with? Is it fair that you and I were born in different circumstances, have had different life experiences, and so on?

 

The rent paid is your 'tax'

This is like saying that the love-making you engage in is your rape. Well why are you sure that rape needs to be sustained? If a payment for temporary use is voluntary, it is called rent. Taxation is inherently theft because it is involuntary. You cannot conflate the two.

 

The only 'duty' is effectively conscription - fight to protect the country if attacked...

What does this look like? "Countries" don't exist. It is a concept. You cannot attack a concept. If a PERSON was attacked, and we as a society do not favor aggression, his neighbors and support system will aide him as necessary.

 

"Countries" get attacked for their tax base. So if you really wanted to protect a large group of people, not abiding a giant engine that steals from them all (your call for continued taxation) would be a good step.

[Wuzzums]

So because people own some land (or have rented land) and they put work into it they should share the profits with people that have no land or didn't help working the land. Why?

 

And your 10k acres analogy is incorrect. Both men stand to lose the same, their lives fullstop. Lives are equal but different. One of them spent time acquiring 10k acres, the other one spent time doing something else. To the latter, the "something else" is equal in value to 10k acres, and vice versa for the first guy.

[pperrin]

Which argument is that?

 

>> They both risk their lives equally to protect it.

 

If "fair" is the standard you're putting forward, how would getting half of land man's land be fair to land man? Also, how did you arrive at "fair" as a standard to begin with? Is it fair that you and I were born in different circumstances, have had different life experiences, and so on?

 

>> Back to how the land originally became 'owned' - any concept of ownership is by dint of it being protected from being taken which both risk their lives equally to do.

 

This is like saying that the love-making you engage in is your rape.

 

>> You'll need to expand on that I can make no sense of it.

 

Well why are you sure that rape needs to be sustained? If a payment for temporary use is voluntary, it is called rent. Taxation is inherently theft because it is involuntary. You cannot conflate the two.

 

>> Don't want the land, don't rent it - whats not voluntary about that?

 

What does this look like? "Countries" don't exist. It is a concept. You cannot attack a concept. If a PERSON was attacked, and we as a society do not favor aggression, his neighbors and support system will aide him as necessary.

 

"Countries" get attacked for their tax base. So if you really wanted to protect a large group of people, not abiding a giant engine that steals from them all (your call for continued taxation) would be a good step.

 

>> Tax base? A tax base presupposes that the land can be used to generate an income to be taxed - why would an attacker no be interested in the income?

So because people own some land (or have rented land) and they put work into it they should share the profits with people that have no land or didn't help working the land. Why?

 

And your 10k acres analogy is incorrect. Both men stand to lose the same, their lives fullstop. Lives are equal but different. One of them spent time acquiring 10k acres, the other one spent time doing something else. To the latter, the "something else" is equal in value to 10k acres, and vice versa for the first guy.

 

There is no share of profit from the land. The only payment is rent for the land.

 

On effort to acquiring it - a man could inherit unlimited land, do nothing (apart from maybe let someone build windmills on it) and pass it all on for others to do the same - you can't make assumptions about the effort spent on acquiring it...

[dsayers]

They both risk their lives equally to protect it.

You're skipping a lot of steps here. You said that there is an argument that people on the island that is the UK equally own it. What argument were you referring to?

 

Back to how the land originally became 'owned' - any concept of ownership is by dint of it being protected from being taken which both risk their lives equally to do.

Skip the narrative of "defending the fatherland." This does not answer how you arrived at "fair" as a standard.

 

Don't want the land, don't rent it - whats not voluntary about that?

When I was pointing out the difference between tax and rent, you hadn't yet said "don't want the land, don't rent it." Skip the backpedaling. You were conflating tax and rent when the words are as polar opposite as rape and love-making. To answer your question, what's not voluntary about that which is involuntary is the lack of consent of course.

 

Tax base? A tax base presupposes that the land can be used to generate an income to be taxed - why would an attacker no be interested in the income?

You need to stop moving the goalposts. If YOU tried to rob a group of people that outnumbered you 10,000 to 1, you'd be debilitated in no time. However, people do this and get away with it in the name of the State every day. Nobody is going to attack a free society for the income because they will be outnumbered. They have to attack the tax base because a tax base means the populace are actively being stolen from and not resisting it.

[Des]

If YOU tried to rob a group of people that outnumbered you 10,000 to 1, you'd be debilitated in no time. However, people do this and get away with it in the name of the State every day. Nobody is going to attack a free society for the income because they will be outnumbered. They have to attack the tax base because a tax base means the populace are actively being stolen from and not resisting it.

Succinctly worded, nice one, thanks. I upvoted for that.

[pperrin]

You're skipping a lot of steps here. You said that there is an argument that people on the island that is the UK equally own it. What argument were you referring to?

 

The argument is 'if two people risk the same to defend an island, they have the same right to ownership of that island' - if you don't think that is contentious in anyway good, that means you agree.

 

 

When I was pointing out the difference between tax and rent, you hadn't yet said "don't want the land, don't rent it."

Skip the backpedaling. 

 

How about you skip trying to make a discussion into an argument - being patronising is tedious - if you want to divert the discussion I'll assume its because you have no confidence in you position.

 

 

When I was pointing out the difference between tax and rent, you hadn't yet said "don't want the land, don't rent it..

 

I put 'tax' in single quotes, thats to indicate that the rent for the land is in lieu of tax. Which bit of the original post did you think was not voluntary?

 

 

Nobody is going to attack a free society for the income because they will be outnumbered. They have to attack the tax base because a tax base means the populace are actively being stolen from and not resisting it.

 

A free society would never be attacked? Well why haven't you already got one? I think there are plenty of mobs/gangs that outnumber you... and would take your property in a second but for greater external threats to them (tax funded law enforcement etc in the current system).

[dsayers]

The argument is 'if two people risk the same to defend an island, they have the same right to ownership of that island'

You're skipping a lot of steps here. You said that there is an argument that people on the island that is the UK equally own it. What argument were you referring to? Still.

 

If I stop somebody from stealing your car, I don't own your car. Defense isn't sufficient. Plus you're talking about something that would occur AFTER ownership to pose as an argument that ownership is predicated upon (circular). Finally, they both have the "right" to ownership already. Just one has invested more into land, which is why he owns so much more. If your approach was the least bit principled, you would accept this.

 

How about you skip trying to make a discussion into an argument - being patronising is tedious - if you want to divert the discussion I'll assume its because you have no confidence in you position.

Doubling down. Classy. You tried to conflate rape with love-making as if they aren't the polar opposite. Anybody who accepts that truth is preferable to falsehood would "make it into an argument." Nice manipulative, poisoning the well language there by the way. I imagine your deflection and projection might be because YOU are unable to prove that the two are the same. Hence why you have yet to address it, save to claim that punctuation absolves you of accuracy:

 

I put 'tax' in single quotes, thats to indicate that the rent for the land is in lieu of tax. Which bit of the original post did you think was not voluntary?

Institutionalized theft is not voluntary. Putting it in any number of quotes will not change this. Also, we don't have love-making in lieu of rape. They are simply not the same despite being mechanically identical. Do you not understand this?

 

A free society would never be attacked? Well why haven't you already got one? I think there are plenty of mobs/gangs that outnumber you... and would take your property in a second but for greater external threats to them (tax funded law enforcement etc in the current system).

You weren't talking about a free society. You were talking about the entirety of the UK. This can only be attacked because it is already being attacked and held from within by the State. Without such an entity, to attack that entire piece of land would be to try and hold every square foot of it. Which would mean going up against the entire population. Which non-state mob/gang is that large exactly?

 

You need to familiarize yourself with the concept of network strength. People don't want violence. Therefore anybody interested in violence would have to go up against EVERYBODY else. This is unsustainable. People only get away with it in the name of the State due to bribing people and/or concealing the aggression. Such as by way of conflating rape and love-making (looking at you there, champ).

[Wuzzums]

 

There is no share of profit from the land. The only payment is rent for the land.

 

On effort to acquiring it - a man could inherit unlimited land, do nothing (apart from maybe let someone build windmills on it) and pass it all on for others to do the same - you can't make assumptions about the effort spent on acquiring it...

 

There is no share of profit from the "something else" either.

You can't "do nothing" with the land and still have the land into your possession. Doing nothing with the land is the same as relinquishing ownership because your fortune stays the same whether you have the land or not.

[pperrin]

There is no share of profit from the "something else" either.

You can't "do nothing" with the land and still have the land into your possession. Doing nothing with the land is the same as relinquishing ownership because your fortune stays the same whether you have the land or not.

 

The one thing that is 'required' is that you are prepared to fight to protect the (in this case) the island. While not wanting to initiate force, if you aren't prepared to attempt to use it to resist others initiation of force you are already dead.

 

An individual cannot expect to resist the force of others - we can't currently live in an anarchist/libertarian society because our tax-collectors are too strong for us to resist. The tax-collectors (government and their supporters) have not yet been debated out of giving up that power...

 

I can 'do nothing' with land - if its registered in my name, the state will give me possession of it at any time - ejecting anyone who has settled on it while I was 'doing nothing'.

[pperrin]

You're skipping a lot of steps here. You said that there is an argument that people on the island that is the UK equally own it. What argument were you referring to? Still.

 

OK, I have no idea what you mean by 'argument'. I posit a set of circumstances (as I have) you can accept or argue with it. If you have no argument against it then you have accepted it. There is 'no argument' because it is universally accepted - works for me.

 

If I stop somebody from stealing your car, I don't own your car.

 

That depends on the price we agree for me assisting in the protection of your car. My original suggestion is based on the idea that a fair price for all risking our lives is an equal share of what we are fighting to protect.

 

Finally, they both have the "right" to ownership already. Just one has invested more into land, which is why he owns so much more. If your approach was the least bit principled, you would accept this.

 

Any real (non-utopian) system has to work with the unprincipled - because they do, and always will, exist - in practice your rights exist only as far as the stronger are willing to protect them.

 

Moan about the man taking your land all you like... that won't bring it back.

 

 

Doubling down. Classy. You tried to conflate rape with love-making as if they aren't the polar opposite. Anybody who accepts that truth is preferable to falsehood would "make it into an argument." Nice manipulative, poisoning the well language there by the way. I imagine your deflection and projection might be because YOU are unable to prove that the two are the same. Hence why you have yet to address it, save to claim that punctuation absolves you of accuracy:

 

No idea what you are on about here... If its just a personal attack - boo hoo - now back what I said rather than what you think are the motivations behind why I said it eh?

 

Institutionalized theft is not voluntary. Putting it in any number of quotes will not change this. Also, we don't have love-making in lieu of rape. They are simply not the same despite being mechanically identical. Do you not understand this?

 

if a society was based on women being held captive and raped to reproduce, and then someone proposed that we switch to something like our current system, describing it saying "So for 'rape' there would voluntary marriage" seems a reasonable wording - if you disagree, fine, I don't think it matters in this discussion.

 

You weren't talking about a free society.

 

But you were, and you said a free society wouldn't be attacked... So I ask why you don't declare your home a free-society and see how long you get away with not paying taxes etc...?

 

 

Without such an entity, to attack that entire piece of land would be to try and hold every square foot of it. Which would mean going up against the entire population. Which non-state mob/gang is that large exactly?

 

It would only be against 'the entire population' if they acted together - else anyone could pick them off one by one. And even when the entire population do act together (as per WW1 and WW2) countries do still fall.

 

A man owning nothing may happily stand by and watch while the man who owns many acres is relieved of them - which really comes back to what I originally outlined (that he probably should - unless the land is equally owned...).

 

 

You need to familiarize yourself with the concept of network strength. People don't want violence. Therefore anybody interested in violence would have to go up against EVERYBODY else. This is unsustainable. People only get away with it in the name of the State due to bribing people and/or concealing the aggression. Such as by way of conflating rape and love-making (looking at you there, champ).

 

But if that were true it would already be happening in practice.

 

I see you want to throw around 'rapist' allegations - this must mean you are very unsure of your position as you are trying go divert attention from it again - if you are that unsure of it I am not sure why you'd expect anyone else to try to make it stand up for you.

[LovePrevails]

Here is something I wrote on this point - i think the BIG misses the point, we need to look at what is destroying living standards:

http://scottishlibertarians.com/basicincome/

[dsayers]

I see you want to throw around 'rapist' allegations - this must mean you are very unsure of your position as you are trying go divert attention from it again

No. You used the words "tax" and "rent" as if they're interchangeable. When in fact they are exact opposites because of (lack of) consent. Most people get this when it's put in terms of rape because it's mechanically identical to love-making. Because most people are above the developmental stage where they're able to conceptualize, apply ideas, and comprehend comparisons.

 

If you have no argument against it then you have accepted it.

I've noticed that you continue to default to I must agree with you. Which only serves to reveal this is not a conversation.

[pperrin]

Which only serves to reveal this is not a conversation.

 

I'll give you that one - I look forward to a conversationalist to provide some input - yours is not worth having.