|
| Thread: Survey on tax structure |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted April 06, 2009 12:34 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 00:35, 06 Apr 2009.
|
Quote:
Yeah, it results in some displacement in the short run, but it benefits everybody else in the short run, and then everybody in the long run.
Hmm wonder how true would that be if we were totally worthless to the big dudes? (that is, 0 wages)
Such a dude will not need our "products" since they'll be inferior anyway so you can't even sell anything to him. What will you do?
Quote:
Yes. No matter how much code one writes, it's never going to do anything it's not programmed to do.
You have never heard of neural networks or self-changing program? Viruses do that all the time, that's why they literally "adapt" to your system. The virus writer seriously did not include all possible system configuration for it, trust me.
Hmm I gave a link in some other thread to a program dated 2003 or so made by a single guy, you can use that program to make it learn anything temporally based. So no, it wasn't designed "for chess" either. (as the example there)
Quote:
Plus there's unemployment insurance.
Which is more socialistic in nature though.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 06, 2009 12:37 AM |
|
|
Wait... A person can only be protected, if he pays for that?
Alright, let me think this through... (I finished my post and i didn't think things through, sorry, if I make little sense)
My first problem: Ethical issues are solved by economical measures. That is plain wrong. It would mean that stabbing beggars in the street be perfectly legal, no?
I don't think I understood everything (my vocabulary doesn't extend in technical, but in lyrical words  )
Anyway, my main argument is that ethics shouldn't be in the field of economics. And, of course, most examples in the article talk about idealised situations where most people are very rational and act in their best interest.
Humans are perfectly irrational beings (our subconscience is). Remember that. People will always enter into conflict (unles big brother steps in line, but that's the total opposite of anarchy), especially in a system where people pay for their protection agency.
No matter how rational the businesses are, they can always consider the fact that forcefully removing a company will be better in the long run (creating a monopoly, no?), so this protection agency would 'protect people' for money or even form military dictatorships, who knows? No laws or ethics is still chaos.
Should there be a power shift or change in protection agencies, what is there to prevent short spans of chaos?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 06, 2009 12:52 AM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
Hmm wonder how true would that be if we were totally worthless to the big dudes? (that is, 0 wages)
That's not going to happen, ever.
Quote:
Which is more socialistic in nature though.
There's a fundamental difference between the government interventions I advocate and the ones you advocate. See if you can tell what it is.
Dagoth:
Let's just say you have a lot to learn about anarcho-capitalism.
Quote:
Ethical issues are solved by economical measures. That is plain wrong.
False dichotomy.
Quote:
It would mean that stabbing beggars in the street be perfectly legal, no?
Not if protection agencies were to protect an area.
Quote:
People will always enter into conflict (unles big brother steps in line, but that's the total opposite of anarchy), especially in a system where people pay for their protection agency.
Did you read my link? I quote:Quote:
The agent points out that until Tannahelp is convinced there has been a mistake, he must proceed on the assumption that the television set is my property. Six Tannahelp employees, all large and energetic, will be at Joe's door next morning to collect the set. Joe, in response, informs the agent that he also has a protection agency, Dawn Defense, and that his contract with them undoubtedly requires them to protect him if six goons try to break into his house and steal his television set.
The stage seems set for a nice little war between Tannahelp and Dawn Defense. It is precisely such a possibility that has led some libertarians who are not anarchists, most notably Ayn Rand, to reject the possibility of competing free-market protection agencies.
But wars are very expensive, and Tannahelp and Dawn Defense are both profit-making corporations, more interested in saving money than face. I think the rest of the story would be less violent than Miss Rand supposed.
The Tannahelp agent calls up his opposite number at Dawn Defense. 'We've got a problem. . . .' After explaining the situation, he points out that if Tannahelp sends six men and Dawn eight, there will be a fight. Someone might even get hurt. Whoever wins, by the time the conflict is over it will be expensive for both sides. They might even have to start paying their employees higher wages to make up for the risk. Then both firms will be forced to raise their rates. If they do, Murbard Ltd., an aggressive new firm which has been trying to get established in the area, will undercut their prices and steal their customers. There must be a better solution.
The man from Tannahelp suggests that the better solution is arbitration. They will take the dispute over my television set to a reputable local arbitration firm. If the arbitrator decides that Joe is innocent, Tannahelp agrees to pay Joe and Dawn Defense an indemnity to make up for their time and trouble. If he is found guilty, Dawn Defense will accept the verdict; since the television set is not Joe's, they have no obligation to protect him when the men from Tannahelp come to seize it.
What I have described is a very makeshift arrangement. In practice, once anarcho-capitalist institutions were well established, protection agencies would anticipate such difficulties and arrange contracts in advance, before specific conflicts occurred, specifying the arbitrator who would settle them.
Quote:
No laws or ethics is still chaos.
Who says there wouldn't be laws? They just wouldn't be government laws.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 06, 2009 12:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Not if protection agencies were to protect an area.
Wouldn't that be the same as taxation? How else would people cover the costs of the agencies over a certain area?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 06, 2009 12:57 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Wouldn't that be the same as taxation?
If, say, there would be enough people in the area to patronize one security agency. (Plus, agencies could cooperate.)
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted April 06, 2009 01:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
That's not going to happen, ever.
Yeah because people would protest, or the guy with the nanomachines will not be totally cold (selfish), or because we would be living in socialism by then, or maybe because those machines will get banned, etc... But I am talking hypothetically, under capitalism, how would it fare?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted April 06, 2009 01:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Wouldn't that be the same as taxation?
If, say, there would be enough people in the area to patronize one security agency. (Plus, agencies could cooperate.)
But why pay for all the people in your area (which would be more expensive, no?)? Why not just for you and the other patrons?
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 06, 2009 01:27 AM |
|
|
Dagoth:
At a certain point, it is cheaper to fight crime on a larger scale than to protect specific individuals from specific criminals.
TheDeath:
Quote:
I am talking hypothetically, under capitalism, how would it fare?
Obviously, it wouldn't happen all at once, so people could adapt. Also, there will always be jobs for people to do - creative jobs, jobs machines can't do.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 06, 2009 04:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Dagoth:
At a certain point, it is cheaper to fight crime on a larger scale than to protect specific individuals from specific criminals.
And then theyt start going towards the left side again. FAIL! The problem with this statement is that its really socialistic.
Edit: I'm a little sleepy over here, its 4 am.......... i need to find a bed soon <.<
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 06, 2009 04:05 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And then theyt start going towards the left side again. FAIL! The problem with this statement is that its really socialistic.
What?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 06, 2009 04:22 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
And then theyt start going towards the left side again. FAIL! The problem with this statement is that its really socialistic.
What?
Read it over again. Your smart enogh to understand it, and i and most of us know that. Your living in denial in a way.
PS: Stop clinging to the wall, its a bad habit.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 06, 2009 04:29 AM |
|
|
What do you mean, they're "going toward the left side"?
Quote:
PS: Stop clinging to the wall, its a bad habit
I never drink enough for that to happen.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 06, 2009 07:37 AM |
|
|
|
Another thread derailed by useless offtopic quarrel over the same bull as ever.
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted April 06, 2009 02:53 PM |
|
|
If the very rich were ripped 90% of their income, they would still be left more in hand than a common worker. I don't think they suffer if they can't get to fly their private jets every morning.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 06, 2009 02:57 PM |
|
|
Except then they would have little incentive to be productive. Then their income would drop - and so would tax revenue.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted April 06, 2009 02:59 PM |
|
|
I wonder who would stay in a country that taxes 90% of their income.
The top should be around 55% or so, wanting to tax after that is just pure jealousy.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 06, 2009 03:00 PM |
|
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 06, 2009 03:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Except then they would have little incentive to be productive. Then their income would drop - and so would tax revenue.
Why? They would still loads of cash.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 06, 2009 03:21 PM |
|
|
|
I wonder on what all this claims about how no one would do anything anymore if you couldn't earn millions anymore are based? I mean, how come people have worked their arses off 16 hours a day, 6 days a week, just to survive?
|
|
Totoro
Famous Hero
in User
|
|
posted April 06, 2009 05:15 PM |
|
|
If someone earns 100 millions a year and 90% of that is taxed, he still nets 10 million.
What would he do then? Stop everything productive and drop his incomes to zero. I would rather pursue for even larger incomes like 200 millions a year when my tax percent would raise by something like 1% when I would net 18 millions, which would be alot better than 10 millions.
Why would I start doing work that most people do when I'm major owner of a big corporation with high incomes even if my tax percent would drop to, say 15%, if I earned something around 30000 a year.
I would net only 25500, which is very little compared to 10 or 18 millions.
____________
|
|
|
|
