# News & Current Events > Economy & Markets >  Income tax: Ever calculated how wealthy you'd be without it?

## amy31416

I don't have all the documents to make the calculations, but I'm wondering if anyone has kept track of how much wealth they'd have if they never had to pay income taxes.

I think these numbers could be quite an eye-opener to middle class folks who are currently struggling, and I've never seen articles discussing this.

I'm sure there's someone out there who tracks this sort of thing.

----------


## ILUVRP

i will ask mitt if i see him.

----------


## Dr.3D

> i will ask mitt if i see him.


Yeah, he would probably know.

----------


## Steven Douglas

It's all going to be different based on what everyone does differently with their income.  Assuming just savings, and no investments to speak of, they'd certainly be a sight wealthier than they are now, but still much worse off than they should be, because of the hidden inflation tax from a thoroughly DEBAUCHED currency, which is still very much in effect. 

The income tax is a way of cannibalizing just you. The inflation tax is a way of feasting on you AND your children and grandchildren.

----------


## Zippyjuan

For 46% of income tax filers, it won't make any difference since that is the pecent who end up owning no income taxes.  

http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/26/pf/t...-tax/index.htm



> The Tax Policy Center estimates that for tax year 2011, 46% of households will end up owing nothing in federal income taxes.
> 
> The percentage was closer to 40% before the recession, Greenstein said.

----------


## cubical

> For 46% of income tax filers, it won't make any difference since that is the pecent who end up owning no income taxes.  
> 
> http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/26/pf/t...-tax/index.htm


well the money would flow to lower income workers. employers could not afford to keep talent if they did not raise their salary.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Why would an employer be giving you (lower income workers) more money?  Employers don't pay your income taxes (they do pay half of the Social Security taxes). They may withhold the taxes but don't pay them.  Getting rid of income taxes doesn't give them any more money to pass along to workers (and this assumes that they won't keep any extra money if there was some in the first place for themselves or share holders). 

It is the higher income workers (the 52% who do pay income taxes) who would have more money to spend if the income tax was eliminated.

----------


## LibForestPaul

I do not calculate as "personal wealth". I calculate it in how much suffering would be alleviated and progress would have occurred without parasites feasting on human chattle. I estimate we would be 50 years advanced, minimum. Probably would have already have colonies on the moon.

----------


## The Free Hornet

> I do not calculate as "personal wealth". I calculate it in how much suffering would be alleviated and progress would have occurred without parasites feasting on human chattle. I estimate we would be 50 years advanced, minimum. Probably would have already have colonies on the moon.


Yes (however I don't know about Newt's moon colonies).  It is about quality of life and living in a free society that cherishes individual liberty.  Would you rather be rich and in jail or poor but free?

----------


## TheTexan

threw this together http://jsfiddle.net/8pr4k/embedded/result/

----------


## oyarde

Looking at just what I had at Social Security and medicaid , only the first 30 years I worked , I would be retired next year , working part time , now, expecting to work another 15 yrears....

----------


## KingRobbStark

You kidding. The filthy IRS did an audit of my dads business (for the year 2010), and they claimed that he owes over 200k. That's not even including the penalties, and interest. They said they will calculate that later. $#@!ing pigs. Though that doesn't makes any sense, because my dad doesn't even pay that much on taxes to start with. So how can he owe more than what he originally pays? Can anyone offer any input?

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> You kidding. The filthy IRS did an audit of my dads business (for the year 2010), and they claimed that he owes over 200k. That's not even including the penalties, and interest. They said they will calculate that later. $#@!ing pigs. Though that doesn't makes any sense, because my dad doesn't even pay that much on taxes to start with. So how can he owe more than what he originally pays? Can anyone offer any input?


Bump

----------


## oyarde

//

----------


## osan

> I don't have all the documents to make the calculations, but I'm wondering if anyone has kept track of how much wealth they'd have if they never had to pay income taxes.


Impossible to tell without making assumptions, but I would perhaps be somewhere around $100 million.  Maybe more even... hard to say.

----------


## Mundane

I don't know, but I do know I paid the same amount in personal income tax in 2 months as I did in one year income tax, just before incorporating, making the same money.

----------


## cubical

> Why would an employer be giving you (lower income workers) more money?  Employers don't pay your income taxes (they do pay half of the Social Security taxes). They may withhold the taxes but don't pay them.  Getting rid of income taxes doesn't give them any more money to pass along to workers (and this assumes that they won't keep any extra money if there was some in the first place for themselves or share holders). 
> 
> It is the higher income workers (the 52% who do pay income taxes) who would have more money to spend if the income tax was eliminated.


Because those who employ will have more money to do so. If you and I owned a business and we both instantly got a 20% raise(due to no longer paying taxes), I would have more money to hire away your talent and more money to bid on future labor. Either you would have to match me or out bid me.

----------


## Zippyjuan

I don't see why if your personal income taxes went down you would use that money to hire more people at the company you work for or run- very few people would. Obviously I can't speak for what you personally would do of course but what would occur?  

Now if the people who did get tax reductions spend that extra money they got at your business then you may hire more people due to the increased sales. Let's say you had your own business and not some big corporation and you made $100k a year and then get a tax reduction of $20k (using your 20% figure).  Would you use that money yourself- vacation? Buy something? Put it into an investment or retirement?  or would you hire a person to work for you at $20k a year?  Most would use the money themselves.

----------


## Danke

> I don't see why if your personal income taxes went down you would use that money to hire more people at the company you work for or run- very few people would. Obviously I can't speak for what you personally would do of course but what would occur?  
> 
> Now if the people who did get tax reductions spend that extra money they got at your business then you may hire more people due to the increased sales. Let's say you had your own business and not some big corporation and you made $100k a year and then get a tax reduction of $20k (using your 20% figure).  Would you use that money yourself- vacation? Buy something? Put it into an investment or retirement?  or would you hire a person to work for you at $20k a year?  Most would use the money themselves.


And that would be a bad thing vs. a bureaucrat spending it for you?

----------


## Zippyjuan

Didn't say it would be a bad thing. Everybody would like to have a bit more money.

As long as you weren't adding more to the deficit to do it too (offset with government spending reductions).  Except you can't do that without major reductions in Social Security, Medicare and defense spending- things people get very upset about if you talk about cutting (and a sure way for a politian to get voted out of office if they try).  Otherwise, you can cut every item left in the budget and still not be able to balance it and allow any tax reductions without adding to the debt.

Quick numbers. Current deficit: about $1.2 trillion.  Income tax revenues: also about $1.2 trillion a year.  If you want to get rid of income taxes and not increase the debt you need to cut about $2.5 trillion out of the $3.1 trillion budget (which includes all that Social Security, Medicare/ Medicaid, Defense spending, interest on the debt, etc). That leaves about $600 billion and interest on the debt alone eats up about half of that.

----------


## cubical

> I don't see why if your personal income taxes went down you would use that money to hire more people at the company you work for or run- very few people would. Obviously I can't speak for what you personally would do of course but what would occur?  
> 
> Now if the people who did get tax reductions spend that extra money they got at your business then you may hire more people due to the increased sales. Let's say you had your own business and not some big corporation and you made $100k a year and then get a tax reduction of $20k (using your 20% figure).  Would you use that money yourself- vacation? Buy something? Put it into an investment or retirement?  or would you hire a person to work for you at $20k a year?  Most would use the money themselves.


You don't see talent as an essential part to business? If you have more free resources to grow your business, you will pay for the best employees or you will get passed by your competition. Why do you believe everyone would take that 20% and consume it?

----------


## Danke

> Didn't say it would be a bad thing.


O.K.  Would it not then be a good thing?

----------


## brushfire

My house would have been paid off while I was still in my 20's

----------


## Zippyjuan

> You don't see talent as an essential part to business? If you have more free resources to grow your business, you will pay for the best employees or you will get passed by your competition. Why do you believe everyone would take that 20% and consume it?



No-they won't all go out and spend the entire 20% (assuming they would be getting 20%- as mentioned earlier, 46% of people would be getting zero extra dollars since they end up owing no net taxes)- as I pointed out they could save it or invest it in addition to spending it.  Those at higher income levels would be less likely to spend it (and more likely to receive a reduction in taxes) since they already have more of what they could want or need.  

And so, you would be willing to take your own personal tax refund and use it to hire somebody else? Or would you use it for yourself as well? Do you do that when you get a raise? (same net effect). The question here was if you had your personal income taxes reduced or eliminated would you use that money on yourself or would you hire more people to work for you. (Unless you really paid a lot in taxes, in most cases we are probably not talking about enough money to hire more than one or two people- if you are making over $200,000 a year that would put you in the top five percent of incomes in the US). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Un..._1947-2007.svg

This is a completely separate question from "do you have to pay a premium to attract qualified workers" which is the second question. That depends on the labor market. If the demand for qualified workers is higher than the supply then you probably do have to pay more to attract the best workers.  If there are plenty of qualified workers looking for work in the field then you can pick and choose without offering a higher salary.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Some figures for actual tax rates (not marginal tax rates) for some income groups:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...who-pays-them/



> For example, the Congressional Budget Office found that, in 2005, the highest 10 percent of households in terms of income paid 16 percent of their income in federal income tax. The next 10 percent of households in terms of income paid 12 percent of their income.
> 
> At the same time, the bottom 40 percent of households in terms of income owed, on average, no tax, in the sense that those households received more in refundable income tax credits than they paid in tax.


So if you were in the top 10% and the income tax was eliminated, you would have on average 16% more money.  Since $200,000 would get you into the Top 10%, if you made less than that you would get $20,000 or less (ten percent) more a year. If you were in the next ten percent bracket, your income would increase by twelve percent (this ignores other taxation- real disposable (after all taxes) income would increase by a higher percentage). If you made $40,000 or less, you would be the same income wise with or without it.

If you were a business man and making $100k a year (our example earlier) you would then have $12,000 to spend (if you wanted) on your business to hire somebody or invest in equipment or spend on yourself or save or invest it (your paycheck would be $833 bigger each month- going from $8,333 to $9,166 a month- not counting things like Social Security taxes or other withholdings).

----------


## Danke

> O.K.  Would it not then be a good thing?


 


> Those at higher income levels would be less likely to spend it (and more likely to receive a reduction in taxes) since they already *have more of what they could want or need*.


I figured as much.

----------


## cubical

> No-they won't all go out and spend the entire 20% (assuming they would be getting 20%- as mentioned earlier, 46% of people would be getting zero extra dollars since they end up owing no net taxes)- as I pointed out they could save it or invest it in addition to spending it.  Those at higher income levels would be less likely to spend it (and more likely to receive a reduction in taxes) since they already have more of what they could want or need.  
> 
> And so, you would be willing to take your own personal tax refund and use it to hire somebody else? Or would you use it for yourself as well? Do you do that when you get a raise? (same net effect). The question here was if you had your personal income taxes reduced or eliminated would you use that money on yourself or would you hire more people to work for you. (Unless you really paid a lot in taxes, in most cases we are probably not talking about enough money to hire more than one or two people- if you are making over $200,000 a year that would put you in the top five percent of incomes in the US). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Un..._1947-2007.svg
> 
> This is a completely separate question from "do you have to pay a premium to attract qualified workers" which is the second question. That depends on the labor market. If the demand for qualified workers is higher than the supply then you probably do have to pay more to attract the best workers.  If there are plenty of qualified workers looking for work in the field then you can pick and choose without offering a higher salary.


Some would be used on consumption, some on investment. The fact that some would be used on investment would mean that more people would get productive jobs and those who are already working(I assume they have some sort of higher skillset) will get paid more. It is simple supply and demand. There would be a demand for labor, due to more savings and potential production, thus labor prices would rise. So of course I would use my money to hire someone else and keep my best workers. It means more more consumption in the future for me.

----------


## evilfunnystuff

> I don't see why if your personal income taxes went down you would use that money to hire more people at the company you work for or run- very few people would. Obviously I can't speak for what you personally would do of course but what would occur?  
> 
> Now if the people who did get tax reductions spend that extra money they got at your business then you may hire more people due to the increased sales. Let's say you had your own business and not some big corporation and you made $100k a year and then get a tax reduction of $20k (using your 20% figure).  Would you use that money yourself- vacation? Buy something? Put it into an investment or retirement?  or would you hire a person to work for you at $20k a year?  Most would use the money themselves.


But you are not seeing the forest see the forest for the trees, outside of burying it in a secret spot for retirement, everything you could possibly do with it is creating more demand for workers. 

This would create a more lucrative job market for everybody.

----------


## blustreeak

"Why would an employer be giving you (lower income workers) more money? Employers don't pay your income taxes (they do pay half of the Social Security taxes). They may withhold the taxes but don't pay them. Getting rid of income taxes doesn't give them any more money to pass along to workers (and this assumes that they won't keep any extra money if there was some in the first place for themselves or share holders)." 

A family member of mine makes around 500k net a year and runs a small business. He ends up paying around 120k in Income taxes every year.  I asked him if he had to pay no income tax would he hire more workers. He said yes, he would also add an intern or two because he gets a lot of requests for that, but takes on only a few because of the costs.  He also said he would give his employee's better holiday bonuses and likely hirer another young young worker and maybe a part time marketer to expand a little bit. Small businesses employ most of America. To say that those owners who run them would not pass along income they saved to their workers if income tax is eliminated is not true in my opinion. Without the income tax America grew to be the envy of the world with immigrants coming here non-stop to be a part of our way of life. Our economy is imploding for lots of reasons, but one of them is we are punishing the productive and discouraging hiring by taxing them out the wazoo. 

I strongly disagree that reducing the income tax would have no effect on low income workers income's.  I think they would see a rise in their wealth with more opportunities for employment and businesses being able to be more liberal with their resources because they would be getting to keep more of their fruits of their labor.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> I strongly disagree that reducing the income tax would have no effect on low income workers income's.  I think they would see a rise in their wealth with more opportunities for employment and businesses being able to be more liberal with their resources because they would be getting to keep more of their fruits of their labor.


100% correct.  Do not tax production by abolishing income, sales and property taxes. Use commonly created wealth to fund common services.  Geonomics does that.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> "Why would an employer be giving you (lower income workers) more money? Employers don't pay your income taxes (they do pay half of the Social Security taxes). They may withhold the taxes but don't pay them. Getting rid of income taxes doesn't give them any more money to pass along to workers (and this assumes that they won't keep any extra money if there was some in the first place for themselves or share holders)." 
> 
> A family member of mine makes around 500k net a year and runs a small business. He ends up paying around 120k in Income taxes every year.  I asked him if he had to pay no income tax would he hire more workers. He said yes, he would also add an intern or two because he gets a lot of requests for that, but takes on only a few because of the costs.  He also said he would give his employee's better holiday bonuses and likely hirer another young young worker and maybe a part time marketer to expand a little bit. Small businesses employ most of America. To say that those owners who run them would not pass along income they saved to their workers if income tax is eliminated is not true in my opinion. Without the income tax America grew to be the envy of the world with immigrants coming here non-stop to be a part of our way of life. Our economy is imploding for lots of reasons, but one of them is we are punishing the productive and discouraging hiring by taxing them out the wazoo. 
> 
> I strongly disagree that reducing the income tax would have no effect on low income workers income's.  I think they would see a rise in their wealth with more opportunities for employment and businesses being able to be more liberal with their resources because they would be getting to keep more of their fruits of their labor.


Good for him.  That is not typical though. If he is making $500k a year, he is in the top one percent of all wage earners.

----------


## Nickels

You'd be nominally wealthier by 30-40%, but not necessarily materially wealthier. 

What happens to price of gas, food, housing, utilities and entertainment when your paycheck gets a 30% raise? 

Some people want to say "if I didn't have to pay income tax, I could use that to buy this, which would mean I didn't have to borrow money, and that saves me interest, and I can even get an insurance plan which would cover whatever accidents I run into...." all speculative. If you had more cash in hand, would you just hoard it? Or would you likely spend it? How is not paying income tax different than giving everybody a fat stimulus check (oh, we call that "tax return")?

----------


## Kluge

> You'd be nominally wealthier by 30-40%, but not necessarily materially wealthier. 
> 
> What happens to price of gas, food, housing, utilities and entertainment when your paycheck gets a 30% raise? 
> 
> Some people want to say "if I didn't have to pay income tax, I could use that to buy this, which would mean I didn't have to borrow money, and that saves me interest, and I can even get an insurance plan which would cover whatever accidents I run into...." all speculative. If you had more cash in hand, would you just hoard it? Or would you likely spend it? How is not paying income tax different than giving everybody a fat stimulus check (oh, we call that "tax return")?


Not sure if you noticed, but we're pushing for smaller gov't, not a more indebted government that has to tax everything else higher so they can continue their bloated ways. 

What's wrong with speculating, just out of curiosity?

----------


## Nickels

> I strongly disagree that reducing the income tax would have no effect on low income workers income's.  I think they would see a rise in their wealth with more opportunities for employment and businesses being able to be more liberal with their resources because they would be getting to keep more of their fruits of their labor.


and I strongly disagree that income is everything. if it were, then having high minimum wage would make sense. if cash equals wealth, then printing money would always make sense. If higher wages always meant better living, then we'd be stupid to let the market decide on it. Income taxes, just like the rate of interest or rate of money printing (credit extension) affect prices of goods and services, so eliminating it altogether WOULD nominally change the prices, but not necessarily mean people would be wealthier, the only thing I can think of that's guaranteed, is leaving enforcers jobless.

----------


## Nickels

> Not sure if you noticed, but we're pushing for smaller gov't, not a more indebted government that has to tax everything else higher so they can continue their bloated ways. 
> 
> What's wrong with speculating, just out of curiosity?


Oh, I am aware of reducing government. But I was asking, what difference would it be to you, whether you were giving a complete tax refund, or taxed, and then giving the same amount in a stimulus check on the government's credit loaned by the same people (taxpayers, yourself)? My answer is, the only difference is how efficient the government was at giving you the money you got. For you, you have the same amount to spend, and thus the result for consumer prices, your personal wealth, is the same, isn't it?

Nothing wrong with speculating as long as you know you are.

----------


## Kluge

> Oh, I am aware of reducing government. But I was asking, what difference would it be to you, whether you were giving a complete tax refund, or taxed, and then giving the same amount in a stimulus check on the government's credit loaned by the same people (taxpayers, yourself)? My answer is, the only difference is how efficient the government was at giving you the money you got. For you, you have the same amount to spend, and thus the result for consumer prices, your personal wealth, is the same, isn't it?
> 
> Nothing wrong with speculating as long as you know you are.


So what you're saying is that there's no difference between there not being an income tax, and me being forced to pay the gov't, then have that money circulate through the gov't and eventually come back to me? Really? IRS agents aren't volunteers.

Are you arguing that all people who file income taxes get all of their money back?

----------


## TheTexan

I wouldn't be just nominally wealthier, I would be actually wealthier.  Out of the income taxes I pay, I see very very little of that.  Roads/infrastructure makes up 3% of income taxes, and that's basically the only thing I use.  The other 97% is sent down a drain as far as I know.

----------


## Nickels

> So what you're saying is that there's no difference between there not being an income tax, and me being forced to pay the gov't, then have that money circulate through the gov't and eventually come back to me? Really? IRS agents aren't volunteers.
> 
> Are you arguing that all people who file income taxes get all of their money back?


I am not arguing all people who file income taxes get anything back, but when they do, we call it a tax return, tax refund, tax credit. Yes, I am aware IRS isn't working for free, and I acknowledged that that would be one difference in the grand scheme, but for YOUR purposes, what difference does it make if you make $100K gross, paid $30K in taxes, and then $30K showed up in your bank account? What difference does it make to you, as long as you never pay it back and was fully legal, where it came from?

----------


## Nickels

> I wouldn't be just nominally wealthier, I would be actually wealthier.  Out of the income taxes I pay, I see very very little of that.  Roads/infrastructure makes up 3% of income taxes, and that's basically the only thing I use.  The other 97% is sent down a drain as far as I know.


if that was in your hands, where would it be spent and why wouldn't the prices of it go up due to more money from you and other consumers?

----------


## Kluge

> I am not arguing all people who file income taxes get anything back, but when they do, we call it a tax return, tax refund, tax credit. Yes, I am aware IRS isn't working for free, and I acknowledged that that would be one difference in the grand scheme, but for YOUR purposes, what difference does it make if you make $100K gross, paid $30K in taxes, and then $30K showed up in your bank account? What difference does it make to you, as long as you never pay it back and was fully legal, where it came from?


Because that's not the way it works, and it's never been the way it worked. People who make that kind of money don't get that 30k back. Not to mention that the 30k can be used in investments and earn returns in the time period that it's tied up by the bureaucracy.

I'm really not sure what you're arguing here, except that you're defending the existence of the IRS and like paperwork and paying people to do bull$#@! "work."

----------


## TheTexan

> if that was in your hands, where would it be spent and why wouldn't the prices of it go up due to more money from you and other consumers?


Look at it this way.

Of income taxes:
24.9% gets literally blown up
23.7% goes towards making health care more expensive
19.1% goes towards making sure people don't work
8.1% goes towards the interest on the above expenditures
24.2% towards $#@! if I know

That's a $#@! load of waste.  If I were an apple farmer, it would be equivalent to taking 30% of my apples and letting them rot.  If every apple farmer had 30% more apples... everyone is wealthier, in real terms.

----------


## Nickels

> Because that's not the way it works, and it's never been the way it worked. People who make that kind of money don't get that 30k back.


Oh, sorry, I thought we were talking about 'HYPOTHETICALLY IF THEY DID'.




> Not to mention that the 30k can be used in investments and earn returns in the time period that it's tied up by the bureaucracy.


You assume investments only make money, keep speculating. Also, what if everybody had no income taxes? Wouldn't more people be investing, and therefore decrease the return on investment profits? (the same way prices go up when more people are buying the same thing, until demand increases accordingly)




> I'm really not sure what you're arguing here, except that you're defending the existence of the IRS and like paperwork and paying people to do bull$#@! "work."


Read it again. I was saying that, the effect on the economy, and on the consumer, is the same whether they got a complete tax free paycheck, or got a stimulust check for the same amount they paid in taxes. What goes on behind the scenes is never his concern.

----------


## Kluge

> Oh, sorry, I thought we were talking about 'HYPOTHETICALLY IF THEY DID'.
> 
> 
> 
> You assume investments only make money, keep speculating. Also, what if everybody had no income taxes? Wouldn't more people be investing, and therefore decrease the return on investment profits? (the same way prices go up when more people are buying the same thing, until demand increases accordingly)
> 
> 
> 
> Read it again. I was saying that, the effect on the economy, and on the consumer, is the same whether they got a complete tax free paycheck, or got a stimulust check for the same amount they paid in taxes. What goes on behind the scenes is never his concern.


But that's a ridiculous hypothetical. Until you have an all-volunteer IRS along with productive businesses donating all of the equipment and supplies that they'd use it will cost something and that will be paid by taxpayers.

I'm just looking for a shred of realistic ideas in your HYPOTHESIS and I have yet to find one.

----------


## Nickels

> Look at it this way.
> 
> Of income taxes:
> 24.9% gets literally blown up
> 23.7% goes towards making health care more expensive
> 19.1% goes towards making sure people don't work
> 8.1% goes towards the interest on the above expenditures
> 24.2% towards $#@! if I know
> 
> That's a $#@! load of waste.  If I were an apple farmer, it would be equivalent to taking 30% of my apples and letting them rot.  *If every apple farmer had 30% more apples... everyone is wealthier, in real terms.*


No, not unless everybody valued apples. I take it you've never seen crops being in abundance, *as in, having so much they literally had to GIVE AWAY, THROW AWAY, BURY AS FERTILIZER OR BURN.*  (I've seen it, not often, and rarely in this country, but I've seen it) One would think that if there's abundance of fruit, it must be great, that's only until you have too much, or do not have the resources to can it up. What happens when you can it up? Picky spoiled Americans think they're too good for preserved foods and only buy "fresh". This could all be bad planning, and whether you have more apples, less apples does not matter until the market responds with it. 

Why did you say apples? Not avocados or olives? Why didn't you say whale blubber? Because you know not all fruits and produce are equal to the market. Having more apples usually beats having less (burning and burying sure beats planting them), but it does not automatically mean each apple retains its value as before taxes. Unless there's a shortage of apples, don't you think having double the amount of apples today will decrease its value by close to a half? How is that "real wealth"?

You may have noticed, certain industries are purging their products because it's no longer in demand.

----------


## Nickels

> But that's a ridiculous hypothetical. Until you have an all-volunteer IRS along with productive businesses donating all of the equipment and supplies that they'd use it will cost something and that will be paid by taxpayers.
> 
> I'm just looking for a shred of realistic ideas in your HYPOTHESIS and I have yet to find one.


No, I never ONCE said the IRS can or should work for free, I just said their costs are not your concern.

----------


## Kluge

> No, I never ONCE said the IRS can or should work for free, *I just said their costs are not your concern*.


lol!

Yes, they most certainly are. ALL the costs of the government are my, and every other citizen's, concern. 

Seriously?

----------


## Nickels

> lol!
> 
> Yes, they most certainly are. ALL the costs of the government are my, and every other citizen's, concern. 
> 
> Seriously?


there is a 3rd option though, the IRS is paid by somebody else, just not you, and not now. so until that changes, it's not your concern, this would be no different if there were no taxes, there is no guarantee that 100,000 IRS employees now unemployed, will not cause other problems that may be of your concern.

----------


## TheTexan

> No, not unless everybody valued apples. I take it you've never seen crops being in abundance, *as in, having so much they literally had to GIVE AWAY, THROW AWAY, BURY AS FERTILIZER OR BURN.*  (I've seen it, not often, and rarely in this country, but I've seen it) One would think that if there's abundance of fruit, it must be great, that's only until you have too much, or do not have the resources to can it up. What happens when you can it up? Picky spoiled Americans think they're too good for preserved foods and only buy "fresh". This could all be bad planning, and whether you have more apples, less apples does not matter until the market responds with it. 
> 
> Why did you say apples? Not avocados or olives? Why didn't you say whale blubber? Because you know not all fruits and produce are equal to the market. Having more apples usually beats having less (burning and burying sure beats planting them), but it does not automatically mean each apple retains its value as before taxes. Unless there's a shortage of apples, don't you think having double the amount of apples today will decrease its value by close to a half? How is that "real wealth"?
> 
> You may have noticed, certain industries are purging their products because it's no longer in demand.


lol -rep for being intentionally stupid

----------


## Nickels

> lol -rep for being intentionally stupid


What do you mean?

You're the one who said more apples means more wealth, and I'm not allowed to correct you?

----------


## Kluge

> there is a 3rd option though, the IRS is paid by somebody else, just not you, and not now. so until that changes, it's not your concern, this would be no different if there were no taxes, there is no guarantee that 100,000 IRS employees now unemployed, will not cause other problems that may be of your concern.


Who are they paid by? Magic fairies? I didn't realize that legitimate hypotheses involved the existence of bins of gold at the end of rainbows. I'm going to have to go with bxm042--I think you're being intentionally ridiculous and perhaps trolling.

----------


## Nickels

> Who are they paid by? Magic fairies? I didn't realize that legitimate hypotheses involved the existence of bins of gold at the end of rainbows. I'm going to have to go with bxm042--I think you're being intentionally ridiculous and perhaps trolling.


How about printed money? Which is not a cost to you, other than by inflation. How would more money in your hands and no taxes collected not cause the same thing? Do you admit or not that having more dollars and less taxes will make prices go up, investments depreciate, and apples depreciate if there were more grown?

----------


## Kluge

> How about printed money? *Which is not a cost to you, other than by inflation*. How would more money in your hands and no taxes collected not cause the same thing? Do you admit or not that having more dollars and less taxes will make prices go up, investments depreciate, and apples depreciate if there were more grown?


You say it's not a cost, but it is a cost--to everyone, and it hurts the poorest people the most.

Are you a "tax the rich" person? Is that why this has become so ridiculous? Is all you know about economics basic "supply and demand?"

----------


## Nickels

> You say it's not a cost, but it is a cost--to everyone, and it hurts the poorest people the most.
> 
> Are you a "tax the rich" person? Is that why this has become so ridiculous? Is all you know about economics basic "supply and demand?"


Yes I know supply and demand, and it really looks like you don't. 

I would agree with you the IRS is performing useless work and is a waste of money. Now you tell me, what do we do with them when they're unemployed? I can say I don't care, because they are not my problem, are you so certain they do not incur greater costs than the cost of employing them today? 

I am not a tax the rich person. I keep asking you the same question and you avoid answering, *How would more money in your hands and no taxes collected not cause the same thing? Do you admit or not that having more dollars and less taxes will make prices go up, investments depreciate, and apples depreciate if there were more grown?*

If you understand the broken window fallacy, you should know darn well that more jobs, or more cash does not equal more wealth. Nor does less jobs, less waste equate to it.

----------


## Kluge

> Yes I know supply and demand, and it really looks like you don't. 
> 
> I would agree with you the IRS is performing useless work and is a waste of money. Now you tell me, what do we do with them when they're unemployed? I can say I don't care, because they are not my problem, are you so certain they do not incur greater costs than the cost of employing them today? 
> 
> I am not a tax the rich person. I keep asking you the same question and you avoid answering, *How would more money in your hands and no taxes collected not cause the same thing? Do you admit or not that having more dollars and less taxes will make prices go up, investments depreciate, and apples depreciate if there were more grown?*
> 
> If you understand the broken window fallacy, you should know darn well that more jobs, or more cash does not equal more wealth. Nor does less jobs, less waste equate to it.


WHO pays the IRS? Answer that first.

I never said anything about supply and demand, you're the one who's trying to divert to it in order to feebly try to "win."

----------


## Nickels

> WHO pays the IRS? Answer that first.


I already gave you possible answers, but I'm with you on abolishing them and leaving them jobless. So let's do that, now answer mine. 




> I never said anything about supply and demand,


Your lack of it speaks more. 




> you're the one who's trying to divert to it in order to feebly try to "win."


No, I ask you a simple question you obviously are unable to comprehend. Now, my question, please. Or if you answer this one, it'll be easier : Do you agree that we will only be nominally wealthier, and there is no guarantee we'd be wealthier materially or productively? Also, if you have a smart way of telling me how 100,000 or more government employees unemployed makes us wealthier, I'm listening.

----------


## Kluge

> I already gave you possible answers, but I'm with you on abolishing them and leaving them jobless. So let's do that, now answer mine. 
> 
> 
> 
> Your lack of it speaks more. 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I ask you a simple question you obviously are unable to comprehend. Now, my question, please. Or if you answer this one, it'll be easier : Do you agree that we will only be nominally wealthier, and there is no guarantee we'd be wealthier materially or productively? Also, if you have a smart way of telling me how 100,000 or more government employees unemployed makes us wealthier, I'm listening.


Quit being an $#@! and try to stick with the subject we were actually talking about. You were arguing supply and demand with bxm.

And, of course there's no guarantee that we'd be wealthier, but it's a hell of a lot more likely if we had the money to spend. Whereas your idea of running the printing press makes everyone who holds any wealth in dollars POORER--and that's guaranteed.

You better stop trying to imply other people are stupid when you've made such an ass of yourself--and I'm being kind.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> Look at it this way.
> 
> Of income taxes:
> 24.9% gets literally blown up
> 23.7% goes towards making health care more expensive
> 19.1% goes towards making sure people don't work
> 8.1% goes towards the interest on the above expenditures
> 24.2% towards $#@! if I know


It's my understanding that it's more like 20% that goes toward servicing the interest on the national debt. From the GPO (.PDF file):

According to Obama (from that same report, emphasis mine):




> That is why, working with the Congress, we will establish a bipartisan fiscal commission charged with identifying additional policies to put our country on a fiscally sustainable path—balancing the Budget, *excluding interest payments on the debt*, by 2015.


Why do you suppose that President Obama explicitly excluded interest on the debt as a budget consideration? Is it because "deficits don't matter", or could it be that it's just too staggering to even think about?

From that same report? Historical and projected interest (billions):

2009 	187
2010	188
2011	251
2012	343
2013	436
2014	510
2015	571
2016	627
2017	681
2018	733
2019	786
2020	840

See that? A doubling rate for interest in just around four years, and more than a *quadrupling* of the interest projected in just a decade, as it goes from $188 Billion in 2010 to $840 Billion in 2020.  That's the interest due in 2010 TIMES 4.64 in 2020.  It's no wonder they don't project anything beyond that, because it hits a TRILLION (in interest only) shortly thereafter.  In total, more than 5 Trillion will be paid out over the next decade.  

Here's a piece CNN did on this recently, with projections going to 2022, just ten short years from now.




May you live in other than exponential times, and not surrounded by exponential growth-believing lunatics.

----------


## Nickels

> Quit being an $#@! and try to stick with the subject we were actually talking about. You were arguing supply and demand with bxm.


Yep, still am. And if you're going to tell me I'm wrong, ANSWER ME.




> And, of course there's no guarantee that we'd be wealthier, but it's a hell of a lot more likely if we had the money to spend. Whereas your idea of running the printing press makes everyone who holds any wealth in dollars POORER--and that's guaranteed.


No. Having more money to spend means having more money to spend, it doesn't matter where it comes from. Let's try this one, let's say starting tomorrow, each and every American decided that they'll work 1 extra hour per week. Does that make each American 1 hour of wage wealthier? NO. Not other than on paying saying so. It'll lead to each hour of work worth LESS because of supply and demand. What if each and every American decided to STOP buying TVs and cars? Does that mean the $30,000 they were going to spend makes them now $30,000 richer? NO. It means whereever else they spend their money, will now cost them more. 




> You better stop trying to imply other people are stupid when you've made such an ass of yourself--and I'm being kind.


I won't need to imply it anymore if you keep dodging my question.

----------


## Kluge

> Yep, still am. And if you're going to tell me I'm wrong, ANSWER ME.
> 
> 
> 
> No. Having more money to spend means having more money to spend, it doesn't matter where it comes from.
> 
> 
> 
> I won't need to imply it anymore if you keep dodging my question.


I said you were WRONG in regards to the comments where you said:

It's reasonable to hypothesize about the IRS's costs being, essentially, zero to me and other Americans. Then you said the costs are none of my concern. THEN you said that the Fed should just print up money to pay for the costs of the IRS. 

After it was incredibly obvious how ridiculous all of that was , you started in on supply and demand to try to get me to drop your ridiculous hypothesis of a cost-free IRS. And I think it's obvious why.




> Having more money to spend means having more money to spend, it doesn't matter where it comes from.


Yes it does. If those dollars come from a printing press with nothing backing it, the value of the dollar goes down. I can't even believe I'm arguing this on this forum. 

But by all means, keep blathering. It's getting funnier.

----------


## Nickels

> I said you were WRONG in regards to the comments where you said:
> 
> It's reasonable to hypothesize about the IRS's costs being, essentially, zero to me and other Americans.


It is, in proportion to how much you pay goes to them.




> Then you said the costs are none of my concern.


Which is basically the same thing




> THEN you said that the Fed should just print up money to pay for the costs of the IRS.


I said that'd be one way without taxing you, and since you know inflation is a cost, then you should know having more money isn't wealth. 




> After it was incredibly obvious how ridiculous all of that was , you started in on supply and demand to try to get me to drop your ridiculous hypothesis of a cost-free IRS. And I think it's obvious why.


I was answering you because you insisted on knowing how the IRS can be paid. 




> Yes it does. If those dollars come from a printing press with nothing backing it, the value of the dollar goes down. I can't even believe I'm arguing this on this forum.


And letting people keep money that was originally taken from them...is backed by what? Labor? 




> But by all means, keep blathering. It's getting funnier.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> It's my understanding that it's more like 20% that goes toward servicing the interest on the national debt. From the GPO (.PDF file):
> 
> According to Obama (from that same report, emphasis mine):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I cannot speak for the president but perhaps he said excluding interest on the debt because that is the only part of the budget you cannot negotiate on or cut (aside from paying off the debt or adding to it).  As a percent of the budget, interest on the debt is not 20%.  Using the figures you provided which show $343 billion in interest for the 2012 fiscal year, that is out of a budget of nearly $3.8 trillion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Un...federal_budget or under ten percent (closer to nine). BUt you are correct that the amount will continue to go up unless the debt goes down and in all likelyhood the interest rates on the debt will rise in the future from their current historic lows so the percent of the budget eaten up by the debt will get bigger and bigger in the future.

As for his quote- I don't see even the remotest chance of a balanced budget by 2013 in the first place. The required cuts and tax increases (you can't do it simply via one or the other though mathematically you could via tax increases alone- that would mean doubling the income tax and if only by cuts you would have to get rid of the equivelent of everything outside Social Security/ Medicare, and interest on the debt) necessary to achive that are too great.

----------


## Danke

> Wouldn't more people be investing, and therefore decrease the return on investment profits?



What?!  You just had to make me laugh tonight.

----------


## Danke

> How about printed money? Which is not a cost to you, other than by *inflation*.


OMG.  Seriously?

----------


## Nickels

> What?!  You just had to make me laugh tonight.


Think about it a little. Name a business to invest in, oil? Food production? Electricity generating?

What happens when more money is put into oil production? You either make oil more expensive, or find more oil. Either way, the investor will make less money if more people are investing in it. If you put more money into growing rice, you'll either waste in on costs and make rice more expensive, or get more rice, and each grain of rice will be worth less.

You're probably thinking stocks, where more people buying the same thing leads to it appreciating, but that stops as soon as somebody decides to sell, and then it goes downward, every investor wants to make his money back.

----------


## Danke

> Think about it a little. Name a business to invest in, oil? Food production? Electricity generating?
> 
> What happens when more money is put into oil production? You either make oil more expensive, or find more oil. Either way, the investor will make less money if more people are investing in it. If you put more money into growing rice, you'll either waste in on costs and make rice more expensive, or get more rice, and each grain of rice will be worth less.
> 
> You're probably thinking stocks, where more people buying the same thing leads to it appreciating, but that stops as soon as somebody decides to sell, and then it goes downward, every investor wants to make his money back.


Money follows productive industries.  The ones that give the greatest gains for said investment or security on return.  Speculators bet, some lose, some win.

----------


## Nickels

> Money follows productive industries.  The ones that give the greatest gains for said investment or security on return.  Speculators bet, some lose, some win.


do you define productivity by profitability and demand?

----------


## Danke

> do you define productivity by profitability and demand?


I don't think it matters what my definition of may or may not be.  People should be able to keep the fruits of their labor, outside of government confiscation.  And that compensation should be free of government intervention.

----------


## Nickels

> I don't think it matters what my definition of may or may not be.  People should be able to keep the fruits of their labor, outside of government confiscation.  And that compensation should be free of government intervention.


and isn't the fruits of their labor, at least the price of compensation, even with intervention, still market determined?

If you worked for $100 an hour and were taxed 30%, you net $70.
Would you take the same job if I said I paid $70 and guaranteed tax free? 
Would you care how much leaves your employer's pocket, as long as there's always enough for your labor?

----------


## Steven Douglas

> I cannot speak for the president but perhaps he said excluding interest on the debt because that is the only part of the budget you cannot negotiate on or cut (*aside from paying off the debt* or adding to it).


^^^ This - the part I put in bold.  The principle debt cannot, and will not EVER be paid down, let alone paid off.  Our genius economist from the left, the great, grand and nobel-exalted Paul Krugman explains why, in his view:




> Deficit-worriers portray a future in which we’re impoverished by the need to pay back money we’ve been borrowing. They see America as being like a family that took out too large a mortgage, and will have a hard time making the monthly payments.
> 
> This is, however, a really bad analogy in at least two ways.
> 
> *First, families have to pay back their debt. Governments don’t* — all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base. The debt from World War II was never repaid; it just became increasingly irrelevant as the U.S. economy grew, and with it the income subject to taxation.
> 
> Second — and this is the point almost nobody seems to get — *an over-borrowed family owes money to someone else; U.S. debt is, to a large extent, money we owe to ourselves.*


See that? Governments don't have pay back their debt. Just debase the currency with a full expectation of a growing economy, and that will render the debt small or irrelevant in comparison to the quantity and diluted value of the debauched currency.

----------


## oyarde

> 100% correct.  Do not tax production by abolishing income, sales and property taxes. Use commonly created wealth to fund common services.  Geonomics does that.


What is commonly funded wealth ? I must have missed that in life, I have no commonly funded wealth , I have a little bit that I was able to retain , of my earnings after all the theft ....

----------


## oyarde

> Who are they paid by? Magic fairies? I didn't realize that legitimate hypotheses involved the existence of bins of gold at the end of rainbows. I'm going to have to go with bxm042--I think you're being intentionally ridiculous and perhaps trolling.


 I am opposed to all Magic Fairies who steal from me and in my old age , becoming less patient , probably make magic fairie sandwiches in the future ....

----------


## Weston White

Here are a few aspects little considered as to the whole underpinning scheme surrounding the federal income tax:

Breaking down your lifelong loss:
http://www.iwarrior.defendindependen...p?p=1068#p1068

Additional loss realized through _stoppage at the source_ (W-4 Withholding):
http://www.iwarrior.defendindependen...p?p=1152#p1152

----------


## Zippyjuan

When you include deductions, the average tax rate a person making $50k a year (you used $52k in your example- this is pretty close), that person is actualy paying closer to five percent in income taxes or $2,600 ($50 a week). 

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/...ate/52682372/1



> The effective tax rate, meanwhile, is the amount a taxpayer pays in taxes as a percentage of total income. The average effective federal tax rate for American taxpayers is 11%, according to an analysis of 2009 IRS data by the Tax Foundation, a non-profit research organization. *For individuals with adjusted gross income of $50,000 or less, the average effective tax rate is less than 5%, according to the Tax Foundation.*
> 
> That rate doesn't include the amount taxpayers pay in Social Security and Medicare taxes.
> 
> Confusion about the difference between marginal and effective tax rates *often causes taxpayers to overestimate their tax liabilities,*


The marginal tax rate (the rate listed in tax bracket rate lists) is not applied to every dollar you earn which brings the average rate on your entire income lower.  

Adding in your FICA figure of $3,978.00, that comes to $6578 a year- less than half of the $14,768.00 you came up with in your article.

----------


## Nickels

> When you include deductions, the average tax rate a person making $50k a year (you used $52k in your example- this is pretty close), that person is actualy paying closer to five percent in income taxes or $2,600 ($50 a week). 
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/...ate/52682372/1
> 
> 
> The marginal tax rate (the rate listed in tax bracket rate lists) is not applied to every dollar you earn which brings the average rate on your entire income lower.  
> 
> Adding in your FICA figure of $3,978.00, that comes to $6578 a year- less than half of the $14,768.00 you came up with in your article.


In other words, less than 13%. Let's hear what this guy says next, what's 13% going to buy him?

----------


## Nickels

> Here are a few aspects little considered as to the whole underpinning scheme surrounding the federal income tax:
> 
> Additional loss realized through _stoppage at the source_ (W-4 Withholding):
> http://www.iwarrior.defendindependen...p?p=1152#p1152


why use 4%? Where do you get a 4% guaranteed return? But forget that, so you came up with an impressive $30K after 40 years. Congratulations, you get a new car after 40 years. Or do you? Will the car cost the same if you had an extra $30K?

----------


## oyarde

Who was buying cars ? I was buying silver at $5 an ounce .

----------


## MelissaWV

Too many variables.  I would like to think this place would not focus so much on the money.

Overall it would even out, but how many more could home school?  Not have to have a second income?  Be able to take their time finding a job that suits then rather than accepting whatever?  Would a small business hire an extra worker?  Would people go with a shorter workweek?

----------


## Kluge

> Too many variables.  I would like to think this place would not focus so much on the money.
> 
> Overall it would even out, but how many more could home school?  Not have to have a second income?  Be able to take their time finding a job that suits then rather than accepting whatever?  Would a small business hire an extra worker?  Would people go with a shorter workweek?


How do you even get to all that without questioning how much money the government takes from you?

----------


## MelissaWV

> How do you even get to all that without questioning how much money the government takes from you?


The hypothetical assumes money was never taken and that we have a higher income, or maybe I am reading it wrong.

If you suddenly got the money back in one fell swoop it'd be different.

I am generalizing, but personally if there were no income tax I would not be making oodles more money.  I write "exempt" at my steady job, and most of my deductions help offset what I supposedly "owe."  There's no state income tax to worry about.  What would I do with it?  Not much.  Especially if it was just over time, rather than one giant windfall.  The truth is that if people's paychecks all increased by the amount they were paying in Federal taxes, most folks would just amplify their current habits.

----------


## oyarde

My Mrs. is going to retire in Feb, work part time and continue to expand her home business , I am going to work another 14 years , I imagine, it took , us collectively , around , nearly 80 years of work to get here , would have been a hell of alot easier not just working with half our earnings ( after all taxes ) , but much more .

----------


## oyarde

In answer to the original question , I would easily have accumulated enough wealth to not work my regular job anymore , which , dang sure would have been nice !

----------


## Zippyjuan

The catch is that people seem to be assuming that they would be doing something different with their money than they currently do. If you never had to pay income taxes you would be  allocating your money in the same percentges as you currently do- buying things, saving, investing.  If you haven't saved a ton of money already, you would not have saved a ton more if you never paid any taxes (and again, about half of all income tax filers don't pay any income tax already anyways. Unless your income level is very high, you woldn't have earned much money than you have already. Unless, as Melissa points out, you were given back all of the income tax dollars you have already paid on one fell swoop.  Then and only then would you have much more of anything than you currently do.

----------


## idiom

Have you ever calculated how wealthy you would be without federal deficit spending?

----------


## oyarde

> Have you ever calculated how wealthy you would be without federal deficit spending?


 Think about oil , then gas prices ...

----------


## MelissaWV

It's not really about how wealthy you'd be.

It's about how much smaller Government would be.

----------


## Liberty74

If you - a $12 hour earner today - take your payroll tax of 7.65% and invest it each month at 20 until age 70 or about $160 a month, you will retire with over $5 million assuming a 10% yearly gain which is doable over 50 years. That number occurs without you increasing that $160 and even with the ups and down of the market. If you only get half the return, it's still not a bad number to retire on. But the later you start investing in life the harder it becomes to make a sufficient amount to retire. 

So in general, yes, I would be wealthy. I would also own the asset unlike now with SS. If you make it to that age, you get thrown on a fixed income that doesn't even pay the basic bills. And if you die before retirement, the govt simply says sorry about your luck. Isn't it Pesoli wonderful?

Side Note: I don't have kids or any mortgage deduction so the income tax definitely hurts me because I actually pay it and never receive a refund or welfare check like most families with kids.

----------


## Kluge

> If you - a $12 hour earner today - take your payroll tax of 7.65% and invest it each month at 20 until age 70 or about $160 a month, you will retire with over $5 million assuming a 10% yearly gain which is doable over 50 years. That number occurs without you increasing that $160 and even with the ups and down of the market. If you only get half the return, it's still not a bad number to retire on. But the later you start investing in life the harder it becomes to make a sufficient amount to retire. 
> 
> So in general, yes, I would be wealthy. I would also own the asset unlike now with SS. If you make it to that age, you get thrown on a fixed income that doesn't even pay the basic bills. And if you die before retirement, the govt simply says sorry about your luck. Isn't it Pesoli wonderful?
> 
> Side Note: I don't have kids or any mortgage deduction so the income tax definitely hurts me because I actually pay it and never receive a refund or welfare check like most families with kids.


That's the sort of information I was interested in. Thanks.

----------


## Weston White

> why use 4%? Where do you get a 4% guaranteed return? But forget that, so you came up with an impressive $30K after 40 years. Congratulations, you get a new car after 40 years. Or do you? Will the car cost the same if you had an extra $30K?


Personally, I am done with your idiotic posts and until further notice, I will no longer be responding to them.  Please, do yourself a favor and use your brain-power to think on your own, at least give it a go every now and then.


And to Zippy, deductions, exemptions, credits, etc., are entirely another issue all on their own, varying entirely from one person onto the next.  Deductions and the like, are designated really to serve as candy for the babes, thereby propagating the whole of the income tax scheme as its sort of virtual enabler.

Those sums were intended to serve as a basic example of what really is; however for a bit more clarification: Filing as single for TY-2011 while earning $52,000-$9,500=$42,500; for which the taxable portion is $6,756, equaling 12.99% of the originating $52,000.  Clearly, a bit larger than the above mentioned 5%.

----------


## furface

The biggest cost to the individual of the income tax isn't the nominal amount that individuals pay for the tax.  It's the problems associated with compliance, the invasion of privacy, the fact that it rewards cheats like Romney, the fact that despite claims to the contrary it is massively regressive, rewarding the wealthy and penalizing the middle class.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Personally, I am done with your idiotic posts and until further notice, I will no longer be responding to them.  Please, do yourself a favor and use your brain-power to think on your own, at least give it a go every now and then.
> 
> 
> And to Zippy, deductions, exemptions, credits, etc., are entirely another issue all on their own, varying entirely from one person onto the next.  Deductions and the like, are designated really to serve as candy for the babes, thereby propagating the whole of the income tax scheme as its sort of virtual enabler.
> 
> Those sums were intended to serve as a basic example of what really is; however for a bit more clarification: Filing as single for TY-2011 while earning $52,000-$9,500=$42,500; for which the taxable portion is $6,756, equaling 12.99% of the originating $52,000.  Clearly, a bit larger than the above mentioned 5%.


The average tax rate is critical since that determines just what you are really paying in income taxes - and thus would have if the income tax did not exist.  Let's try a tax calculator- I used this one here- http://www.calcxml.com/calculators/f...kn=#calcoutput and used only the standard deduction.   For a family of two filing jointly, the estimated tax liability came out to be $$4,005 or 7.7%. For single, one exemption it came back with $6,592 or yes, over 12%.  $52,000 is above the figure posted for incomes of "below $50,000".  For income levels of $50,000 to $74,000 it indicates an average tax rate of 7%.  Our 12% assumes no deductions taken so that would be the maximum paid by somebody in that bracket- others will have more dedictions reducing the average. 




> If you - a $12 hour earner today - take your payroll tax of 7.65% and invest it each month at 20 until age 70 or about $160 a month, you will retire with over $5 million assuming a 10% yearly gain which is doable over 50 years. That number occurs without you increasing that $160 and even with the ups and down of the market. If you only get half the return, it's still not a bad number to retire on. But the later you start investing in life the harder it becomes to make a sufficient amount to retire. 
> 
> So in general, yes, I would be wealthy. I would also own the asset unlike now with SS. If you make it to that age, you get thrown on a fixed income that doesn't even pay the basic bills. And if you die before retirement, the govt simply says sorry about your luck. Isn't it Pesoli wonderful?


So are you investing at that rate?  (that percent of your income every month- I highly doubt you can find something consistantly yielding 10% for an investment though).

----------


## Liberty74

> That's the sort of information I was interested in. Thanks.


It must also be noted that prices of *goods and services that people buy are 17 to 23% HIGHER (depending on the study) because of the income tax system*. So imagine if you were able to keep 10% or 20% more of your income if you were able to opt out of SS/Medicare and not pay the payroll tax AND imagine prices being somewhat cheaper making living more affordable. It would be up to the individual to build wealth. I sure would be able to save for a big down payment on a house/condo reducing my interest payments (wealth destruction) and/or save for retirement. I would be able to not have to use a credit card for emergencies or when booking vacation hotels because I would be able to afford it upfront. 

The income tax system also includes an interest mortgage deduction which every homeowner loves yet has proven to really benefit the top income earners. However, this deduction drives the cost of homes up by 20%. Your monthly payment becomes higher and your interest becomes a lot more. Both destroy your ability to create wealth.

----------


## oyarde

> The average tax rate is critical since that determines just what you are really paying in income taxes - and thus would have if the income tax did not exist.  Let's try a tax calculator- I used this one here- http://www.calcxml.com/calculators/f...kn=#calcoutput and used only the standard deduction.   For a family of two filing jointly, the estimated tax liability came out to be $$4,005 or 7.7%. For single, one exemption it came back with $6,592 or yes, over 12%.  $52,000 is above the figure posted for incomes of "below $50,000".  For income levels of $50,000 to $74,000 it indicates an average tax rate of 7%.  Our 12% assumes no deductions taken so that would be the maximum paid by somebody in that bracket- others will have more dedictions reducing the average. 
> 
> 
> 
> So are you investing at that rate?  (that percent of your income every month- I highly doubt you can find something consistantly yielding 10% for an investment though).


 I think I could have up to 2007 ... I think. I still will going forward ... it will just be a bit irregular ...

----------


## Zippyjuan

Could have. Seems to support my theory that unless people are already saving money, if you never had the income tax they would somehow be saving money now.  They wouldn't and so would not be in any better position today. But keep putting some away.  Don't give up on that. 




> It must also be noted that prices of goods and services that people buy are 17 to 23% HIGHER (depending on the study) because of the income tax system. So imagine if you were able to keep 10% or 20% more of your income if you were able to opt out of SS/Medicare and not pay the payroll tax AND imagine prices being somewhat cheaper making living more affordable. It would be up to the individual to build wealth. I sure would be able to save for a big down payment on a house/condo reducing my interest payments (wealth destruction) and/or save for retirement. I would be able to not have to use a credit card for emergencies or when booking vacation hotels because I would be able to afford it upfront.


If the money was being spent by people and not by the government, it would still be getting spent- and those dollars competing for goods would still drive up the prices of things you buy. If you give people more money to spend, it won't make things somehow cheaper.

----------


## osan

> The catch is that people seem to be assuming that they would be doing something different with their money than they currently do. If you never had to pay income taxes you would be  allocating your money in the same percentges as you currently do- buying things, saving, investing.  If you haven't saved a ton of money already, you would not have saved a ton more if you never paid any taxes (and again, about half of all income tax filers don't pay any income tax already anyways. Unless your income level is very high, you woldn't have earned much money than you have already. Unless, as Melissa points out, you were given back all of the income tax dollars you have already paid on one fell swoop.  Then and only then would you have much more of anything than you currently do.


I cannot speak for anyone else, but in my case you are dead wrong.  Had I not felt a need to deny the tax man his loot, I would have proceeded VERY differently in terms of my personal and professional finances.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> I cannot speak for anyone else, but in my case you are dead wrong.  Had I not felt a need to deny the tax man his loot, I would have proceeded VERY differently in terms of my personal and professional finances.


I think I would agree with you about the details but in general terms would disagree. Let me explain. In my own situation (the only one I can truely comment on) I have purchased a home.  That offered me a tax reduction of a portion of the interest I was paying.   But for me, I would have bought a home anyways. I will use the tax benefit but that was not the (or even part of the) reason for buying it.  

 I also have an IRA. Without the tax benefit, I would probably not have one.  This is where I would agree with you.  BUT...  I would have still invested into something- just not this particular tool.  I would still have invested the money.  If a person is not a saver or investor with their money already, there is no reason to think that they would have somehow saved more money if they did not have any income taxes to pay. I suspect that you too would have still made investments- just possibly different ones.  No- I cannot speak for you- only you can.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> If a person is not a saver or investor with their money already, there is no reason to think that they would have somehow saved more money if they did not have any income taxes to pay.


The problem with that observation is that it sounds like you're saying, in effect, "Many would have wasted/spent it on the usual $#@! anyway, so what's the difference?", which I suppose is in response to the "how wealthy would you be without paying it" question of the OP. I think that the assumption here is that "wealthier" automatically equates to "saved more money", or has an enlarged estate, on net.  As you said, only individuals can answer and speak for themselves, but let's stipulate that at least one person would do exactly as you said.   

For those who actually did pay taxes (did not get it back, no zero-sum game), but would have squandered the extra _non-confiscated_ income not paid in taxes, I think it can be argued that whether or not they would have been wealthier on net (have more on their balance sheet to show for it in the end) is irrelevant. Having more wealth to spend, even if on consumables, perishables, or intangibles, like education, vacations or experiences, counts as another kind of wealth altogether. Just as importantly, the market hasn't been distorted by stealing economic votes from others (broken window fallacy), who would certainly have allocated their funds differently than the state. That's not a six of one, half dozen of the other equivocation, where we ask, "What's the difference if the government squanders it or they do, because it's gone either way." It's a no-brainer if someone is given a choice between taking their kids on an extra trip to Disneyland, or sending a group of government employees anywhere else in the world for the same amount instead.    

As for those who we say did not pay taxes, on net, due to their 'refund' they got in the end, that is not a zero-sum game at all; not unless the state is offering to pay interest _for that loan_, as those people DID pay taxes when they lost the use of their ever-depreciating currency for any amount of time.

----------


## Weston White

I find many of the above assertions misleading, for the following:

1.  Values in precious metals reciprocate monetary inflation; ergo, investing in such tangible commodities (as opposed to income taxation), in the long-term, is truly wiser option.
2.  Up until a few years ago banks commonly offered high yielding termed interest bearing accounts, e.g., 18% fixed for 18-months on deposits totaling at least $25,000.
3.  Due to the present misapplication of the federal income tax, it effects a double whammy loss, taxing you at both the front-end and the back-end, while also in the short-term as well as the long-term, i.e., (1) what you take in is seized before you even realize it; (2) whatever remains is taxed moreover (regardless of what you do with it, be it to save it, spend it, lose it, donate or gift it, etc.); (3) whatever is removed from liabilities of taxation at the time due to deferment is still to be taxed upon receipt; (4) the loss incurred from the initial seizure as by the above (1), renders that individual less than whole, while obligating them to otherwise capitulate through lines of private loans and credit in order to compensate for that sustained loss, which then subjugates them into what amounts to a method of unyielding private taxation due to accruing interest rates; and (5) the ultimate “endgame” result of this entire process is that it serves to strip away the individual’s right to arrange for their own financial affairs, while also perpetually demeaning them and converting their liquidity to the benefit of others, and instead relegates those powers to the government and to whatever private entities that are favored by the government at the time.
4.  Regardless, as to state that in any case, such a tax upon individuals is blatantly unconstitutional.

----------


## Weston White

> The problem with that observation is that it sounds like you're saying, in effect, "Many would have wasted/spent it on the usual $#@! anyway, so what's the difference?", which I suppose is in response to the "how wealthy would you be without paying it" question of the OP. I think that the assumption here is that "wealthier" automatically equates to "saved more money", or has an enlarged estate, on net.  As you said, only individuals can answer and speak for themselves, but let's stipulate that at least one person would do exactly as you said.   
> 
> For those who actually did pay taxes (did not get it back, no zero-sum game), but would have squandered the extra _non-confiscated_ income not paid in taxes, I think it can be argued that whether or not they would have been wealthier on net (have more on their balance sheet to show for it in the end) is irrelevant. Having more wealth to spend, even if on consumables, perishables, or intangibles, like education, vacations or experiences, counts as another kind of wealth altogether. Just as importantly, the market hasn't been distorted by stealing economic votes from others (broken window fallacy), who would certainly have allocated their funds differently than the state. That's not a six of one, half dozen of the other equivocation, where we ask, "What's the difference if the government squanders it or they do, because it's gone either way." It's a no-brainer if someone is given a choice between taking their kids on an extra trip to Disneyland, or sending a group of government employees anywhere else in the world for the same amount instead.    
> 
> As for those who we say did not pay taxes, on net, due to their 'refund' they got in the end, that is not a zero-sum game at all; not unless the state is offering to pay interest _for that loan_, as those people DID pay taxes when they lost the use of their ever-depreciating currency for any amount of time.


This I think sums the issue up very well.  Also to note, that is exactly how the federal income tax withholding scheme, i.e., stoppage at the source, was marketed during legislative committee meetings, as a "forced loan".

----------


## oyarde

Reminds me of a post card I sent my Uncle in Pheonix , something to the effect that I spent most of my money on beer and women , the rest I just wasted

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Without the income tax, and the rest of gov't wealth consumption/destruction, we would be a lot wealthier.  A *LOT* wealthier.

To put it in everyday, more practical terms: half of everything we make -- to be precise, 47% or our income -- is taken from us in the form of income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and so forth. To add insult to injury, half of what we spend evaporates the same way, not spent on the quantity or quality of the goods and services we think we're paying for, but wasted on corporate taxes, inventory taxes, and that sort of thing.

         What's even worse, according to economist Arthur Laffer, the burden of complying with socialist regulations doubles the price of everything again, so that we're spending eight times as much as we should need to, to acquire life's necessities and luxuries. Every day, we run on one eighth of our real capacity, while right-wing and left-wing socialists greedily gobble up the remaining seven eighths of our substance, not to mention our opportunities, our futures, and our children's futures.

         To get the merest glimmering of what it would be like were that not so, in a tax-free, regulation-free civilization, without changing anything else, we would immediately have eight times the real wealth that we presently enjoy. In the most direct of terms, this means that the Rocky Mountain News I used, in part, to write this speech would have cost me 4 cents instead of 35 cents (6 cents "in designated areas" instead of 50 cents), or for the same 4 cents I could have bought a package of Jell-o or a can of Bush's Baked beans -- he may have been a lousy President, but his beans are terrific.

         I could have had a Klondike bar for 6 cents, two liters of Coke to wash it down for 11 cents, 32 ounces of Gatorade for 12 cents, two rolls of paper towels to tidy up (I'm a messy eater, what can I say?) for 13 cents, and almond cookies for dessert, eighteen for 16 cents.

         In a tax-free, regulation-free civilization, a Budget Gourmet dinner costs 19 cents, Eggo waffles are 22 cents a box, hamburger is 23 cents a pound, and bacon is 24 cents. Coke products -- a 12-pack is 35 cents, Tyson boneless chicken is 36 cents, a 64-ounce carton of orange juice is 36 cents, Oscar Mayer wieners are two packages for 38 cents, and top sirloin steak is 49 cents a pound. Tylenol caplets are 24 for 55 cents.

         A little more generally, in a tax-free, regulation-free civilization, an electronic telephone beeper will cost you 62 cents, a disposable 35mm camera, 75 cents, .45 automatic ammunition is $1.28 per box. Disposable diapers are 72 for $1.49, just like the latest CD album. Unlimited internet access is $1.50 a month, the latest VHS cassette [this was written in the 90s] is $1.87, and a pair of mink earmuffs are on sale today at Dick Kaye's for $1.88.

         In a tax-free, regulation-free civilization, ski lift tickets are $2.63, golf shoes are $3.63 a pair, cell phone service is $3.74 a month. A four drawer chest from American Furniture goes for $4.75, orchestra tickets to Miss Saigon for $5 (front balcony seats are $2.50) and a glass-top dinette, 5 pieces, costs $12.38. A white metal daybed and mattress are $17.38, a round-trip ticket from Denver to Mazatlan is $18.63, and a complete set of golf clubs (to go with those shoes) is $22.38. A Remington Model 870 shotgun is $27.48, a "traditional" sofa goes for the very untraditional price of $36, and a Glock 21 9mm pistol is $53.74.

         In a tax-free, regulation-free civilization, a 133 mhz Pentium w/color monitor, 1.6 Gbyte hard-drive and 6X CD ROM will cost you $299, a '96 Neon, $1112.25, and a '96 Plymouth Voyager is $2111. The average American home goes for $12,500, and that Winnebago -- a 37' '96 "Luxor" you thought you could never afford -- will set you back $19,862. (I had no idea those things were so expensive!)

          Some items, in a tax-free, regulation-free civilization, beer, for example, or whiskey or cigarettes, are harder to calculate because of the excise taxes levied against them. For Japanese cars, for example, you'd have to subtract an average of $4000 import duty before dividing what's left over by eight. I think gasoline would cost about 11 cents a gallon, in a tax-free, regulation-free civilization.

         Another way to look at this is to take your present income, multiply it by eight, and think about the lifestyle that would make possible. (Within the constraints of an action-adventure plot, I tried doing this in 1979 with my first novel, The Probability Broach and will make rather more of it in 1999 with The American Zone. ) If you earn, say, $20,124, which is what the average Coloradoan makes, that will give you the real-wealth equivalent of $160,992 to spend every year. If you make $35,306, which is what the average federal bureaucrat in Colorado makes, think about an equivalent income of $282,448. I have friends who make about half that, and (at least from the viewpoint of an impecunious novelist) in terms of their houses, their cars, vacations, and other everyday concerns, they might as well live on another planet.

         I'd like to try living on that planet, myself. How would you like to make more than a quarter of a million dollars a year? How would you like to live in a civilization where everybody does, and as a result, splendid new things happen every day, and nobody can predict what wonders tomorrow will bring? Space elevators, nerve and limb regeneration, a cure for cancer, a transatlantic tunnel (hurrah!), anything. The possibilities are absolutely endless.

         This is not speculation.

         This is not wishful thinking.

         This is not fantasy.

         It is an absolute, pragmatic certainty, securely rooted beyond the power of anybody's reasonable ability to doubt it, in the principles of individual liberty, the laws of economics, and the history of America's first 200 years.

From an article at http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle1996/le960509.html .  Long-term, Smith's calculation underestimates the impact of the state significantly, because it's the growth trajectory that really counts, that really determines how wealthy a society is.  Without the state engaging in the massive destruction of massive amounts of wealth and resources every single year, the economy might be growing, say, eight times faster than it was in the 1990s (right now of course, it's not growing at all).  And that difference in growth rates compounds and compounds and compounds, until after 30 years we enjoy a living standard 100 times higher than that which we would have had if we hadn't scrapped the state.  In 100 years the difference would be a factor of about 50 million.

So yeah, I would be a lot richer.  The bum on the street would be a lot richer.  We all would be dizzyingly, radically, empoweringly rich.

----------


## VBRonPaulFan

> For 46% of income tax filers, it won't make any difference since that is the pecent who end up owning no income taxes.  
> 
> http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/26/pf/t...-tax/index.htm


actually, it would make a lot of difference. since most of that 46% get refunds via tax credits - they'd actually be less wealthy without the system.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> actually, it would make a lot of difference. since most of that 46% get refunds via tax credits - they'd actually be less wealthy without the system.


 This is:

a) incorrect, and
b) shortsighted

For the population not paying net income taxes, they still are having the price of everything they buy driven up -- approximately doubled -- by the crippling taxes paid by the individuals and businesses selling them goods and services.  Also, the prices are doubled again by the crippling totalitarian micromanagement (called "regulations") the state imposes on everything and everyone.

Far more importantly, it's the long-term growth trajectory that's the key.  Let's take someone whose entire income depends upon the state -- someone like a welfare mother or a Boeing executive.  The state is eliminated, their income goes to zero.  True.  They now have no additional stream of wealth coming in for them to consume, so no matter how cheap goods are it doesn't help them because they can't buy any... _until_ they: get a job!  Previously, they were doing nothing the market considered at all worthwhile, meaning they were just destroyers of wealth.  Now, they can join the ranks of the productive.

And that's the huge difference.  Right now millions upon millions upon millions of people (just in the U.S.) are devoting their lives to destroying the economy.  Yes, they are spending their entire lives, every day, day after day, destroying the wealth created by you and me. Trillions of dollars -- that is, billions of man-hours -- that is, millions of irreplaceable lives of human beings -- are being squandered, wasted, burned, in that enormous bonfire that is the state.

Time to put out the fire.

----------


## Nickels

> Think about oil , then gas prices ...


http://www.wtop.com/41/2758293/Compa...ices-are-cheap

That must mean Norway is in either greater deficit spending, higher inflation, lower oil production, right?

----------


## Nickels

> If you - a $12 hour earner today - take your payroll tax of 7.65% and invest it each month at 20 until age 70 or about $160 a month, you will retire with over $5 million assuming a 10% yearly gain which is doable over 50 years.


Why stop at $160 a month? Why not save $1600 a month, that way you'll have $50M after 50 years.
Or why do you assume you'll only gain 10%? Why not 50%? I mean, if we're gonna wait 50 years to cash out and assume guaranteed gain. 
I've heard this ridiculous argument before, the problem is, NOTHING gives you guaranteed 10% gain. And nobody waits 50 years to cash out their investment. 
This is the argument Dave Ramsey uses to fool people into investing in stock and mutual funds, misleading people into thinking that buying a new car today will cost them millions of dollars 40 years from now. 




> That number occurs without you increasing that $160 and even with the ups and down of the market.


That's the problem, how can "ups and downs of the market" ensure you continue to earn 10% return each year? 




> If you only get half the return, it's still not a bad number to retire on.


What's a bad number to retire on? $1M? $500K? I could argue that I am saving that money today, and I have a "not bad number to retire on". 




> But the later you start investing in life the harder it becomes to make a sufficient amount to retire. 
> 
> So in general, yes, I would be wealthy. I would also own the asset unlike now with SS. If you make it to that age, you get thrown on a fixed income that doesn't even pay the basic bills.


What are basic bills when you've got your house paid off and guaranteed medical care? Food, utilities, property taxes?




> And if you die before retirement, the govt simply says sorry about your luck. Isn't it Pesoli wonderful?
> 
> Side Note: I don't have kids or any mortgage deduction so the income tax definitely hurts me because I actually pay it and never receive a refund or welfare check like most families with kids.


Feel free to have kids if you think you'll earn money that way.

----------


## Nickels

> Could have. Seems to support my theory that unless people are already saving money, if you never had the income tax they would somehow be saving money now.  They wouldn't and so would not be in any better position today. But keep putting some away.  Don't give up on that. 
> 
> If the money was being spent by people and not by the government, it would still be getting spent- and those dollars competing for goods would still drive up the prices of things you buy. If you give people more money to spend, it won't make things somehow cheaper.


The idea that more money means more money doesn't seem to click in some minds here. They understand the idea of "Lost money is lost money regardless of where it went and who took it", but their shut off when you tell them "Extra money is extra money regardless of where it came from".

----------


## Nickels

> The problem with that observation is that it sounds like you're saying, in effect, "Many would have wasted/spent it on the usual $#@! anyway, so what's the difference?"


Yes, that is what he is saying. Because it's not illegal to save and invest now. Those who claim they can find a 10% consistent yearly investment, don't seem to be taking out loans to do it. Most Americans are in debt today, whether mortgage, car loan, student debt, credit card, not because there's an income tax, but because they chose to take out most of these debts. If having 30% more of their income was really a deal breaker, you'd see people behave quite differently, instead, you don't. Only people who are broke, paranoid or choose to be scapegoating monetary policy would "notice" the taxation that's hurting them.

This is why people jump up and down when gas prices increase by 50 cents, but do not shop every year for cheaper rent. Bottom line is this, people are not fiscally responsible or money smart because of taxation. People are not more generous or less generous because of taxation. Taxation, as evil as it is, is part of life and it's an expense, you don't have to be happy to accept it, but there's no need to blame everything you don't have on it. And it's silly to dream that "if only I didn't have to pay taxes, I'd be a millionaire by now".

----------


## Nickels

> Too many variables.  I would like to think this place would not focus so much on the money.
> 
> Overall it would even out, but how many more could home school?  Not have to have a second income?  Be able to take their time finding a job that suits then rather than accepting whatever?  Would a small business hire an extra worker?  Would people go with a shorter workweek?


I agree overall it would even out. I am not concerned about people who want the luxuries of "homeschool, live on one income, find the job they love, hire an extra person, work less", that's all a matter of planning. Of course more money would make it easier for many to have such conveniences, but those who actually value these things, can do it today.

----------


## idiom

My point about the deficit spending seems to have been lost....

Deficit spending in the American system requires borrowing. The borrowing sucks up all the capital that would normally chase new business ventures and other investments. It also tends to drive inflation and retard the growth of the economy by pulling forward growth from the future and blowing it now.

How much better off would we all be without severe mal-investment crippling the economy?

----------


## Steven Douglas

> How much better off would we all be without severe mal-investment crippling the economy?


That's the real question.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> severe mal-investment


 The mal-investment caused by the business cycle, which is caused by fractional reserve banking, that mal-investment is indeed catastrophic and wasteful.  However, at least it is investment of some kind, investment which (at least in the judgments of the entrepreneurs making the investments) could have been productive and beneficial (and thus profitable) _if_ the conditions actually existed of which the artificially low interest rates created the illusion.  And much of it will be salvaged in the correction and put to some productive use, though not as productive as originally intended.

An even bigger drain on the economy is the massive siphoning off of wealth into the almost-totally unproductive monster we call the state.  Talk about a mal-investment -- it's an anti-investment!  All of this wealth would have either been invested or used in some way to improve someone's life (in their own judgment).  

A couple of you are complaining that "oh, people wouldn't be wealthier; they'd just blow it all buying proportionally more stuff."  Well doesn't that mean they'd be wealthier?  What does it mean to be wealthy?  They would be getting more of the worldly goods and comforts which are important to them.  Sounds to me like they would be wealthier.

Some people have high time preference; some have low time preference.  Those with very high time preference will indeed not start saving just because they have more money at their disposal.  That does not necessarily change their time preference.  (It may for some, but this depends on the individual.)  This is also why, for example, someone living paycheck-to-paycheck all their life who suddenly wins the lottery will almost invariably be broke again in very short order.  Repealing the income tax won't decrease these people's time preference.

But neither will it increase the time preference of those with low time preference.  Those who save will continue to save.  People in aggregate save and invest some percentage of their wealth.  Increasing the amount of wealth available to the people, by ceasing to steal and destroy it, will not necessarily cause them to save a _lower_ percentage of their wealth.  Why would it?

So I think it's conservative to say that the percentage rate of saving/investing will at least remain the same if the income tax were lowered or eliminated.  Since eliminating the income tax would quickly -- in a very few years -- free up trillions of dollars worth of wealth to be used for actually useful endeavors rather than being wasted and destroyed by the state, many hundreds of billions of that (however much people's current time preferences make them want to save) will be saved.  That will change the economy's trajectory and improve everyone's lives for the better -- even those who save _nothing -- not one penny_!  This improvement will become more and more dramatic the more time goes on.

----------


## Travlyr

> The mal-investment caused by the business cycle, which is caused by fractional reserve banking, that mal-investment is indeed catastrophic and wasteful.  However, at least it is investment of some kind, investment which (at least in the judgments of the entrepreneurs making the investments) could have been productive and beneficial (and thus profitable) _if_ the conditions actually existed of which the artificially low interest rates created the illusion.  And much of it will be salvaged in the correction and put to some productive use, though not as productive as originally intended.
> 
> An even bigger drain on the economy is the massive siphoning off of wealth into the almost-totally unproductive monster we call the state.  Talk about a mal-investment -- it's an anti-investment!  All of this wealth would have either been invested or used in some way to improve someone's life (in their own judgment).  
> 
> A couple of you are complaining that "oh, people wouldn't be wealthier; they'd just blow it all buying proportionally more stuff."  Well doesn't that mean they'd be wealthier?  What does it mean to be wealthy?  They would be getting more of the worldly goods and comforts which are important to them.  Sounds to me like they would be wealthier.
> 
> Some people have high time preference; some have low time preference.  Those with very high time preference will indeed not start saving just because they have more money at their disposal.  That does not necessarily change their time preference.  (It may for some, but this depends on the individual.)  This is also why, for example, someone living paycheck-to-paycheck all their life who suddenly wins the lottery will almost invariably be broke again in very short order.  Repealing the income tax won't decrease these people's time preference.
> 
> But neither will it increase the time preference of those with low time preference.  Those who save will continue to save.  People in aggregate save and invest some percentage of their wealth.  Increasing the amount of wealth available to the people, by ceasing to steal and destroy it, will not necessarily cause them to save a _lower_ percentage of their wealth.  Why would it?
> ...


While I find your contributions insightful and helpful, it is my opinion that your analysis is only valid with sound monetary policy. We currently must endure central banking fiat currency which will not deliver the same results under your analysis as sound money would deliver.

----------


## Seraphim

No point calculating it - the number is an exponential function. Literally. Sad, but true.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> While I find your contributions insightful and helpful, it is my opinion that your analysis is only valid with sound monetary policy. We currently must endure central banking fiat currency which will not deliver the same results under your analysis as sound money would deliver.


 Travlyr, think in terms of real resources.  Real wealth.  Tangible stuff, like bricks, and fiber optic cable, created by the time and energies of real people with limited lifespans.

There is X total amount of this wealth that has been built up over the generations -- the "store of capital" -- and Xsub1 amount of new wealth created each year.

If 5 trillion dollars of wealth is created in 2012, and the state siphons off 3 trillion, that leaves society with only 2 trillion on which to survive, feed itself, in short sustain life, and (then if anything is left over) invest in things which will lead to improvements in quality of life.  By the way, right now we are actually eating away at our store of capital, a store which took centuries to accumulate, and long-term this will have catastrophic results.  Anyway, if the state instead siphons off nothing or next to nothing, then the people have a full 5 trillion dollars of wealth on which to survive and thrive every year.  That is true even if there still is fiat money and central banking.

Inflating fiat money is just one way to steal.  A particularly insidious and sneaky way.  But not the only way.  And a state could (in theory) have a fiat money and not inflate it, because they have no spending they need to finance.  So in the end, though perhaps you want to focus on _one particular transfer method_ of removing wealth from the free sector and placing it in the murder-pillage-and-destruction sector, fundamentally the root of the problems comes down to the fact that _wealth is being eaten_ by the murder-pillage-and-destruction sector.  How the wealth gets there is of concern and interest, but the spending is the heart of everything.  If the devouring continues, the fuel will be gotten, some way, somehow.  If the devouring stops, the damage to the economy stops, that's all there is to it.

----------


## Travlyr

> Travlyr, think in terms of real resources.  Real wealth.  Tangible stuff, like bricks, and fiber optic cable, created by the time and energies of real people with limited lifespans.
> 
> There is X total amount of this wealth that has been built up over the generations -- the "store of capital" -- and Xsub1 amount of new wealth created each year.


Those are the terms I am thinking in ... capital is real sound money wealth.




> If 5 trillion dollars of wealth is created in 2012, and the state siphons off 3 trillion, that leaves society with only 2 trillion on which to survive, feed itself, in short sustain life, and (then if anything is left over) invest in things which will lead to improvements in quality of life.


No, it does not leave society with only 2 trillion on which to survive. It leaves productive people with only 2 trillion, but the state redistributes the other 3 trillion among themselves and their pet projects, so the wealth remains at 5 trillion. The difference is in who gets to control the spending. The state picks their favorite winners and losers with the other 3 trillion.




> By the way, right now we are actually eating away at our store of capital, a store which took centuries to accumulate, and long-term this will have catastrophic results.


I disagree with this too. If capital is defined as valuable goods and services, then America still has plenty of that. Government controls most of it, but capital is still being accumulated. Each year there are more cars, houses, food, etc.  




> Anyway, if the state instead siphons off nothing or next to nothing, then the people have a full 5 trillion dollars of wealth on which to survive and thrive every year.  That is true even if there still is fiat money and central banking.


Right. The same holds true if the state siphons off all 5 trillion. In that case, the state would pick all the winners and losers. Again, the difference is who controls it.




> Inflating fiat money is just one way to steal.  A particularly insidious and sneaky way.  But not the only way.


It is more than that. It is about control. Whoever controls the money supply controls the people. If you are in control of your own money supply, then you get your freedom. If everyone controlled their own money supply, then the state would be very small and be controlled by the people. But it would still exist. 




> And a state could (in theory) have a fiat money and not inflate it, because they have no spending they need to finance.


In theory, yes. But who among us will control our spending if we didn't have to? No one. So in fact, fiat money and inflation are always two peas in a pod. 




> So in the end, though perhaps you want to focus on _one particular transfer method_ of removing wealth from the free sector and placing it in the murder-pillage-and-destruction sector, fundamentally the root of the problems comes down to the fact that _wealth is being eaten_ by the murder-pillage-and-destruction sector.


I focus on honest sound money, 100% redeemable because it removes control of the money supply from the state and puts it in the hands of productive individuals. Productive individuals become wealthy, if they want, and the state becomes poor.




> How the wealth gets there is of concern and interest, but the spending is the heart of everything.  If the devouring continues, the fuel will be gotten, some way, somehow.  If the devouring stops, the damage to the economy stops, that's all there is to it.


This is why a proper definition of the state is so important in discussions. The state as defined in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution is a state that I will fight to keep until someone comes up with a more efficient method of holding land ownership deeds. I also like the roads being public property in order to maintain the integrity of trespassing laws. But that is just me. I understand that a lot of people want to privatize everything, so I digress.

The state can be small, and it would be small under sound money principles because people would resist handing over silver or gold to pay taxes. For example, if a truck driver hauls debris from a construction site and the owner of the site hands him some silver dollars for his work, do you think the driver should accurately report that to the IRS? I'd take it home and put it in my safe and never tell anyone that I worked that day. Reporting requirements are all due to the fiat money system.

----------


## TheBlackPeterSchiff

I would definitely invest and save more.

----------


## Danan

> http://www.wtop.com/41/2758293/Compa...ices-are-cheap
> 
> That must mean Norway is in either greater deficit spending, higher inflation, lower oil production, right?




That's mostly due to taxes.

----------


## Liberty74

Here is another...

If a 25 year old invests just $100 a month until age 70, he or she will have $1.6 million. The compounding rate of return doesn't happen until the later years, hence investing initially can be a downing. 

How many of you think SS will give you that rate of return?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Those are the terms I am thinking in ... capital is real sound money wealth.


 Money and capital are two different things.  The only time gold is capital is if it is being used as such, for instance, it is being used for its electrical properties in a machine.






> No, it does not leave society with only 2 trillion on which to survive. It leaves productive people with only 2 trillion, but the state redistributes the other 3 trillion among themselves and their pet projects, so the wealth remains at 5 trillion.


The vast majority of what the state produces is not wealth.  It does not increase well-being.  Thus it is not wealth.  The tiny amount that _is_, is counterweighed 100 times over by the production of things which positively decrease well-being.





> I disagree with this too. If capital is defined as valuable goods and services, then America still has plenty of that.


 That is not exactly what capital is defined as, no.  Capital is the structure built up that is used in, ultimately, producing consumer goods which are something different.  Capital and consumer goods are two separate categories of wealth.

You start with a hammer, which makes it easier to break open the coconut.  You end up with the dust-proof factory making the chips that go in the robot that makes the robot that makes the robot that automatically opens the coconut, presses the oil, and packages it up.  

Capital wears out and breaks down, so unless you're saving and investing as a society, your capital supply is going to dwindle.  For a country with a huge capital structure like America, it requires a lot of saving to maintain it at that level, much less expand it.  Remind me: what's the savings rate in America?





> Right. The same holds true if the state siphons off all 5 trillion. In that case, the state would pick all the winners and losers. Again, the difference is who controls it.


 The difference is that in one case the resource (5 trillion dollars) is destroyed, creating no wealth, and if this practice is kept up for long enough and with 100% of all resources, everyone just dies, since humans require wealth to survive.





> then the state would be very small and be controlled by the people. But it would still exist.


 A state is, by definition, not under control by anyone.  Certainly not "the people."  Ha!  The group of people we call a state are not subject to anyone else's control.  They have claimed and in large part attained a monopoly on final decision making.  That is what makes them a state.





> In theory, yes. But who among us will control our spending if we didn't have to? No one. So in fact, fiat money and inflation are always two peas in a pod.


 Oh absolutely.





> I focus on honest sound money, 100% redeemable


 I prefer to go one step further as much as practical and make money not "redeemable" for the thing of value at all, but simply and directly the thing itself.  A gold coin and silver coin money system is excellent for that.  Forget redeemable, it's already redeemed.  It was never un-deemed!  It's always been there, right in your little hot hand.  This removes all possibility for fraud and embezzlement.  If there's a 3rd party storing the value, there's always that risk (though it can be minimized on a free market by good governance practices and ruthless competition).




> because it removes control of the money supply from the state and puts it in the hands of productive individuals. Productive individuals become wealthy, if they want, and the state becomes poor.


 It is nice to see thieves poor.  I, however, prefer even more to put an end to their thievery.  That is important to me.





> This is why a proper definition of the state is so important in discussions. The state as defined in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution is a state that I will fight to keep until someone comes up with a more efficient method of holding land ownership deeds.


 There's at least a half a dozen people who have done so.  Did you really read _For a New Liberty_ in its entirety?




> I also like the roads being public property in order to maintain the integrity of trespassing laws.


 What do you mean by "public property"?  Do you mean state property?  Because if so, it's hard for me to understand why giving thieves such absolute control over people's trade, commerce, travel, and even daily movements could possibly be a good idea.




> But that is just me. I understand that a lot of people want to privatize everything, so I digress.


 Since the subject of the thread is the extent to which systemic thievery impoverishes us, it is hardly a digression.  Some of us just believe thievery is an undesirable behavior.  Religiously wrong, morally outrageous, ethically abhorrent, economically inefficient, historically destructive -- there are many different reasons for people to be opposed to thievery, but what we all have in common is that we want thievery to end.  Join us, will you?  The alternative is to be forever an apologist for thieves (and also, by the way, for control freaks, rapers, psychopaths, and mass murderers).  Give it up, they're no good, they don't deserve your defense.




> The state can be small, and it would be small under sound money principles because people would resist handing over silver or gold to pay taxes.


 People do not resist being robbed as much as you imply, largely because they, like you, believe it to be for their own good  They in fact are out-and-out defenders of their own victimization, and will usually become first confused, then frazzled, then blazingly furious if you attempt to explain to them that theft should end.  Until their attitude changes, it seems unlikely that their situation will change.




> For example, if a truck driver hauls debris from a construction site and the owner of the site hands him some silver dollars for his work, do you think the driver should accurately report that to the IRS? I'd take it home and put it in my safe and never tell anyone that I worked that day.


 If you see something, say something.  Social pressure can be a tremendous force.  People will tattle on one another.  When a system they love and adore is being undermined, when someone is "cheating," well, Americans hate cheaters.  These believers in theft -- believers like you, Travlyr -- _will_ report the outrage to their beloved theft-collectors.  You would too, Travlyr.  After all, your deadbeat neighbor isn't paying his share for your beloved public road, a legitimate and unquestionable object for theft.




> Reporting requirements are all due to the fiat money system.


 No they are not.  Reporting requirements would be just as viable with silver coins as with nickel coins, or with paper notes.  All of these are untraced and anonymous.  But do retail stores still collect sales tax on cash purchases?  Yes, indeed they do.  The problem is that crooks are stealing.  And the problem is that the people they are robbing _want_ to be robbed, and believe they _should_ be robbed, and in fact believe they _must_ be robbed, else various dire and disastrous consequences will ensue.

It's quite sad, really.

----------


## Travlyr

> It's quite sad, really.


The really sad part is that you will never win your liberty, peace, or prosperity with that concept. 

I actually take the liberty to think for myself. I disagree with Rothbard about the existence of the state. I think it is fairy tale land to work to eliminate it. I do not see the state like you do at all. Is that okay with you?

Ron Paul, Mises, and others are right. Lack of proper government is the problem we face today. We should be forcing the president, congress, and government at all levels to obey the law. We are not doing that so the result is that they rule over us. Do you notice their resistance to obey the rule of law?



> "The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace." - Ludwig von Mises


And the best government every designed was this,




> On the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives
> September 23, 2004
> 
> Remarks on the Constitution by U.S. Congressman Ron Paul
> 
> "The U.S. Constitution is the most unique and best contract ever drawn up between a people and their government in history. Though flawed from the beginning, because all men are flawed, it nevertheless has served us well and set an example for the entire world. Yet no matter how hard the authors tried, the corrupting influence of power was not thwarted by the Constitution.
> 
> The notion of separate state and local government, championed by the followers of Jefferson, was challenged by the Hamiltonians almost immediately following the ratification of the Constitution. Early on, the supporters of strong, centralized government promoted central banking, easy credit, protectionism/mercantilism, and subsidies for corporate interests.
> 
> ...


It is just unfortunate that not enough people understand it to obey it. If we did obey it, then the police state, war economy, welfare state would not be possible.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Are you opposed to all theft?

No matter what?

----------


## Travlyr

> Are you opposed to all theft?
> 
> No matter what?


No, I'm not. Are you really? No matter what? It all depends upon your definition of theft. Do you pick-up a quarter you see lying on the ground and put it in your pocket? It is not yours.

I grew up on a farm. We all had to pitch-in and do our chores in order to raise crops and livestock. Some of my siblings worked harder and more hours than others. Is that theft? Yes. It is minor theft. The gray area. Grandma and Grandpa sat around and didn't do much farm work at all, but they got to eat, stay warm, and dry too. Me and my siblings all got the same pay... food, housing, and clothing.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> No, I'm not.


 That is a moral failing.




> Are you really? No matter what?


 Yes.  Really and no matter what.




> It all depends upon your definition of theft. Do you pick-up a quarter you see lying on the ground and put it in your pocket? It is not yours.


 Clearly your definition of theft is lousy.  A long-lost quarter will be, in most situations, abandoned property.  You can't steal something which has been abandoned and thus has no owner.  You homestead it.

Taking this principle even further is the dumpster-diver.  This is a perfectly legitimate activity, and definitely in no way engaging in theft.  The former owner has signaled to the world, via accepted convention, that he no longer wants whatever he put in the dumpster.  Taking it is no longer theft.




> I grew up on a farm. We all had to pitch-in and do our chores in order to raise crops and livestock. Some of my siblings worked harder and more hours than others. Is that theft? Yes. It is minor theft.


 It is in no way theft.  It is up to the owner of the business (in this case the head of the family) to decide how much to compensate his workers and how or if to monitor them to judge how much value their labor is providing him.




> Grandma and Grandpa sat around and didn't do much farm work at all, but they got to eat, stay warm, and dry too.


 Oh, were they sneaking in at night or holding your father at gun point?  They were taking these amenities from the owner against his will, yes?  Because, umm, that's what theft is.  Taking someone else's stuff without his permission.




> Me and my siblings all got the same pay... food, housing, and clothing.


  Again, this was without your father's permission?  You seem to have confused "taking someone else's stuff _without_ his permission" with "getting someone else's stuff _with_ his permission."  Understandable.  Easy mistake to make, but I trust now that it's been pointed out to you, you will correct your thinking.

It's interesting that you have chosen to defend the state not by claiming that they are not stealing.  Nor even by questioning the morality or immorality of stealing.  No, you have gone all the way down, as far as you could go, and attacked the legitimacy of morality itself!  "Absolutely morality itself doesn't exist!", you say.  After all, your brother was lazy.  That proves it.  And your mom picked up a penny in the parking lot.  Any doubt left lingering after the lazy-brother proof should be wiped out altogether by this decisive blow.

----------


## Travlyr

I am okay with you stealing someone else's quarter and having you justify it as homesteading it if that makes you feel better. 

When you get really old, and the state is still around, you can look back on your life and accept the fact that it would have been easier to accept its existence, and work with that fact of life, than fight it. You really don't have to live an angry life.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> I disagree with Rothbard about the existence of the state. I think it is fairy tale land to work to eliminate it.


I find it interesting that I agree with both of you, at least in part, in principle.  The only conflict, or conundrum that I see, has nothing to do with my values or beliefs, but rather an acknowledgment of the reality of _the natures_ of others.  

In the absence of a state there will always be a Napoleon who will claim to have found a crown lying on the ground. All that little ambitious man has to do is get one more to second his self-nomination, and yet another to enforce it, and subjugate me into that grouping, with or without my consent.  A state is nothing more than a very organized gang, and human nature is such that we will ALWAYS tend to form packs, no differently than dogs and other social animals.  Thus, the existence of the state as a "whether-or-not-we-should" is not even a question for me.  So while I see a stateless society as an ideal, I don't believe in it, and would never place any faith in it (unless it's just me, out in the wilderness, and there's always that too, to whatever extent). 

I had a friend years back who could not conceive of a relationship that is simply one of mutual respect.  Someone had to be dominant, or master.  And we freely talked about it.  I told him, point blank, that I wasn't interested in being master or slave, but if he insisted on this paradigm, it was a guarantee that he would end up the slave, not me.   

Since I believe that states will always, naturally, invariably form and exist, I can conceive of no other way to preempt or limit the damage of a state except by saying, "If a state is inevitable (which I believe it is), let it be one of my influence and making, if but to keep yours at bay."  I see a _prior state_ as a requirement, if but for no other purpose than to serve as a placeholder; a thing to show that the "state void" is already occupied. No void to fill. 

And I'm not so naive, either, as to think that because I deliberately invoked the genie, and unleashed it from its bottle, that I'm somehow its default master, or an exception to anything at all.  I know it's a "Feed Me, Seymour!" Little Shop of Horrors from its inception.  It's a pet alligator. You can raise it for years, but don't ever think it won't think twice about snapping down and putting you into a death roll.  There is no benevolence in states. Only in individuals, and only at times.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I am okay with you stealing someone else's quarter and having you justify it as homesteading it if that makes you feel better.


 See, you're just trying to undermine all morality.  "You're stealing, he's stealing, we're all stealing: why worry about it?"

Do you believe in absolute morality, Jonathan?  Do you believe in right and wrong?




> When you get really old, and the state is still around, you can look back on your life and accept the fact that it would have been easier to accept its existence, and work with that fact of life, than fight it.


 I accept the state's existence.  I work with that fact of life.  Why is that incompatible with opposing theft?  I see no contradiction nor difficulty.  In fact, it is difficult to see how (and why) one would fight something which one does not believe to exist.

Do you accept the state's existence?  Really _accept_ it?  Or are you _hiding_ from its true nature, unwilling to confront the truth?





> You really don't have to live an angry life.


 Are you living an angry life because you hate counterfeiting?  Or are you living a happy and fulfilling life and simply happen to oppose the evil of theft via counterfeiting?

I oppose all theft.  Does this mean I live an angry life?  Where is the causality there?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> human nature is such that we will ALWAYS tend to form packs, no differently than dogs and other social animals.  Thus, the existence of the state as a "whether-or-not-we-should" is not even a question for me.


 We have not always had states.  The feudal system of Europe in the middle ages was predominantly voluntary.  The king did not have a coercively-enforced monopoly on adjudication.

http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=66

The natural order is not egalitarian, and it is not atomistic, but neither is the state part of it.  The state is an aberration from the natural order.  People form tribes and other groupings and organizations (packs if you prefer), yes, but that doesn't mean states.

----------


## Travlyr

> I find it interesting that I agree with both of you, at least in part, in principle.  The only conflict, or conundrum that I see, has nothing to do with my values or beliefs, but rather an acknowledgment of the reality of _the natures_ of others.  
> 
> In the absence of a state there will always be a Napoleon who will claim to have found a crown lying on the ground. All that little ambitious man has to do is get one more to second his self-nomination, and yet another to enforce it, and subjugate me into that grouping, with or without my consent.  A state is nothing more than a very organized gang, and human nature is such that we will ALWAYS tend to form packs, no differently than dogs and other social animals.  Thus, the existence of the state as a "whether-or-not-we-should" is not even a question for me.  So while I see a stateless society as an ideal, I don't believe in it, and would never place any faith in it (unless it's just me, out in the wilderness, and there's always that too, to whatever extent). 
> 
> I had a friend years back who could not conceive of a relationship that is simply one of mutual respect.  Someone had to be dominant, or master.  And we freely talked about it.  I told him, point blank, that I wasn't interested in being master or slave, but if he insisted on this paradigm, it was a guarantee that he would end up the slave, not me.   
> 
> Since I believe that states will always, naturally, invariably form and exist, I can conceive of no other way to preempt or limit the damage of a state except by saying, "If a state is inevitable (which I believe it is), let it be one of my influence and making, if but to keep yours at bay."  I see a _prior state_ as a requirement, if but for no other purpose than to serve as a placeholder; a thing to show that the "state void" is already occupied. No void to fill. 
> 
> And I'm not so naive, either, as to think that because I deliberately invoked the genie, and unleashed it from its bottle, that I'm somehow its default master, or an exception to anything at all.  I know it's a "Feed Me, Seymour!" Little Shop of Horrors from its inception.  It's a pet alligator. You can raise it for years, but don't ever think it won't think twice about snapping down and putting you into a death roll.  There is no benevolence in states. Only in individuals, and only at times.


This is very well said. 

I wish the state did not have to exist, but because of the nature of others, and property, it is better for it to exist than not. And since the state does exist then it is better to participate than be ruled by a dictator or monarch because as we see today an oligarchy will rise if they are not restrained.



> "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." - Pericles, 430 B.C.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> We have not always had states.  The feudal system of Europe in the middle ages was predominantly voluntary.  The king did not have a coercively-enforced monopoly on adjudication.
> 
> http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=66
> 
> The natural order is not egalitarian, and it is not atomistic, but neither is the state part of it.  The state is an aberration from the natural order.  People form tribes and other groupings and organizations (packs if you prefer), yes, but that doesn't mean states.


In that context, a primary defining characteristic or attribute of a state, as you have it defined, appears to be "a coercively-enforced monopoly on adjudication"? Meaning that if a "government"/tribe/grouping/organization was structured in such a way that it did not have a coercively-enforced monopoly on adjudication, you would see that as something other than a state? 

To me, as first order principles, _all individuals_ are states, and all groupings - couples, friends, families, associations, villages, cities, etc., on up to countries, allies, etc., are just different manifestations of statehood, having nothing to do with whatever powers are established (by any mechanism).  The rules, powers, etc., will always take on unique forms, including different encroachments on others (whether it be two states colliding in conflict, or two person-states within a state in conflict). I probably wouldn't conflict too much with your views on a monopoly on adjudication, although I don't know the specifics, because I believe in self-government and personal sovereignty, first and foremost, and I think our pyramided monopolistic judicial system is fundamentally flawed -- corrupt even, from the beginning.   But that's not a determining factor for me on what is a state and what is not, but only what form a state takes. And that could be just semantics. 

I do still, however, still see a "bigger fish swallowing the littler fish" problem, as states cast wide nets, and throw big lassos around tribes, gangs, communities, etc., incorporating and arrogating with or without their consent.  And I do consider that the natural order (not right, not good -- just natural and inevitable), as a natural consequence of populations as they grow, converge, speak common languages and form networks of common interests.  That all spells "ripe for the political plucking".  It doesn't even matter if there's no "natural demand" for a state to begin with. There will always be a natural ("opportunistic human nature") supply that will look to create the illusion of demand.

----------


## idiom

> 1 For the kingdom of heaven of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 And after agreeing with the workers for the standard wage, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 When it was about nine o’clock in the morning, he went out again and saw others standing around in the market place without work. 4 And he said to them, “You go into the vineyard too and I will give you whatever is right.” 5 So they went. When he went out again about noon and three o’clock that afternoon, he did the same thing. 6 And about five o’clock that afternoon he went out and found others standing around, and he said to them, “Why are you standing here all day without work?” 7 They said to him, “Because no one has hired us.” He said to them, “You go and work in the vineyard too.”
> 
> 8 When it was evening, the owner of the vineyard said to his manager, “Call the workers and give the pay starting with the last hired until the first.” 9 When those hired about five o’clock came, each received a full day’s pay. 10 And when those hired first came, they though they would receive more. But each one also received the standard wage. 11 When they received it, they began to complain against the landowner, 12 saying, “These last fellows worked one hour, and you have made them equal to us who bore the hardship and burning heat of the day.
> 
> 13 And the landowner replied to one of them, “Friend, I am not treating you unfairly. Didn’t you agree with me to work for the standard wage? 14 Take what is yours and go. I want to give this last man the same as I gave to you. 15 Am I not permitted to do what I want with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous? 16 So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”


The pernicious thing about the income tax is that it truly is voluntary. Unless you were unaware that the jurisdiction you chose to work in charged an income tax before you started work, then you chose to engage in work there on those terms.

Any state claims final ownership of everything within its borders. It can do what it wants with what it owns. Challenge the state or move out of its borders or accept its claim of ownership.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> In that context, a primary defining characteristic or attribute of a state, as you have it defined, appears to be "a coercively-enforced monopoly on adjudication"? Meaning that if a "government"/tribe/grouping/organization was structured in such a way that it did not have a coercively-enforced monopoly on adjudication, you would see that as something other than a state?


 Bingo.  That is the accepted definition of the state; not just among libertarians, but among political scientists in general is my understanding.  They usually put it more like:

The state is a compulsory political organization that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a certain territory.

I like the tweaked definition of Hoppe: An institution which claims, and to a large extent achieves, a coercively-enforced monopoly on ultimate decision-making.




> And that could be just semantics.


 Well, that's not a minor issue, though.  You have a definition of "state" that is totally different.  I can roll with yours, but in that case I am not anti-state.  Who could be?  To oppose states would be to oppose humans, since even individuals are states in your nomenclature.  So communicating using your system, I would have to say yes, you're right, states aren't bad, and can't and shouldn't be abolished -- abolishing the state would mean exterminating humanity.  Since states are individuals, and we already have the word "individuals," I don't know what advantage even using the word "state" has then.  i don't understand at all what your alternative definition for state is, other than it appears to encompass all individuals, and groups, and, well, everything.   It seem to simply be muddled thinking.

But anyway, I'll go along with it.  In that case, going along with your system, what I oppose is indeed a particular form a state takes.  I am opposed to:

Murder
Slavery
Theft
All other aggression

Those are the defining characteristics of the form of state which I oppose.  Those behaviors all seem morally outrageous to me.  One would think that their abolition would not be controversial.  Unfortunately, we live in an age of euphemism and of muddled thinking.  Mass murder is called "war for freedom".  Slavery is called "regulation" and "reasonable requirements".  Theft is called "taxation".

"Paying your fair share," "doing your part," "helping society," "furthering the greater good," -- who could oppose any of these noble euphemisms?  And so atrocity is given a different name, and the people then can no longer see their true nature.  Your neighbor does not support mass murder.  never!  After all, he is a decent bloke.  No, he supports "wars for freedom." 

And thus it goes.




> There will always be a natural ("opportunistic human nature") supply that will look to create the illusion of demand.


 The lecture series I linked to by Hans-Herman Hoppe _Economy, Society, and History_, based on a book project he's working on I guess, talks all about this kind of stuff.  It's a lot of time, and he talks slowly, so maybe you should just wait for the book.  But it could be enjoyable, especially if you can play mp3s at 1.5 speed.   Anyway, there will naturally be various institutions formed by men.  There will even be a natural aristocracy.  Some people are more intelligent, more wealthy, more respected than others.  People will look to them as leaders and thus they will have power.  All that is natural.  But one can have all that power and inequality and still have the individual ultimately sovereign.  One can still have a society wherein murder, slavery, theft, and all other forms of aggression are not permitted, even (or especially!) by the aristocracy.  One can hold all individuals to the same standards of conduct.  That is the natural order.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Any state claims final ownership of everything within its borders.


 But is this claim valid?




> It can do what it wants with what it owns. Challenge the state or move out of its borders or accept its claim of ownership.


 I see this as a circular-ish argument.  I should accept the claim of the lords of the Maryland swamp to own the continent, because the lords of the Maryland swamp claim to own the continent.

But what if I don't think their claim is legitimate?  What if I think they're just a bunch of blood-thirsty goofballs who live in a swamp in Maryland and are *completely deluded* to think they own anything other than what they actually legitimately own (things like their houses, and, for most of them, their law practice)?  In that case, I can shake my head, point out the truth, and keep working to bring to light the true nature of these usurpers' operation.  As well as keep living my life and achieving my goals.  Just because the Mafia claims to own my neighborhood does not obligate me to move out of the neighborhood, not if that neighborhood is the best one for fulfilling my ambitions.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Do you believe in absolute morality, Brother Jonathan? Do you believe in right and wrong?

----------


## Travlyr

> Do you believe in absolute morality, Brother Jonathan? Do you believe in right and wrong?


I believe in right and wrong, but I do not believe in absolute morality. For example, it is not morally right to assault another human being, yet there are times when a human being must be assaulted for the betterment of others.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I believe in right and wrong, but I do not believe in absolute morality.


 No, that is not possible.  If you do not believe in absolute morality, then you do not believe there is any absolute right and wrong.  Right and wrong in that scenario don't exist.  They're fantasy.  Everything's relative.  Just because something's right for you, doesn't mean it's right for me.  That's the boomer credo.




> For example, it is not morally right to assault another human being, yet there are times when a human being must be assaulted for the betterment of others.


 For example, it's morally right to eat, yet it is not morally right to eat another living human's flesh.

All these supposed "examples" of supposed "contradictions" which you have apparently found it impossible to unravel yourself in 50+ years of living are just lame.  You don't want to put forth the real and strenuous mental effort it takes to construct a cohesive and non-contradictory morality.  That's what it comes down to.  Based on that evidence, why you don't believe in morality?  Because you're too lazy to make it work in any way that makes sense.

Their bone-headed rejection of absolute morality is one reason the baby boomers are full of utter failure and lameness.  So go for it.  You go off and "do your own thing" and have "free love" and "whatever works."  I, meanwhile, will continue to have my hair cut.  And perhaps bathe occasionally.  And live according to time-tested, extremely successful moral principles.

----------


## Travlyr

> No, that is not possible.  If you do not believe in absolute morality, then you do not believe there is any absolute right and wrong.  Right and wrong in that scenario don't exist.  They're fantasy.
> 
>  For example, it's morally right to eat, yet it is not morally right to eat another human's flesh.
> 
> All these supposed "examples" of supposed "contradictions" which you have apparently found it impossible to unravel yourself in 50+ years of living are just lame.  You don't want to put forth the real and strenuous mental effort it takes to construct a cohesive and non-contradictory morality.  That's what it comes down to.  Based on that evidence, why you don't believe in morality?  Because you're too lazy to make it work in any way that makes sense.
> 
> Their bone-headed rejection of absolute morality is one reason the baby boomers are full of utter failure and lameness.  So go for it.  You go off and "do your own thing" and have "free love" and "whatever works."  I, meanwhile, will continue to have my hair cut.  And perhaps bathe occasionally.  And live according to time-tested, extremely successful moral principles.


So you are saying that it *is* or *isn't* right to assault another human under any circumstances?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

So are you saying it *is* or *isn't* right to eat under any circumstances?

----------


## Travlyr

> So are you saying it *is* or *isn't* right to eat under any circumstances?


I think eating is fine. It is one of my favorite pastimes. Your turn. Answer my question.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

By that same exact token, I think being non-violent is fine.  It's one of my favorite pastimes.

----------


## Travlyr

> By that same exact token, I think being non-violent is fine.  It's one of my favorite pastimes.


And I am the same... yet...

It is quite telling helmuth... that you do not want to pick either *is* or *isn't* because it defeats your absolute morality argument. It is morally right to kill another human in certain circumstances, but it is not morally right to go around killing just anyone and everyone. Absolute morality fails the real world test.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> And I am the same... yet...
> 
> It is quite telling helmuth... that you do not want to pick either *is* or *isn't* because it defeats your absolute morality argument. It is morally right to kill another human in certain circumstances, but it is not morally right to go around killing just anyone and everyone. Absolute morality fails the real world test.


 And I'm just playing with you a bit because I think it so ridiculous that you think this is a hard question to answer at all.  Much less one that devastates absolute morality.  I hope you won't hold my playfulness against me.

Do you see how one could invent an unlimited number of arbitrary moral imperatives and say, "Look, see, this is usually true, but there are exceptions!  EXCEPTIONS!!!!! AAAACK!"  For example:

Eating we did.  So drinking: It is usually true that one is free to drink water from the stream flowing through one's land.  Exception: you have already used up all the gallons allotted in your water rights (which were determined by libertarian homesteading, of course).
It is usually true that one is free to breathe whenever one wants.  Exception: one has signed up as a member of an orchestra and part of your contract stipulates that during concerts and practices, you must breathe only at the correct moments indicated by the sheet music.
It is usually true that one is free to read whatever one wants.  Exception: the book you are reading is one you broke into Joe's house and stole.
It is usually true that one is not free to break into houses and take books.  Exception: the book was originally yours and Joe stole it 30 years ago.

Do you see?  Please tell me you see.  For physical assault, the rule is very simple:

Physical assault is fine, as long as it's not aggressive.  You may physically assault someone if he has agreed to it, as in boxing.  You may physically assault someone to a certain extent, determined by convention, without his explicit agreement -- for example putting a hand on his shoulder, brushing up against him, or even punching him playfully.  You may physically assault someone when it is in self-defense.  You may physically assault someone to defend a third party he is assaulting.  This list of exceptions is not exhaustive.  There are all kinds of situations in which physical assault is certainly not immoral, and may even be positively moral.  So your moral assertion: 


> it is not morally right to assault another human being


is just a false moral assertion.  It's just wrong.  It's lousy morality and sloppy thinking.  That doesn't show that morality is a failure.  It shows that _your_ morality is a failure.

----------


## Danan

> No, that is not possible.  If you do not believe in *absolute* morality, then you do not believe there is any *absolute* right and wrong.


Correct.




> Right and wrong in that scenario don't exist.  They're fantasy.  Everything's relative.


Wrong. Being subjective doesn't make them non-existend. Not believing in absolute, objective, universal morality does *not* make you a moral relativist!





> Just because something's right for you, doesn't mean it's right for me.


So? That would only mean that you have to accept that his morals, just as yours, are created by the human mind and can differ from person to person. What you can do now is either show that your moral code is superior in reaching his goals, or stating that his goals are contrary to what you believe is "good" and tell others why you think this is the case.




> For example, it's morally right to eat, yet it is not morally right to eat another living human's flesh.


I most certainly agree that it's moral to eat a cow's flesh, without it "agreeing to it", but immoral to eat a human's flesh against his will. However, I do not claim that my view on this is some kind of "ultimate truth" independed of _subjects_ (i.e. objective). It just freaks me out that someone would walk on the street eating humans and even if I'd be certain that I will never be a victim of this guy, I'd advocate to stop him. But I wouldn't do that because I believe that my morality is "superior" on some kind of objective basis. I'd do it because it feels right, *to me* and satisfies *me*. And luckily almost everyone agrees on the position that violent cannibalism is wrong. Where does that kind of morality contradict itself?




> Their bone-headed rejection of absolute morality is one reason the baby boomers are full of utter failure and lameness.  So go for it.


I'd argue that it's not _their_ (although I don't want to take about them as a collective) refusal to accept "absoulte morality", but their subjective morals that are contrary to mine. That's just as valid.




> And live according to time-tested, extremely successful moral principles.


I agree, these moral principles you have are very successful. I'm an anarchist too (which is what I guess describes you also) and I agree that stealing is always immoral. But the NAP's "success" in terms of satisfying human wants and providing an environment that most people would prefere has nothing to do with them being objective or absolute. In fact, objective morals don't even need to satisfy human desires. You could make up a moral code you claim to be "objective" or "absolute" that sounds absolutely aweful to everybody, including yourself. But that morality would be perfectly logically valid. It's just that you couldn't prove the axioms.

----------


## Travlyr

> And I'm just playing with you a bit because I think it so ridiculous that you think this is a hard question to answer at all.  Much less one that devastates absolute morality.  I hope you won't hold my playfulness against me.
> 
> Do you see how one could invent an unlimited number of arbitrary moral imperatives and say, "Look, see, this is usually true, but there are exceptions!  EXCEPTIONS!!!!! AAAACK!"  For example:
> 
> Eating we did.  So drinking: It is usually true that one is free to drink water from the stream flowing through one's land.  Exception: you have already used up all the gallons allotted in your water rights (which were determined by libertarian homesteading, of course).
> It is usually true that one is free to breathe whenever one wants.  Exception: one has signed up as a member of an orchestra and part of your contract stipulates that during concerts and practices, you must breathe only at the correct moments indicated by the sheet music.
> It is usually true that one is free to read whatever one wants.  Exception: the book you are reading is one you broke into Joe's house and stole.
> It is usually true that one is not free to break into houses and take books.  Exception: the book was originally yours and Joe stole it 30 years ago.
> 
> ...


Who made this rule? Who enforces it?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Wrong. Being subjective doesn't make them non-existend. Not believing in absolute, objective, universal morality does *not* make you a moral relativist!


 I thought it did.  It was my understanding that one either believes in absolute morality or relative morality.  Is there a middle path, a "Third Way," or is there something else I'm missing?




> So? That would only mean that you have to accept that his morals, just as yours, are created by the human mind and can differ from person to person. What you can do now is either show that your moral code is superior in reaching his goals, or stating that his goals are contrary to what you believe is "good" and tell others why you think this is the case.


 True.  I don't want to impose my morality on anyone else, any more than I'd want to impose my scientific or religious beliefs.  I'm just saying I think one can seek for truth in this area, rather than reject the possibility of any truth, which is what moral relativity seems to do, to the extent I understand it.  

In science, we may disagree on whether mitochondria health is linked to uric acid levels, or whether there's life on Neptune, but we agree that there is some truth out there on this issue, and that conceivably we could find it someday.  We don't say "well for you there's life on Neptune, and for me there's not, and both views are just as valid."  For certain issues, for instance life on Neptune, we may say that both views are equally valid in the sense that both sides make some good points and we're just too far away to know for sure. (Hypothetically!  I don't know of anyone advocating for life on Neptune).  But even in those cases, we still hold the world view that either there is life on Neptune or there isn't.  And the black and white part of that isn't the essential thing: perhaps there's some middle ground that turns out to be true, like there used to be life on Neptune but it's extinct now, or there's some weird crystal structure and we can't figure out if it's life or not.  The essential thing is that there's some sort of truth concerning life on Neptune, and that that truth is the same for everyone.

This is the same situation I believe exists in morality.  There exist true moral principles.  Now some of finding ideal behavior patterns is more like the first example: is mitochondria health linked to uric acid levels?  I could say, "I got my uric acid down to 3 and I'm so much healthier," and you could say, "well, my body is different than yours, I'm more healthy when I have a high uric acid level of 4.5."  And in so many situations that might actually be true.  Thus manners, effective business practices, cultural acceptability, etc., might vary widely from one society, and one individual, to the next.  But there are certain moral principals which I believe are universal: don't aggressively murder other people, etc.  Boiling down to: respect other people's boundaries.




> I most certainly agree that it's moral to eat a cow's flesh, without it "agreeing to it", but immoral to eat a human's flesh against his will. However, I do not claim that my view on this is some kind of "ultimate truth" independed of _subjects_ (i.e. objective). It just freaks me out that someone would walk on the street eating humans and even if I'd be certain that I will never be a victim of this guy, I'd advocate to stop him. But I wouldn't do that because I believe that my morality is "superior" on some kind of objective basis. I'd do it because it feels right, *to me* and satisfies *me*. And luckily almost everyone agrees on the position that violent cannibalism is wrong. Where does that kind of morality contradict itself?


 My point was not that it contradicts itself, but that it doesn't.  For any moral system, someone can come in and make an objection like: 

"Your moral system says that sex is bad, except for in marriage, and then sex is good.  That's totally contradictory/hypocritical/bogus.  Is sex good or is it bad?  You can't have it both ways!"

Which is ridiculous.  Just like "Is assault good or is it bad?  Which is it?"





> I agree, these moral principles you have are very successful. I'm an anarchist too (which is what I guess describes you also)


 shhhh...  


> and I agree that stealing is always immoral. But the NAP's "success" in terms of satisfying human wants and providing an environment that most people would prefer has nothing to do with them being objective or absolute. In fact, objective morals don't even need to satisfy human desires. You could make up a moral code you claim to be "objective" or "absolute" that sounds absolutely awful to everybody, including yourself. But that morality would be perfectly logically valid. It's just that you couldn't prove the axioms.


  I don't know that you can ever prove the axioms.  Unless you use argumentation ethics, like Hoppe.  Anyway, the NAP makes sense.  You can fit everything together into a logical and coherent political picture.  But you're right, that's not why I'm a libertarian.  I'm a libertarian because I believe the axiom(s).  I want freedom, whether I can prove it or not!

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Who made this rule? Who enforces it?


 _I_ do.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I do not calculate as "personal wealth". I calculate it in how much suffering would be alleviated and progress would have occurred without parasites feasting on human chattle. I estimate we would be 50 years advanced, minimum. Probably would have already have colonies on the moon.


Of course, that is all personal speculation and is, in no way, grounded in reality or facts.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Of course, that is all personal speculation and is, in no way, grounded in reality or facts.


 While all counter-factuals are of necessity speculative, I do not find it in any way divorced from reality.  I would imagine the estimate of 50 years worth of progress-inhibition is based on an intuitive understanding of many facts LibForestPaul has observed throughout his life.  We have all observed the destructive consequences of having the state and having taxation.

But you do find it to be divorced from reality?  How so?  Do you have an alternative estimate?

----------


## Danan

> I thought it did.  It was my understanding that one either believes in absolute morality or relative morality.  Is there a middle path, a "Third Way," or is there something else I'm missing?


Well, it depends. The implication of calling someone a "moral relativist" is normally that this person can not argue against actions of other people he personally finds wrong, as long as they believe subjectively that they are right. That's what I object to. I don't believe in absolute morality, but I can still condemn the beliefs of others, if they are inconsistent with my own subjective morality.

I have to state this, because I heard the "Well then you can't say that what the Nazis did was wrong!"-fallacy often enough. It only follows that there is no abslute/objective/universal "right" and "worng", independent of our individual, personal judgements. But I can still say that *I* believe that what they did was aweful, wrong and immoral. And I could still take actions against them, even if they believed what they did was just and even if their position were not in any way more *objectively* "wrong" than mine.




> True.  I don't want to impose my morality on anyone else, any more than I'd want to impose my scientific or religious beliefs.  I'm just saying I think one can seek for truth in this area, rather than reject the possibility of any truth, which is what moral relativity seems to do, to the extent I understand it.


I don't believe that there is objective truth to find in the case of morality.* I* believe that what Hitler did was dead wrong. And almost everybody on this planet does too, luckily. It seems to be the case that to be empathetic and compassionate is a natural advantage.

But what if not a single person on earth believed that what he did was wrong, and nobody ever will in the future? Would it still be wrong? Obviously it is still wrong to me, but I don't even exist in this scenario. If it was still wrong, then wrong to *whom*? Morality is subjective by it's very nature, unless you believe that our moral code comes from a higher being. In that case all action that opposes the will of this being is necessarily wrong, no matter what a single human thinks about it. And if this moral code said that we ought to kill eachother, this would be objectively moral and universally, absolutely true, if the premise were true/real. But I wouldn't accept that premise, because I see no reason for this to be true.




> In science, we may disagree on whether...  
> 
> This is the same situation I believe exists in morality.  There exist true moral principles...
> 
> _shortened_


There is a difference between the two, though. Natural science trys to describe porperties of the real, physicle world while morality is a philosophical concept.

Maybe you could say, "Morality is objective, because there are nerve fibers, grey matter, etc. in the human brain that determine what the individual believes is right and wrong," but that's not what you're talking about.

Whether or not there is life on Neptun is objectively true or false, independent of us. But without subjects, there is no morality, no right or wrong.

Or let me put this differently: Why is it *objectively* true that I should not murder anyone? It's obvious why you and most other people (including myself) subjectively belief it's wrong, but what makes this an objective truth? Some people might prefer to see everybody dead, so for them, there is no reason to agree with you, that this would be universally, absolutely wrong, unless you can back up that claim with evidence. Of course we can still stop him from killing other people, no matter if you manage to convince him or not.

It is true, that if your only reason to have a moral code is as a means to certain ends, like a specific environment you want to live in, then we could objectively test if these morals are able to produce the desired outcome. That's not what I understand as "absolute morality", though.




> My point was not that it contradicts itself, but that it doesn't.  For any moral system, someone can come in and make an objection like: 
> 
> "Your moral system says that sex is bad, except for in marriage, and then sex is good.  That's totally contradictory/hypocritical/bogus.  Is sex good or is it bad?  You can't have it both ways!"
> 
> Which is ridiculous.  Just like "Is assault good or is it bad?  Which is it?"


I agree with you here. Travlyr's objections to your points were unsound. You could even say that, "Stealing is bad, unless you have a very good reason to do it, like one of the following: ...," is objective morality and that still wouldn't contradict itself. Exceptions in a moral code have nothing to do with its objectivity. That's not what I was talking about though. I didn't defend him.

This actually quite an intersting area. Would you agree, that if you believe that there is some kind of absolute moral code, a set of believes of what is wrong and what is right, that you *always* ought to act according to this morality?

To make that a little bit more clear: "You are not allowed to kill other human beings!" would obviously mean that even self-defense is forbidden. But as you correctly said, you can have a more precise moral code like, "You are not allowed to use force against other human beings, unless you are coerced against first. And then you can only do.... etc. etc."

The way I understand it, you say that stealing is in every possible situation absolutely wrong, correct? You would have to agree that it's in no case acceptable to act against what is right, otherwise "being morally wrong" becomes completely meaningless. If I'm correct so far, it would follow that in a scenario where you and your family are starving to death it would still be wrong to steal food, even if that's the only way for you to survive. And since you can't just act against what is right and you know that, because you already thought this through, it also follows that you would rather let your family die, then steal the food.

I don't agree with that. I know that I wouldn't let my family die. And since I couldn't possibly let that happen in this scenario, "Don't ever steal!" can't be a sufficient moral code for me. Because a morality I know in advance I can not act uppon in certain circumstances is completely useless to me.

So I believe that there are theoretical scenarios where aggressing against someones property (i.e. stealing) is not wrong, as long I want "being wrong" to mean something. None of that stops me from being an anarchist, though. It only stops me from being dogmatic.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> i don't understand at all what your alternative definition for state is, other than it appears to encompass all individuals, and groups, and, well, everything.


First of all, I don't place any stock in definitions (especially from political scientists, economists, etc.,) as having any authority whatsoever. They are only descriptive, to the extent that they are accurate, but they aren't decrees. So it doesn't matter to me how anyone labels or defines anything, as definitions are mere starting points for common understanding. Once I have someone's definition -- their glass slipper, or yardstick -- I can then use that to see where it fits. 

Thus, with any of your definitions, I can prove that, at the core, the purest form of government (the state) is, and has always been, the individual.  All other forms (those that encompass other individuals) are nothing more than extensions of that purest form, because any other form is nothing more than action by individuals.  Now let's apply that to you, and even the definitions you provided:




> In that context, a primary defining characteristic or attribute of a state, as you have it defined, appears to be "a coercively-enforced monopoly on adjudication"?
> 			
> 		
> 
> That is the accepted definition of the state; not just among libertarians, but among political scientists in general is my understanding.  They usually put it more like:
> 
> The state is a compulsory political organization that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a certain territory.


As an individual, in principle, you claim to have that very monopoly (sole despotic dominion), over your person only, and within your personal territory.  A legitimate use of force would be that which defends against force used against you (and your sleeping space, if that was your only "territory"). 




> I like the tweaked definition of Hoppe: An institution which claims, and to a large extent achieves, a coercively-enforced monopoly on ultimate decision-making.


Once again, since that very power is what you are claiming for yourself, you are the state by either of your definitions.  The more salient question is whether you believe that extends beyond yourself and your own personal space.  




> In that case, going along with your system, what I oppose is indeed a particular form a state takes.  I am opposed to:
> 
> Murder
> Slavery
> Theft
> All other aggression


And I believe that you, as a person-state, would not exercise the first three against other person-states. It's the fourth one that I question, and that with a question. If you saw another person, or group of persons, murdering, enslaving, or stealing from other persons, _but not from you_, would you a) leave them alone, or b) use force if that was necessary to stop/oppose them?  

If you answer live-and-let-die "b", then at least you are consistent.  You are the neutral "Switzerland" person-state, who does not involve himself in matters that do not immediately and directly threaten or concern him. Others can be murdered, enslaved, or stolen from, so long as it is not you.  If you actively oppose this on behalf of others, however, then you are engaging in "aggression", if but for the sole purpose of stopping aggression.  




> Those are the defining characteristics of the form of state which I oppose.  Those behaviors all seem morally outrageous to me.  *One would think that their abolition would not be controversial.*


That's the conundrum.  How is "abolition" even possible without a coercively-enforced monopoly on ultimate decision-making (a state), if but only for that purpose, and even if only within the confines of a given territorial boundary? 




> Unfortunately, we live in an age of euphemism and of muddled thinking.  Mass murder is called "war for freedom".  Slavery is called "regulation" and "reasonable requirements".  Theft is called "taxation". "Paying your fair share," "doing your part," "helping society," "furthering the greater good," -- who could oppose any of these noble euphemisms?


I agree, that is muddled thinking -- self-deception on their parts.  But that is not because states exist, but rather because those particular states (nothing more than collectivized individuals) presume, compulsively and aggressively, to arrogate the rights and powers of other sovereign individuals without their individual consent.  I am arguing that this cannot be "opposed" without another state (individual or collective individuals), which presumes _ultimate decision-making power_ to make the opposite decision, and use opposing force to that end.




> Anyway, there will naturally be various institutions formed by men.  There will even be a natural aristocracy.  Some people are more intelligent, more wealthy, more respected than others.  People will look to them as leaders and thus they will have power.  All that is natural.  But one can have all that power and inequality and still have the individual ultimately sovereign.  
> 
> One can still have a society wherein murder, slavery, theft, and all other forms of aggression are not permitted, even (or especially!) by the aristocracy.  One can hold all individuals to the same standards of conduct.  That is the natural order.


I agree.  My only point is that the only way to "have the individual ultimately sovereign", where all other forms of aggression are "not permitted" (by whom?) is through a state, using any of your definitions.

All muddled thinking comes into play when people buy into the notion that there even is such a thing as 'the state' that is not, at all times, reducible to a) an individual, like a king, or b) individuals, like the king and his horses and men.  That's when we stop paying attention to the man/people behind the curtain, and address The Great And Powerful Wizard - that fiery awesome projection in the Great Hall -- as if it really was a single entity, separate from any individual.  Fighting that illusion is when you start batting $#@! against the wind.  $#@! the puppet, it's not real. Follow the strings that lead to the puppetmaster.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Once again, since that very power is what you are claiming for yourself, you are the state by either of your definitions.


 My monopoly is not enforced coercively.  There is no other human in the space occupied by my body who objects to my decisions.  

As a joking aside, even if you consider my body as made up of a conglomeration of separate organisms, none of them ever object either.  They just follow my every command.  And if they don't, if my arms just won't do another push-up or whatever, I have no way of exercising coercion or enslavement over them.

So anyway, to me if there is no aggressive coercion, there is no state.  Nobody being aggressed against?  No rights being invaded?  It's not a state.  And I'm all for it.

I can see what you're saying, though.  Your concept of state is a useful concept, too, it's just the word state has too much baggage.  So if it's OK, let's just stick with my definition of state for this conversation.  It's too confusing otherwise.  Plus I don't think it's the best nor most descriptive word to describe your concept.  Perhaps "force bubbles"?  That is a nice visualization, because you actually can't have two different force bubbles overlapping (think of a Ven diagram) enclosing the same dimension-- or set of decisions -- over the same clump of matter at the same time.  Well, you can, but you don't want to, because then you get conflict.  It's a physical reality that two different contradicting decisions cannot both be carried out for the same matter at the same time, and so the overlapping claimants will have to duke it out somehow.

There's no particular reason to have one large overarching force bubble enclosing all the other force bubbles within a geographical area.  What would this do?  There would be perpetual conflict, as every square inch within is under conflict, including the very bodies of those residing there.  Unless, that is, everyone's dimensions of force are clearly defined such as they don't overlap.  And if that is the case, then everything is hunky dory, I'm all for it, and it's not a state.

Under anarcho-capitalism, every man is king.  Everyone is sovereign.  And everyone's property is his kingdom.  And so in a sense, everyone can set up their own government.  So you have all these little force bubbles butting up next to (but not overlapping) each other. You can also subscribe to someone else's government.  You can do whatever you want!  So you may see some folks buying up land and forming gated communities with some pretty restrictive rules resembling those of our current-day nation-states.  But that's OK!  Because the territory they claim will actually be theirs, justly acquired, and the legitimate boundaries and dimensions of their force bubble will be clearly defined. 




> If you saw another person, or group of persons, murdering, enslaving, or stealing from other persons, _but not from you_, would you a) leave them alone, or b) use force if that was necessary to stop/oppose them?


 I see no moral problem with defending third parties on a personal level. Defense is not aggression.




> That's the conundrum.  How is "abolition" even possible without a coercively-enforced monopoly on ultimate decision-making (a state), if but only for that purpose, and even if only within the confines of a given territorial boundary?


 Too much Hobbes.

How is _anything_ ever "abolished"?  How does the state abolish things?

However it does that, multiple competing firms and forces on the free market can do the same thing, only better.  And non-aggressively.  The monopoly aspect is not essential.  The coercive aspect is certainly not essential.  Being a monopoly and being coercive does not allow the state to abolish things more effectively than non-coercive non-monopolies.

Nobody knows what the market would come up with, but possibly under an-cap you'd see a system of insurance companies, private defense agencies, and free market arbitrators taking over the provision of law and justice.

----------


## Danan

> I agree.  My only point is that the only way to "have the individual ultimately sovereign", where all other forms of aggression are "not permitted" (by whom?) is through a state, using any of your definitions.


If I understand you correctly, I'd recommend this presentation of David Friedman's idea of a "stateless society" as a possible answer:




He admits that his system is not "perfect" either and that conflicts would exist there too. But the same is true for the current system.

If offered the choice, I'd take my chances and select an anarchist, private-law society over any other form of social order I've heard of yet. And even if it turns out to be unsustainable, what's the worst thing that could happen? That tyranny emerges once again? Well that happened to "restricted" governments as well.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> If I understand you correctly, I'd recommend this presentation of David Friedman's idea of a "stateless society" as a possible answer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He admits that his system is not "perfect" either and that conflicts would exist there too. But the same is true for the current system.


I have seen that, and while I find his ideas interesting, the biggest critique I have is that while he focuses on human behavior, and a market that spontaneously exists and grows in the abstract, out of anarchy (economic), he pretty much ignores human behavior as it relates to TURF - territory -- and especially that behavior that relates to any "powerful, enforcing capability" groups of humans, who are appealed to, who are running the mafias private rights enforcement agencies, as well as the private adjudication firms which are supposedly separate. 




> If offered the choice, I'd take my chances and select an anarchist, private-law society over any other form of social order I've heard of yet. And even if it turns out to be unsustainable, what's the worst thing that could happen? That tyranny emerges once again? Well that happened to "restricted" governments as well.


The natural course of all this, I believe, would still ultimately be a polarized "non-choice" between Coke and Pepsi, Red and Blue after some fashion, with human individuals effectively enslaved defended, jealously even, but only as property within a territory. In the not-too-distant end, we would end up with essentially what we have now anyway, right down to the illusions of "liberty" as well as the illusion of individual influence on the system itself. As private firms compete, the bigger fish swallow the smaller fish, most of which go voluntarily, as individuals are paid off. The firms can be a) territorialized, b) bundled as one (rights enforcement and adjudication in one), even as they c) expand their territories (one stop shop for all our enforcement and adjudication needs), and therefore c) form corporate states -- with ultimate enforcement and decision making capacity as an effective monopoly within a set of boundaries, in what was supposedly a stateless society.  

So, believing that large states will always be a natural, inevitable consequence of the nature and inevitability of any attempt at any regime, my strategy would very different, as it would embrace this inevitability up front, and design accordingly, rather than fool myself into believing the opposite is possible.  

Furthermore, I think it's going to happen anyway.  Our current global political and economic experiments are all going to get MUCH worse before they get better.  Our original "experiment" in a Republic was flawed in its inception, but it yielded positive results that were unprecedented in the world.  That was ROUND 1.  I believe that a United States VERSION 2.0 (and not necessarily in the United States, or having anything to do with it) is another inevitability.   I probably won't live to see it even in its infancy, but I'm sure it's going to happen.  It won't be stateless, but it will be the closest you can get to all its advantages.

----------


## Travlyr

> If I understand you correctly, I'd recommend this presentation of David Friedman's idea of a "stateless society" as a possible answer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He admits that his system is not "perfect" either and that conflicts would exist there too. But the same is true for the current system.
> 
> If offered the choice, I'd take my chances and select an anarchist, private-law society over any other form of social order I've heard of yet. And even if it turns out to be unsustainable, what's the worst thing that could happen? That tyranny emerges once again? Well that happened to "restricted" governments as well.


Our current system is not a constitutional republic as proven by the fact that the rulers ignore the Constitution. Again, I agree with Ron Paul. Obeying the U.S. Constitution is preferable to what David Friedman describes. As far as I am concerned he discredits himself right off the bat. 


> The classical liberal position of the 19th century was that the function of government was to do a few things that could not be done by individuals on the private market by voluntary association. And those were traditionally listed as police, courts, and national defense" - David Friedman


That is not true.



> Are Cops Constitutional
> "Police work is often lionized by jurists and scholars who claim to employ "textualist" and "originalist" methods of constitutional interpretation. Yet professional police were unknown to the United States in 1789, and first appeared in America almost a half-century after the Constitution's ratification. The Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary. This article marshals extensive historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the original intent of America's founding documents. The author argues that the growth of modern policing has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost principles."


Who here would really hire private security as he describes? I wouldn't. I value my privacy more than that. I would build a fortress and arm myself to the hilt.

----------


## Danan

> I have seen that, and while I find his ideas interesting, the biggest critique I have is that while he focuses on human behavior, and a market that spontaneously exists and grows in the abstract, out of anarchy (economic), he pretty much ignores human behavior as it relates to TURF - territory -- and especially that behavior that relates to any "powerful, enforcing capability" groups of humans, who are appealed to, who are running the mafias private rights enforcement agencies, as well as the private adjudication firms which are supposedly separate.


He adresses this issue in more detail in some of his speaches. Essentially it comes down to whether or not there are economies of scale up to the point that only a few rights enforcement agencies are left and start to coerce against it's customers, thus building a new government.

We can't know if this is the case in advance. But I believe it is worth a try. The worst outcome would be to end up with what we have now.






> The natural course of all this, I believe, would still ultimately be a polarized "non-choice" between Coke and Pepsi, Red and Blue after some fashion, with human individuals effectively enslaved defended, jealously even, but only as property within a territory. In the not-too-distant end, we would end up with essentially what we have now anyway, right down to the illusions of "liberty" as well as the illusion of individual influence on the system itself. As private firms compete, the bigger fish swallow the smaller fish, most of which go voluntarily, as individuals are paid off. The firms can be a) territorialized, b) bundled as one (rights enforcement and adjudication in one), even as they c) expand their territories (one stop shop for all our enforcement and adjudication needs), and therefore c) form corporate states -- with ultimate enforcement and decision making capacity as an effective monopoly within a set of boundaries, in what was supposedly a stateless society.


Again, it's not a given that there are economies of scale in this business, in the relevant range. It's certainly not true in every sector of the economy, that the free market produces ever larger and larger firms. There are two problems with bigger size, one is the calculation problem Mises describes and the other one is the information problem Hayek describes. Essentially all companies have an equilibrium size, because the downsides are growing almost exponentially, while the gains usually don't. The only question is where this equilibrium level is.

----------


## Danan

> As far as I am concerned he discredits himself right off the bat. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				The classical liberal position of the 19th century was that the function of government was to do a few things that could not be done by individuals on the private market by voluntary association. And those were traditionally listed as police, courts, and national defense" - David Friedman
> 			
> ...


I don't see why he discredits himself. He didn't say the founders of the USA said anything about police, he said it's the classical liberal position of the 19th century. And that's certainly not wrong.




> Who here would really hire private security as he describes? I wouldn't. I value my privacy more than that. I would build a fortress and arm myself to the hilt.


You could set the terms of how much privacy and how much security you want yourself voluntarily. He was just giving an example.

----------


## Travlyr

> I don't see why he discredits himself. He didn't say the founders of the USA said anything about police, he said it's the classical liberal position of the 19th century. And that's certainly not wrong.
> 
> 
> You could set the terms of how much privacy and how much security you want yourself voluntarily. He was just giving an example.


I may be mistaken, but the way I read it is that police forces were a unknown concept in 1790. Military yes, but not police forcing people to obey laws. Is that wrong?

----------


## Danan

> I may be mistaken, but the way I read it is that police forces were a unknown concept in 1790. Military yes, but not police forcing people to obey laws. Is that wrong?


Police forces are several thousand years old and classical liberalism is a philosophy that is a global idea and not entirely centered on the US. I have no idea since when the state provides protection in the US.

----------


## Travlyr

> Police forces are several thousand years old and classical liberalism is a philosophy that is a global idea and not entirely centered on the US. I have no idea since when the state provides protection in the US.


This article is well documented and seems credible if you would like to learn more about police in America.

http://constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't see why if your personal income taxes went down you would use that money to hire more people at the company you work for or run- very few people would. Obviously I can't speak for what you personally would do of course but what would occur?  
> 
> Now if the people who did get tax reductions spend that extra money they got at your business then you may hire more people due to the increased sales. Let's say you had your own business and not some big corporation and you made $100k a year and then get a tax reduction of $20k (using your 20% figure).  Would you use that money yourself- vacation? Buy something? Put it into an investment or retirement?  or would you hire a person to work for you at $20k a year?  Most would use the money themselves.


Plenty of people would hire someone.  It all depends on what the situation is.  If you need someone and your business is low on cash, you will probably have to use your own money.  This happens quite often.  My dad had to personally make payroll for his business, so yes, using your own money is sometimes essential to the survival of a beginning business.  Almost everyone has to make a personal investment to begin.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Who here would really hire private security as he describes? I wouldn't. I value my privacy more than that. I would build a fortress and arm myself to the hilt.


 Almost all of us.  I have better things to do with my life.  It's division of labor.  If I become wealthy enough to hire lots of other people to build my fortress?  Sure, that'd be fun.  Until then, I'll just pay my $50 a month premium.

----------


## Travlyr

> Almost all of us.  I have better things to do with my life.  It's division of labor.  If I become wealthy enough to hire lots of other people to build my fortress?  Sure, that'd be fun.  Until then, I'll just pay my $50 a month premium.


Bully for you. Just don't try to steal my TV, Okay? Because there would not be any arbitration. Your protection agency will be preparing for a funeral instead.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Bully for you. Just don't try to steal my TV, Okay? Because there would not be any arbitration. Your protection agency will be preparing for a funeral instead.


 And that's a risk (risk of wrongful death suit, because maybe I'm just a TV repairman at the wrong address) you are free to take.  That's the great thing about freedom: _you have freedom!_  Do whatever you want! Go live in hippie camp (but with a moat and a big wall around your tent, of course).  As long as you're not aggressive, it's all hunky dory.

----------


## Travlyr

> And that's a risk (risk of wrongful death suit, because maybe I'm just a TV repairman at the wrong address) you are free to take.  That's the great thing about freedom: _you have freedom!_  Do whatever you want! Go live in hippie camp (but with a moat and a big wall around your tent, of course).  As long as you're not aggressive, it's all hunky dory.


I agree. That is the risk. The biggest baddest will arm themselves to the teeth and protect their own. That is why I believe that a social contract is the most peaceful, prosperous, liberty loving way to live.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

An armed society is a polite society.

The more arming to the teeth is going on, the more peace and prosperity ensues.

----------


## Travlyr

> An armed society is a polite society.
> 
> The more arming to the teeth is going on, the more peace and prosperity ensues.


I prefer an agreement beforehand.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Now we're just sniping back and forth meaninglessly and I shan't be reduced to that.  I don't feel like you're making any effort at understanding, and so that doubtless means that I have somehow angered or alienated you so much you no longer feel any desire to understand me.

So it's my fault, I'm saying.  I accept full responsibility.

In the past I have appreciated your posts.  I have gotten on your bad list somehow, and that's fine.  Perhaps you're just bored what with the lowered post activity on RPF and have run out of interesting enemies.  Because I don't see a huge, unbridgeable chasm between:

"I like it. And take the federal budget to $50 million by 2020." -Travlyr

and:

"Let's take the federal budget to $0." -Me

There's just not that much of a difference there.  I wish I was someone you respected so you might take me seriously.  But, you don't know me from Adam except on RPF, and clearly my posts on RPF have for one reason or another been less than impressive to you.  You respect Ron Paul.  I hope that one day after his campaign is done he'll recommend to everyone a reading list of some good books explaining why we don't need a state.  Someone might listen to him.  You might listen to him.  You'll never listen to me.  And that's fine.  Why should you?  I'm probably just some schmuck.  But I miss this Jonathan:

I did read your take on entitlements, yet the entitlement system impoverishes people. The last two years in a row seniors have been denied their COLA adjustments and this year they can expect less than 4% increase while true inflation is closer to 10%/year. Seniors are losing the entitlement game fast as it is. There is something to be said to wean people off of entitlements, but if Ron Paul doesn't get elected, then those entitlements will go away as the dollar self-destructs just like the jobs have gone away already. -Travlyr

That's not stupid. What is stupid is to go another day letting the criminal gang plunder. -Travlyr

Do you consider theft to be a crime? -Travlyr

Now I'm the one asking you the same question.  And I wonder if in your answers you're being completely honest with yourself, or if you're being a little like a TomL and hiding from a truth you do not want to know.

~~~

Thank you Danan, by the way, for a very thoughtful reply.  I just don't have the time & energy to reply to it decently right now.

----------


## Travlyr

> Now we're just sniping back and forth meaninglessly and I shan't be reduced to that.  I don't feel like you're making any effort at understanding, and so that doubtless means that I have somehow angered or alienated you so much you no longer feel any desire to understand me.
> 
> So it's my fault, I'm saying.  I accept full responsibility.
> 
> In the past I have appreciated your posts.  I have gotten on your bad list somehow, and that's fine.  Perhaps you're just bored what with the lowered post activity on RPF and have run out of interesting enemies.  Because I don't see a huge, unbridgeable chasm between:
> 
> "I like it. And take the federal budget to $50 million by 2020." -Travlyr
> 
> and:
> ...


helmuth_hubener is a dummy. You are just a dummy. A bought and paid for dummy.

----------


## Travlyr

> Now we're just sniping back and forth meaninglessly and I shan't be reduced to that.  I don't feel like you're making any effort at understanding, and so that doubtless means that I have somehow angered or alienated you so much you no longer feel any desire to understand me.
> 
> So it's my fault, I'm saying.  I accept full responsibility.
> 
> In the past I have appreciated your posts.  I have gotten on your bad list somehow, and that's fine.  Perhaps you're just bored what with the lowered post activity on RPF and have run out of interesting enemies.  Because I don't see a huge, unbridgeable chasm between:
> 
> "I like it. And take the federal budget to $50 million by 2020." -Travlyr
> 
> and:
> ...


helmuth_hubener ... You really really should try to understand the world around you... instead of demonizing others. You really really should.

----------


## Travlyr

> Now we're just sniping back and forth meaninglessly and I shan't be reduced to that.  I don't feel like you're making any effort at understanding, and so that doubtless means that I have somehow angered or alienated you so much you no longer feel any desire to understand me.
> 
> So it's my fault, I'm saying.  I accept full responsibility.
> 
> In the past I have appreciated your posts.  I have gotten on your bad list somehow, and that's fine.  Perhaps you're just bored what with the lowered post activity on RPF and have run out of interesting enemies.  Because I don't see a huge, unbridgeable chasm between:
> 
> "I like it. And take the federal budget to $50 million by 2020." -Travlyr
> 
> and:
> ...


I went a little crazy. Baby boomers are not all rich. We have a lot of them walking the streets holding cardboard signs.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

So, have I gone crazy?  Was my post really demonizing Travlyr?  Could a reasonable person see it that way?

----------


## Danke

> So, have I gone crazy?  Was my post really demonizing Travlyr?  Could a reasonable person see it that way?





> helmuth_hubener is a dummy. You are just a dummy. A bought and paid for dummy.


I think someone hacked Travlyr account, or he is just trying to make new friends...

See:  http://www.revolutionbox.org/Thread-...hread-About-Me

----------


## Travlyr

> I think someone hacked Travlyr account, or he is just trying to make new friends...
> 
> See:  http://www.revolutionbox.org/Thread-...hread-About-Me


No, it is simply serious frustration and some personal problems that I need to work on.

----------


## rockerrockstar

I think that what would happen is that most people would just spend the extra money and not save or invest it.  Then inflation would take off and we would actually in the long run possible be worse off then we have now since we would no longer have any safety nets, medicare, social security.  I have not heard anyone say this here but I am going to play devils advocate and say it.  I like the idea of having all my money and being richer but I think in reality that inflation would eat up that extra money sooner or later.   What is your thoughts?  

Would we really be better off with no taxes and no safety nets and no highway funds, and no schooling funds as some propose?  I will try to keep an open mind.  I do know if the fed did not collect the States probably would collect more to give some of these services.  I am sure the Neocon's would be upset if income taxes went away because how are you going to fund War Spending.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> I am sure the Neocon's would be upset if income taxes went away because how are you going to fund War Spending.


Deficit spending, of course, the way they do now with practically everything, left and right, with the promise of future taxes as a return on the war "investment", paid for by all the Future Indentured Servants of America - who will be taught to feel grateful for all that their parents and grandparents had. 

Millions of not-too-distant future children are going to come to a table fully expecting the same meal that has always been served -- and even expecting to "pay" for it, albeit in the same way.  What they will get instead of a meal is a bill only, as a mountain of generational tabs all come due at once, with nobody trusting that some yet future generation will take care of it. 

That is the day when people will say, "IN GOD WE TRUST. All others must pay with cash that does not read IN GOD WE TRUST."

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I think that what would happen is that most people would just spend the extra money and not save or invest it.  Then inflation would take off


 Inflation is actually not caused (at all!) by increased spending.  Inflation is an increase in the supply of money.  It is caused by whatever causes the supply of money to increase, such as a mining under gold money, or politicians whims under fiat money.

But people spending more money would increase prices, you say!  That's what you mean by inflation and it surely would increase; it's just supply and demand.  The supply of goods is the same, and the money chasing those goods is now greater, so the prices for all the goods will increase.  What can I say to that?  Well....

Thinking about things in terms of money makes it very easy to make mistakes unless you really slow down and think very carefully.  Thinking in terms of real goods can sometimes simplify the situation and make it clearer.  So let's talk about bricks and food and gasoline.  Right now lots and lots of bricks and food and gasoline are going towards state (state as in our current form of aggressive government, at all levels, not state as in the 50 states) spending.  

The state grabs a major portion of the pile of bricks society has and proceeds to use them for things the government deems important.  It uses some of the bricks to build statues to its prominent managers, many of them to throw through people's windows, others to hurl at protestors, others to build towers in every town from which professional propagandists can shout the state's messages to the townspeople all day long, and then many of them it sticks into large envelopes and mails to all the elderly and low-class layabouts across the continent in exchange for them continuing to lay about.  The rest of the bricks, it dumps into the deepest part of the Atlantic Ocean.

So in that situation -- which is the situation we are now in -- society is producing all these bricks, but then half of them are being "used" for all manner of wasteful and horrible stuff.  Ditto for the food and gasoline.  So society has to get by on only half of what we're producing.  It should be really obvious why that would make society poorer.  Half their stuff is taken!  Every year!

Think of the movie A Bug's Life.  Once a year, the grasshoppers come and take half of the harvest.  What if they could get the grasshoppers to go away and never come back?  Then they could keep all of their harvest.  What would that mean?  Would the ants eat more and have more babies instead of hunkering down and trying not to starve?  Would maybe not _all_ of it go into increasing the horde of food deep in the tunnels of the ant hill?  Of course!  Would that be bad?  Of course not!  And would _some_ of it be saved?  Yes, because the extra food is not going to cause the time preference of the ants to change.  Saver ants will still be inclined to save.  And long-term, that savings is going to allow them to really improve their lot, because that will make possible the capital investment in harvester machines allowing them to get food 100 times more efficiently.

Have I convinced you?  Eliminating state spending will massively improve our quality of life.  As Ron Paul says: the spending is the tax.  The spending is where the state goes out on the market and buys things, that is, it appropriates resources unto itself which would otherwise be available to good people for good purposes.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Inflation is actually not caused (at all!) by increased spending.  Inflation is an increase in the supply of money.  It is caused by whatever causes the supply of money to increase, such as a mining under gold money, or politicians whims under fiat money.


Not quite. A shortage of goods can prompt inflation. A sharp increase in economic growth can spark inflation as more money is available and demand for goods is increased. If the market can react fast enough, inflation can be nipped in the bud.

Geonomics creates a stable economic climate as speculation is minimized, preventing runaway inflation.

----------


## Travlyr

> Not quite. A shortage of goods can prompt inflation.


Explain in more detail.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Not quite. A shortage of goods can prompt inflation. A sharp increase in economic growth can spark inflation as more money is available and demand for goods is increased. If the market can react fast enough, inflation can be nipped in the bud.
> 
> Geonomics creates a stable economic climate as speculation is minimized, preventing runaway inflation.


 If your definition of inflation is "prices of goods got higher," then yes, decreased supply of goods can cause that, as can increased demand.  There's a lot of "inflation" right now in Louisiana, in that sense.

I, however, use a completely different and, I believe, more useful and sophisticated definition of inflation.  Inflation is an increase in the money supply.

As an aside, speculation is of course a stabilizing influence in an economy.  We are all pro-speculation here.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> I, however, use a completely different and, I believe, more useful and sophisticated definition of inflation.


I see-it makes you more sophisticated to us a definition of a word that most of the people use in a different way. You must be better than the rest of the world.  Increasing the money supply is only one use of the word inflation- and it is not the most common usage but a limited use. If you read an article in a newspaper and it said "Inflation running at 2.3%" do you assume they meant the money supply?  No. Neither did other readers of that article. That is because the most common usage is an increase in price levels- not the money supply. If you wish to communicate with people, it is helpful to use the more common meanings of words- unless you indicate specifically you meant a different usage. I inflated my bicycle tires before I went for a ride today. His ego really got inflated after that one.  These are also valid usages- and the words in the sentence indicated which meaning the word had. To inflate simply means to make larger.

----------


## Travlyr

> To inflate simply means to make larger.


Like the money supply.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Yes- or many other things.

----------


## Travlyr

> Yes- or many other things.


One of my favorites is Bill Cosby's "Why is there air?" "To blow up basketballs" of course. That is a pretty good definition of inflation too.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I see-it makes you more sophisticated to us a definition of a word that most of the people use in a different way. You must be better than the rest of the world.  Increasing the money supply is only one use of the word inflation- and it is not the most common usage but a limited use. If you read an article in a newspaper and it said "Inflation running at 2.3%" do you assume they meant the money supply?  No. Neither did other readers of that article. That is because the most common usage is an increase in price levels- not the money supply. If you wish to communicate with people, it is helpful to use the more common meanings of words- unless you indicate specifically you meant a different usage. I inflated my bicycle tires before I went for a ride today. His ego really got inflated after that one.  These are also valid usages- and the words in the sentence indicated which meaning the word had. To inflate simply means to make larger.


 I don't think I'm better.  I also don't fault the people using the other definition.  I just don't know what the other definition is really good for.  Yes, prices of things can go up and down.  Fine.  What does it matter? What are we trying to say?

I probably am just not capable of communicating well and should give up.  So, sorry.  I recommend you read a bunch of books.  Inflation is an interesting and misunderstood topic.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> I don't think I'm better.  I also don't fault the people using the other definition.  I just don't know what the other definition is really good for.  Yes, prices of things can go up and down.  Fine.  What does it matter? What are we trying to say?


I accept that Keynesian-spawned monetarists, including the academia that serves them, have successfully caused "general rise in prices" to be the most commonly used, artificially enthroned default meaning of inflation.  That is very useful to them because it gets everyone thinking only in terms of a generalized effect with many causes, rather than a single cause and its many effects.  

_“When a lot of remedies are suggested for a disease, that means it cannot be cured.”_
― Anton Chekhov

How much better is that for the turd in the punch bowl that is making everyone sick, if you can get everyone pointing fingers in all directions, distributing blame and suggesting lots remedies for a generalized disease that appears incurable? After all, other things can make people sick, right?  

It is for that reason that I qualify the term every time I use it.  The Fed and other monetarists can have their obfuscating, meaningless generic inflation as meaning "price inflation".  If you say "currency inflation" or "monetary inflation", there is nothing a monetarist can do about that, as it cannot be interpreted any other way than how it was qualified.  You are now referring to a specific cause only, and without regard to its effects.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Steven, thank you for the back-up and for some much better communication than mine.

The point is: giving people their money back, ceasing to spend it on stupid junk, this is not going to cause prices of everything to go up and everyone to be worse off than before.  That is not what's going to happen.  Zippy, do you really think that this would happen?  If so, why?  Again, think of the story of _A Bug's Life_.  If the grasshoppers stop taxing half the harvest, will all the ant colony's prices go up and everyone end up worse off?  

Or will they, as I am claiming, have twice as much stuff as before, because half of it is no longer being stolen?  And that's just the short-term result.  Long-term, the benefit will compound, and thus over the decades zoom into the stratosphere.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Explain in more detail.


Lots of money about with too few goods to buy, then the price of goods goes up as the sellers maximize their profit.

----------


## bunklocoempire

I haven't read through the whole thread.



> Income tax: Ever calculated how wealthy you'd be without it?


No, I have not.

However, I have seen a simple gold wedding ring/band from late 1800's/early 1900's.

I know for a fact that the wedding band that I saw belonged to a wife/mother of a simple Wisconsin farm family.  I'd even say poor.  Cash poor but with a decent 40 acres and a decent house/out buildings.  All paid off for many, many decades -owned free and clear by at latest 1925/1930.

I'd say the *18 k* gold ring was an easy 4 to 5 times the weight of my own *14 k* _mens band_.    

It belonged to a fairly petite woman from the pics I've seen of her.  The size of the ring was tiny but the heft of the thing was incredible.

The Federal Reserve definitely can explain some of the difference of the two rings, but I can't help but think the 16th amendment and all it touches has an incredible impact as well.  Layers upon layers of B.S. shrinking anything of value and inflating the value of the value-less.

Comparing those rings at the time really hit it home for my wife and myself concerning how bad our country's situation really is.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Originally Posted by Zippyjuan
> 			
> 		
> 
> To inflate simply means to make larger.
> Like the money supply.


Like the value of goods.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> As an aside, speculation is of course a stabilizing influence in an economy.  We are all pro-speculation here.


It is clear you are grappling with the basics of economics. Speculation in LAND and its RESOURCES, created two world-wide crashed in 1929 and 2008.  Geonomics stops that DEAD!  Speculation is generally bad - even in Capital.  It is a form of gambling. 

Investment and speculation are NOT the same thing. Investment is good speculation is not.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> The point is: giving people their money back, ceasing to spend it on stupid junk,


Consumerism was created to keep the factories going when they produced the basics of need. Then TVs, radios. washing machines, dishwashers, etc were produced.  Currently it is flat screen TVs, smart phones and associated computer gadgets.

High Land Prices Disrupt Family Life. High land values cascading into high house prices entails that both parents of homes in the vast majority of families need to work to pay mortgages to keep a very small roof over their heads. It is in single percentage figures the number of families that have the wife at home full time. This breakdown in traditional family life results in the latch-key kids, who all too often end up as delinquents and in trouble.  Vandalism and graffiti emerges.

The parasite landowners love consumerism, as it makes people believe they have a high quality of life, which they do not have. The essential family life is poorer for sure.  Consumerism keeps people's minds away from their real predicament - high land costs cascade into high house prices.

Geonomics can give both. Low house prices and more money to spend on trivial matters.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> It is clear you grappling with the basics of economics. Speculation in LAND and its RESOURCES, created two world-wide crashed in 1929 and 2008.


You couldn't be more wrong.  Speculation in and of itself isn't good, bad, right or wrong.  Speculation is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for a free market to even exist.  Speculation only describes human behavior, nothing more; a human tendency for people to anticipate future value and seek out economic advantages for themselves.  That always entails risks and rewards. What makes speculation a truly dangerous enterprise is when it is done on the basis of artificial market distortions and manipulations that come about when VALUE ITSELF (of anything at all) is artificially manipulated. That is what is truly "bad". Not the speculation, but rather the basis for it. That is when speculation that leads to disaster is nothing more than a symptom of a more sinister underlying root cause. 




> Geonomics stops that DEAD!


Bull$#@!. Absolute crap.  Geonomics does NOTHING to stop speculation -- even with regard to land. It only changes the way it is done, as it channels that tendency differently - as natural reactions and consequences to artificial statist manipulations.  LVT is nothing more than a *speculation shift mechanism*.  

For example, among some of the very biggest winners (WHOPPING BIG) under LVT would be MEGA-LAND DEVELOPERS. Not average people by any means. EVER. That is because the (SPECULATIVE) rent-seeking behavior is rewarded most of all as a direct consequence of LVT, as developers seek to stack and concentrate as much economic activity as is humanly possible into the smallest LATERAL square footage.  The ground belongs to the state under LVT, but the *new land* - the capital improvements that make up the new "artificial tax-free land", goes vertical and takes to the air.  And there's one of your new speculation bubbles, as publicly traded land developer stocks take off. And as their coffers are filled, all resources are channeled into their ventures.  That would be just one of the resulting speculation shifts under LVT.  




> Speculation is generally bad - even in Capital.  It is a form of gambling. Investment and speculation are NOT the same thing. Investment is good speculation is not.


You are grasping at straws, and obviously from a vacuum.  You don't know the first thing about the nature of business or a competitive free market. ALL CAPITAL INVESTMENT IS ROOTED IN SPECULATION.  Ask the maker of the Edsel. Ask Sony with its nifty BetaMax. Ask the makers of HD DVD about the time they sat at a heads-up winner-take-all poker game with the makers of Blu-Ray - and who got knocked out of the ring. Ask literally hundreds of thousands of people who went bankrupt taking real investment risks in their own ventures as they SPECULATED about what would be valued most by others in the future.  It is all a form of gambling.  Those who exist and operate in vacuums (state, academia, employees, etc.,), are insulated from FREE MARKET GAMBLING REALITIES don't see this at all.  The only real difference between outright gambling in a casino and actual investment in a venture you control is the amount of influence and control you have in the way that your actions affect your own risks and rewards.  Outright gambling turns a blind eye to part of that by embracing some element of pure chance.  But it's all gambling. It's all speculation. Including investment.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Speculation is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for a free market to even exist.


Steven, this displays your total confusion.  Speculation is not good for anyone except the speculator.  You do not know the difference between speculation and investment.

Geonomics stops harmful speculation land DEAD!!  There will be no more world-wide financial cashes, or period booms and busts. They are all attributed to land speculation and nothing else.

Steven, WHOPPING BIG, MEGA-LAND DEVELOPERS would not flourish under LVT.  Steven you must stop making things up.

In Denmark money moved away from land speculation and into enterprise activities - real life happenings, not what bounces around Steven's disjointed obsessed mind.

There is little speculation in industry which has a high proportional of CAPITAL involved. Speculation invariabley has LAND and its RESOURCES as its core.  Industry has INVESTMENT, which is closely analysed before money is parted.  IT is clear you do not know the difference between SPECULATION & INVESTMENT. Some organization went from invnetment based to speculation based. MacDonalds come to mind.  They are now primarily a LAND company not an investment based comapy in the food/restaurant industry. So the bastards kill us in their products and rip us off in land.

Steven, you should at least try and understand. It will be much easier for you.  Get this freeloading mentalitry out of your mind. You want something for nothing.

----------


## amy31416

This thread sucks on so many levels.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> This thread sucks on so many levels.


Thank you for your solid contribution

----------


## amy31416

> Thank you for your solid contribution


I started it, doof.

----------


## Steven Douglas

> I started it, doof.


Apologies for my part in the hijack, for feeding the trolls in your thread.

----------


## amy31416

> Apologies for my part in the hijack, for feeding the trolls in your thread.


Eh. If it hadn't turned into an argument thread, it just would have died.  I was just annoyed by EcoWarrier's constant shilling.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

The argument appears to between:

1) If I have less of my stuff stolen, I am going to have more stuff.  That is, I will have more material prosperity.

2) If I have less of my stuff stolen, I am going to bid up prices by trading my stuff for other stuff, and so everything will get more expensive and I will actually end up with less stuff.  That is, I will be poorer in the end.

3) Tax land!!!  Tax land and you will a) eliminate GRAFFITI; b) stop flat screen TV purchasing, BECAUSE flat screen TVs, and dishwashers, etc. are all wasteful and stupid; c) end the BUSINESS cycle; and d) stop McDonald's campaign TO kill us all.  Just TAX LAND and I will be happy!!!1111  And so will you!

Which position makes the most sense?  Only the shadow knows.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> Apologies for my part in the hijack, for feeding the trolls in your thread.


The stock reply from Steven and others, when defeated. Revert calling a troll.

----------


## EcoWarrier

> [/B]bener;4627769]The argument appears to be.


.You got that hopelesslly wrong. That is sad

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> You got that hopelesslly wrong. That is sad


 I tried! shrug.

----------


## TheTexan

Is this thread about LVT?  I love LVT threads

----------


## TheTexan

> I tried! shrug.


You put up a worthy effort

----------

