• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Revisit - Tax Reform

Tax Reform


  • Total voters
    28
No, individualism is the great non equalizer.

Thats dangerous thinking. It means someone gets to decide how everyone shouls be equal. I prefer the doers to set the standards, not some self loathing underachiever.
 
Don't people say if you don't like your country's tax system you can move to another country? How are States committing theft but landlords are not? How is having a choice between masters "freedom?"
Quoted for truth! :)
 
Don't people say if you don't like your country's tax system you can move to another country? How are States committing theft but landlords are not? How is having a choice between masters "freedom?"

States are committing theft by claiming a monopoly on economic and geographical jurisdiction over you. Your landlords aren't because they don't do that. You either proactively enter into a contract with them or you don't. The state assumes "social contract" and "consent of the governed" without anyone ever signing a contract or consenting to anything, it's fraudulent, unlike a voluntary contract that is subjected to competition and choice.

There is a really big fundamental difference between the two, I'm surprised it isn't more obvious to you.
 
Thats dangerous thinking. It means someone gets to decide how everyone shouls be equal. I prefer the doers to set the standards, not some self loathing underachiever.

No, my point was that individualism makes us all non equal. Joining into groups for shared purpose has to strip away those inequalities in order for everyone to feel they benefit. So a nation makes us all equal before the nation.
 
States are committing theft by claiming a monopoly on economic and geographical jurisdiction over you. Your landlords aren't because they don't do that. You either proactively enter into a contract with them or you don't. The state assumes "social contract" and "consent of the governed" without anyone ever signing a contract or consenting to anything, it's fraudulent, unlike a voluntary contract that is subjected to competition and choice.

There is a really big fundamental difference between the two, I'm surprised it isn't more obvious to you.
We all agree to a social contract with the country in which we reside - even if we're just visiting. Don't like the contract? Don't stay in the country.
 
We all agree to a social contract with the country in which we reside - even if we're just visiting. Don't like the contract? Don't stay in the country.

We don't agree to a social contract, it is imposed on us from birth whether we agree to it or not, and whether we have the means to go somewhere else or not. Your statement also implies that there is somewhere else to go, there isn't, all governments use the same fraudulent claims of jurisdiction based on non existent contracts, and non respect natural rights.

Also, by definition, a social contract isn't even a contract anyway..... ergo facto, it's fraudulent.
 
We all agree to a social contract with the country in which we reside - even if we're just visiting. Don't like the contract? Don't stay in the country.

If you are born to it, you don't have a choice. And what If he govt you are born into isn't holding up its side?
 
We don't agree to a social contract, it is imposed on us from birth whether we agree to it or not, and whether we have the means to go somewhere else or not. Your statement also implies that there is somewhere else to go, there isn't, all governments use the same fraudulent claims of jurisdiction based on non existent contracts, and non respect natural rights.

Also, by definition, a social contract isn't even a contract anyway..... ergo facto, it's fraudulent.
Until you're of the age of consent your parents consent to the social contract for you - just like they pay the landlord for you to live there. If you have a problem with their choices then talk to your parents. After the age of consent you have every right to move if you don't like where you live. Go find another landlord, no one is stopping you.

Just like changing landlords, isn't it? Really no where else to go but to another landlord.


Of course it's a contract. You consent to follow the laws of a country - any country - by staying in that country. The same goes for US states, counties inside the state, and municipal laws inside the county. If you don't like the laws, go somewhere else. No one is stopping you from leaving - unless, of course, you break the laws in which case you may have to spend some time in prison first.
 
If you are born to it, you don't have a choice.
Your parents give your consent until you reach the age of consent - just like they're responsible for your rent until that time. Once you reach the age of consent you can leave if you wish, no one is stopping you.



And what If he govt you are born into isn't holding up its side?
It's just like any other contract where you think the other side has broken the contract, you take them to court.
 
Last edited:
Does our taxation system need an overhaul - and if so - which system could realistically take its place.


We have major Energy Corporations acquiring resources through wars that are funded by the taxpayers. We have GMO Corporations using the gov't to promote their products overseas. We have Big Energy capturing the funding that should go to Renewable Energy initiatives. We have Big Pharma using the patent system to protect big profits. We have lots of military and armaments contractors making big profits from instabilities that the gov't creates. Capsulizing a statement that continue ad infinitum, it is my opinion that the Corporations that benefit most from our gov't policies are big Corporations and they pay the least, if any taxes. They should be paying at least 37% tax rates. Our military umbrella is what protects their ass and they should serve us, not us sserve them. Just one point of contention.
 
Your parents give your consent until you reach the age of consent - just like they're responsible for your rent until that time. Once you reach the age of consent you can leave if you wish, no one is stopping you.
There are a few problems with that idea. The first is that your comparison falls apart, because the child of a tenant doesn't have the same legal responsibilities towards a landlord as the actual tenant. Another is the idea that I should have to leave, and that the government has complete monopoly over vast areas of public and private land. Remember, you had to sign a contract with your landlord, but the government claims jurisdiction over you and your landlord and his entire building and every other building within a radius of tens of thousands of square kilometers without you signing any sort of contract like you did with your landlord.

It simply isn't even a relevant comparison.


MoSurveyor said:
It's just like any other contract where you think the other side has broken the contract, you take them to court.
Two issues with this:
1. Any other contract, the court would be considered a third party. When you're suing the court, there is no third party, so there is no possibility of a fair, unbiased trial. This is one of the inherent failings of judicial systems that are based on monopoly of force by one organization/government. There is no third party to turn to for dispute resolution.

2. It's not a contract, because by definition a contract is an agreement between two or more people, not just a unilateral declaration of intent to claim monopoly jurisdiction over a human being's life.
 
Your parents give your consent until you reach the age of consent - just like they're responsible for your rent until that time. Once you reach the age of consent you can leave if you wish, no one is stopping you.



It's just like any other contract where you think the other side has broken the contract, you take them to court.

Other countries are stopping you from moving out of the US. And how can you get a fair trial against the govt when the govt is the judge?
 
There are a few problems with that idea. The first is that your comparison falls apart, because the child of a tenant doesn't have the same legal responsibilities towards a landlord as the actual tenant. Another is the idea that I should have to leave, and that the government has complete monopoly over vast areas of public and private land. Remember, you had to sign a contract with your landlord, but the government claims jurisdiction over you and your landlord and his entire building and every other building within a radius of tens of thousands of square kilometers without you signing any sort of contract like you did with your landlord.

It simply isn't even a relevant comparison.
Of course it's a relevant comparison.

A child does not have the same legal responsibilities toward society/country as an adult. In fact, there are a plethora of laws in most Western countries specifically there to protect children - so that's a fail.

You don't have to leave the country any more than you have to leave the apartment on which you quit pay rent. If you decide you don't like the rent contract you move or the landlord will remove you from the property. If you decide you don't like the social contract you move or the landlord will remove you from society.



Two issues with this:
1. Any other contract, the court would be considered a third party. When you're suing the court, there is no third party, so there is no possibility of a fair, unbiased trial. This is one of the inherent failings of judicial systems that are based on monopoly of force by one organization/government. There is no third party to turn to for dispute resolution.
Other countries are stopping you from moving out of the US. And how can you get a fair trial against the govt when the govt is the judge?
You don't sue the court, you sue the city/county/state/Fed. There are hundreds and hundreds of examples of the courts deciding in favor of citizens over laws. If you would like to try to prove bias in the court system then start posting your evidence. Otherwise - another fail.


2. It's not a contract, because by definition a contract is an agreement between two or more people, not just a unilateral declaration of intent to claim monopoly jurisdiction over a human being's life.
You agree to the contract by being (or staying) in the country - and that works pretty much everywhere for everyone. When I visit Mexico or Canada I agree to their social contract the minute I step over the border. I'm not a citizen but I still have to follow their rules. If I don't like their rules then I shouldn't go there in the first place.

Three strikes - you're out.
 
Last edited:
Of course it's a relevant comparison.
A child does not have the same legal responsibilities toward society/country as an adult. In fact, there are a plethora of laws in most Western countries specifically there to protect children - so that's a fail.
You don't have to leave the country any more than you have to leave the apartment on which you quit pay rent. If you decide you don't like the rent contract you move or the landlord will remove you from the property. If you decide you don't like the social contract you move or the landlord will remove you from society
You've twisted your initial comparison, though your twist isn't much better. You're still missing the point of government monopoly on massive geographical areas. You're deliberately choosing to ignore the fact that it's vastly easier to choose a different landlord than it is to find a nation that will grant you permanent residency. I'm wealthy by any standards, I can choose what house to live in, I can even be my own landlord, but I still can't choose where I want to live. My choices are severely limited, because unlike individual landlords, governments claim monopoly jurisdiction whether you actively sign anything or not. Pretending that it's as easy to choose your country as it is to choose your landlord is just silly, and the reason is government restrictions that violate basic natural human rights.

MoSurveyor said:
You don't sue the court, you sue the city/county/state/Fed. There are hundreds and hundreds of examples of the courts deciding in favor of citizens over laws. If you would like to try to prove bias in the court system then start posting your evidence.
Court = Government. City = Government. County = Government. State = Government. Fed = Government.

They are all funded by taking people's money under threat of violence and imprisonment, and if they were private companies they would be considered incestuous enough to have a clear conflict of interest in judging each other's actions.

MoSurveyor said:
You agree to the contract by being (or staying) in the country - and that works pretty much everywhere for everyone. When I visit Mexico or Canada I agree to their social contract the minute I step over the border. I'm not a citizen but I still have to follow their rules. If I don't like their rules then I shouldn't go there in the first place.
Going to a foreign nation is slightly different (though not completely). However the idea that you "agree" to something by not doing anything, even if you don't know what it is you're agreeing to and don't have the financial means to go elsewhere, is just absurd.

How do you even begin to justify forcing people into a "contract" that violates even the most basic natural rights like being allowed to live without being extorted under constant threat of violence and imprisonment? Don't you feel at all embarrassed defending such actions?

MoSurveyor said:
Three strikes - you're out.
Dafuq is this, baseball? Your points are completely invalid and unethical and your initial comparison is about as relevant as baseball.....
 
You've twisted your initial comparison, though your twist isn't much better. You're still missing the point of government monopoly on massive geographical areas. You're deliberately choosing to ignore the fact that it's vastly easier to choose a different landlord than it is to find a nation that will grant you permanent residency. I'm wealthy by any standards, I can choose what house to live in, I can even be my own landlord, but I still can't choose where I want to live. My choices are severely limited, because unlike individual landlords, governments claim monopoly jurisdiction whether you actively sign anything or not. Pretending that it's as easy to choose your country as it is to choose your landlord is just silly, and the reason is government restrictions that violate basic natural human rights.
The landlord has a monopoly over his geographic area as well. There is no qualitative difference between a landlord and a government.

Your choices for living arrangements are the same as your choices for countries. Not everyone can afford the $10M Manhattan condo.

Sorry, there is no basic right to live where you want to live. No landlord is required to enter into a contract with you. But thank you for pointing out an exception to the landlord rule - you actually do have ONE landlord that is required to enter into a contract with you, unlike the tenet-landlord situation where none are so required.


Court = Government. City = Government. County = Government. State = Government. Fed = Government.
Sorry, you can always appeal to the next highest authority in the case of city, county, and State. You are not required to take the decision of those three. The Fed is a special case because the Supreme Court is there - and they have ruled many laws unconstitutional. That's still a fail. You have as yet to present evidence of bias by the court.



They are all funded by taking people's money under threat of violence and imprisonment, and if they were private companies they would be considered incestuous enough to have a clear conflict of interest in judging each other's actions.
Non-sequitur. This has nothing to do with funding and it sure is not a fact showing bias.


Going to a foreign nation is slightly different (though not completely). However the idea that you "agree" to something by not doing anything, even if you don't know what it is you're agreeing to and don't have the financial means to go elsewhere, is just absurd.
The laws are freely available to access and read. If nothing else, the Library of Congress has all US federal laws and there's no entry fee. Most laws are now available on the Internet and most public libraries have free Internet access. If you don't read the contract that's not the landlord's fault.

If you don't have the financial means to move away from the one landlord that is required to accept a contract with you, then that might me the reason the other landlords don't want you.


How do you even begin to justify forcing people into a "contract" that violates even the most basic natural rights like being allowed to live without being extorted under constant threat of violence and imprisonment? Don't you feel at all embarrassed defending such actions?
Nobody is forcing anyone into a contract. You can move.


Dafuq is this, baseball? Your points are completely invalid and unethical and your initial comparison is about as relevant as baseball.....
My points are right on the mark --- and of all people, conservatives and Libertarians shouldn't be trying to tell a landlord what he can and cannot do with his property.
 
We need the flat tax and the fair tax. Neither can work alone because we need about 24% of GDP just to pay our way. If you try to tax that much with one it will be so high people will turn into criminals to avoid it. Two different taxes shares the burden better and could average 12% of GDP each. Neither would be horribly avoided and we could get on with paying our way in this world.


It most assuredly needs reform. Even the adviser experts on the IRS telephone help lines don't understand it, as evidenced by the disclaimer that nothing they tell you can be taken as "the law."

Politicians use revisions in the tax code to garner political contributions, socially engineer behavior, and reward their cronies with tax breaks. Bad ideas keep getting worse: the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) was designed to target very wealthy taxpayers who, through use of legal loopholes, paid little or no income tax. It was enacted in 1969 to target 21 gazillionaires who, because of the legal loopholes and myriad deductions, paid no Federal income taxes. Today, it's estimated that 15% of taxpayers earning between $75K and $100K must pay AMT -- up from just 2% ten years ago.

Want to know if you have to pay it? Read through 9 pages of IRS instructions and then call your accountant.

Flat tax or fair tax or consumption tax. Easy-peasy.
 
Of


You don't sue the court, you sue the city/county/state/Fed. There are hundreds and hundreds of examples of the courts deciding in favor of citizens over laws. If you would like to try to prove bias in the court system then start posting your evidence. Otherwise - another fail.

And the court works for the city/county/state/fed.
 
Does our taxation system need an overhaul - and if so - which system could realistically take its place.

We do need a tax overhaul. Mostly, we need to abolish tax incentives, tax credits, tax exemptions and tax loopholes. If someone qualifies for paying a tax at a certain level then they pay it.

I'd still maintain a progressive graduated tax system, though.
 
States are committing theft by claiming a monopoly on economic and geographical jurisdiction over you.Your landlords aren't because they don't do that.

That is incorrect. Landlords DO hold economic and geographical jurisdiction over their tenants. They make the rules/laws on their land. They also collect taxes (which they call rent). Just because they normally hold less land than a government does not mean they don't hold a monopoly over that space.

A Landlord is a Government: The Libertarian Basis for Land Rights - Liberty Thinkers | Liberty Thinkers

You either proactively enter into a contract with them or you don't.
And what if one wanted to just work the common land? They cannot do that without being forced under duress to enter a contract with a landlord (ruler).

The state assumes "social contract" and "consent of the governed" without anyone ever signing a contract or consenting to anything, it's fraudulent, unlike a voluntary contract that is subjected to competition and choice.

You have 50 US states to choose from along with nearly 200 countries in the world. There is 'choice' in choosing a State ruler just as there is 'choice' in choosing a Landowner.


There is a really big fundamental difference between the two, I'm surprised it isn't more obvious to you.

I'm actually surprised you don't see how landlords are governments.
 
There are a few problems with that idea. The first is that your comparison falls apart, because the child of a tenant doesn't have the same legal responsibilities towards a landlord as the actual tenant.

Doesn't the child of the tenant have to follow the rules of the landlord? If the tenant doesn't pay his taxes (rent) doesn't the child get kicked out along with the parent?
 
And the court works for the city/county/state/fed.
You can always appeal to the next higher court. The only exception is the Supreme Court, which decides on issues of the Constitutional, and those appointments are for life so there can be little if any political pressure put on it. There are hundreds of cases where the Supreme Court has ruled a law unconstitutional. You are invited to cite enough cases to warrant a claim of bias by the Supreme Court, and good luck with that.
 
I think you may like this article.
I've even used that letter of Jefferson's as part of a rebuttal in other threads. ;)

A lot of "Libertarians" (I use that word very loosely) don't understand that most of Locke's base philosophy disappeared with the commons. Locke himself makes it very plain right at the beginning that the commons are a required part of his argument. When he gets to talking about money, he freely admits that all previous bets are off and that men must decide for themselves how they are going to live with each other.
 
Flat tax.

Sounds good to me.

I would further make the income and capital gains tax rate the same, eliminate corporate taxes and eliminate all deductibles except charitable contributions.
 
You can always appeal to the next higher court. The only exception is the Supreme Court, which decides on issues of the Constitutional, and those appointments are for life so there can be little if any political pressure put on it. There are hundreds of cases where the Supreme Court has ruled a law unconstitutional. You are invited to cite enough cases to warrant a claim of bias by the Supreme Court, and good luck with that.

Exactly, so we're back to citizens having almost no recourse when govt violates their end of the deal. We violate it, they lock us up. They violate it, we have to jump through extraordinary measures to correct it.
 
Back
Top Bottom