General

Re: Need to stop using terms like "Redistribution of Wealth"

G8R HED — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:18:05 GMT

Bastiat's terms "false philanthropy and legal plunder" seem a most fitting substitution for the negative connotations of "redistribution of wealth" .

Re: Need to stop using terms like "Redistribution of Wealth"

DD5 — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 02:20:41 GMT

Samuel Clemens:
I certainly disagree with taxing income

All taxes are income taxes. Taxes in all forms and styles are always imputed backwards to affect only incomes.

So are you against all taxes now?

Re: Need to stop using terms like "Redistribution of Wealth"

wilderness — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:23:16 GMT

Samuel Clemens:
I thought I did. Why not one ounce of gold?

Isn't that a dictatorship when one person decides for the many? just wondering...

Samuel Clemens:
It prevents the poor from being taxed at all.

I thought you said this:

Samuel Clemens:
I certainly disagree with taxing income, and other valuations of the poor to middle-class.

I thought you didn't like valuations "of the poor...", but then you made an evaluation of who is "poor" defined as those not getting "taxed at all" in your program.

Samuel Clemens:
Back in the day when the dollar was defined as one twentieth of an ounce of gold, people earned a dollar a day. Not too bad for unskilled labor.

Again, somebody other than the market defining what a dollar is, that's all that is. And btw, what is "unskilled labor"? How is that determined and somehow correlated with a certain wage?

Re: Need to stop using terms like "Redistribution of Wealth"

Orthogonal — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 23:48:54 GMT

Samuel Clemens:

I did say "If..."; but read my post again; the tax does not take effect until valuation reaches the value of one ounce of gold, currently ~$1,100.00; pretty fancy pair of shoes, if you ask me! (see I said "if..." again).

How did you come to this conclusion? It seems rather arbitrary to tie taxes to an exchange that is valued more than an ounce of gold.

Samuel Clemens:

Any tax will redistribute value (not wealth, which is an abundance of valuable goods) from producers to users. The preceding sounds fair, if we can keep the government from expanding the limits to take value from the poor (sales below the value of an ounce of gold) or to take it all (no more than a 50% tax of 1000 ounces of gold maximum). That is certainly not a sure thing.

This doesn't make any sense. How is "Value" redistributed. Value is purely subjective to the individual's involved. You will have to define your terms since you are using them differently than commonly used in AE.

Also, why is the preceding "fair". Who determines what was fair?

Re: Need to stop using terms like "Redistribution of Wealth"

Samuel Clemens — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 23:47:21 GMT

I thought I did. Why not one ounce of gold? It prevents the poor from being taxed at all. Back in the day when the dollar was defined as one twentieth of an ounce of gold, people earned a dollar a day. Not too bad for unskilled labor.

Re: Need to stop using terms like "Redistribution of Wealth"

wilderness — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 23:43:11 GMT

Samuel Clemens:
I did say "If..."; but read my post again; the tax does not take effect until valuation reaches the value of one ounce of gold, currently ~$1,100.00; pretty fancy pair of shoes, if you ask me! (see I said "if..." again).

Who picked 1 ounce of gold?

Re: Need to stop using terms like "Redistribution of Wealth"

Samuel Clemens — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 23:39:59 GMT

I disagree with the rhetorical term "wealth", which is defined as an abundance of value. I certainly disagree with taxing income, and other valuations of the poor to middle-class.

Re: Need to stop using terms like "Redistribution of Wealth"

Samuel Clemens — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 23:37:42 GMT

I did say "If..."; but read my post again; the tax does not take effect until valuation reaches the value of one ounce of gold, currently ~$1,100.00; pretty fancy pair of shoes, if you ask me! (see I said "if..." again).

Re: Need to stop using terms like "Redistribution of Wealth"

ModernBastiat — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 23:21:35 GMT

I've always been a fan of Bastiat's "unlawful plunder," from The Law.

Re: Need to stop using terms like "Redistribution of Wealth"

Spideynw — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:48:33 GMT

RogueMerc:
The term is too cozy.

Good point. How about plain, "theft"?

Re: Need to stop using terms like "Redistribution of Wealth"

My Buddy — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:41:48 GMT

Thievery?

Re: Need to stop using terms like "Redistribution of Wealth"

RogueMerc — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:33:06 GMT

Sam, this is a discussion of rhetoric and how it should be framed. You are going off in a tangent of what you feel to be a pragmatic solution for taxation and how to make it as least painful as possible.

Re: Need to stop using terms like "Redistribution of Wealth"

DD5 — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:30:35 GMT

Samuel Clemens:
If we all agree that certain things (schools, government, defense, etc.) need funding,

But we don't all agree. Perhaps you missed this point. So what way other then confiscation are you left with in order to continue to fund your government schools? None.

Samuel Clemens:
The fairest method is a single excise tax on all sales

So how you buy your food in the grocery store is not fair according to you? Or how you pay for the shoes for you kids.. that's also not fair?

Re: Need to stop using terms like "Redistribution of Wealth"

Samuel Clemens — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:18:14 GMT

There is a slippery slope here. Suppose someone proposed a 0.25% sales tax on any sale taking place in a community to "support our schools". Most people, even those without children, would say, "Yes, I believe our schools should be supported, and this is a relatively painless way to do it", thus, not objecting. Today our sales taxes are 9.00% on most sales. During the early period in Egypt, eventually, the tax was 100% on everything, the money going to the king (Pharaoh), who would "redistribute" the stored grain to all of the people during the "lean years". Where do you object? When do you object? How do you object? How effective can your objection be?

If we all agree that certain things (schools, government, defense, etc.) need funding, and voluntary gifts don't do it, or not enough, anyway, what method can be employed that will provide the necessary funding for everyone's common goals? The fairest method is a single excise tax on all sales above the equivalent value of a single ounce of gold for which the collector (the seller) receives a portion to provide for the cost of collection, graduated from one ounce of gold to 1,000 ounces of gold (minimum 0.01%, maximum 50%), thereafter held at the maximum rate for all sales, including of property. No other tax or imposition should be applied to income, or inheritance of property, or any other activity except sales. The government is then responsible for distributions to local, state, and united states government activities. The universal vote will provide for giving the government our opinion of their distributions. This will be "the tax" (as in "plus tax"), and no other need apply.

Any tax will redistribute value (not wealth, which is an abundance of valuable goods) from producers to users. The preceding sounds fair, if we can keep the government from expanding the limits to take value from the poor (sales below the value of an ounce of gold) or to take it all (no more than a 50% tax of 1000 ounces of gold maximum). That is certainly not a sure thing.

Re: Need to stop using terms like "Redistribution of Wealth"

RogueMerc — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:37:34 GMT

Yes, Looters is good, but it is a noun that is a label for a kind of person. Unfortunately that word comes after a great deal of analysis in Atlas Shrugged. I do not know if the average person will see the connection.

We need an adjective which describes what this kind of person does. Should definitely have some teeth to it.