Death Tax and Welfare

[Pointedstick]

Pointed stick

Would that be a "reasonable balance" between your individual freedom and my posse's interest in the product of your labor?

The point is that much wealth is not a product of the owner's labour. It is the product of other peoples' labour that has been gathered in as a return on capital. Its seems to me that return on capital is a phenomenon that depends on government to enforce law etc. It should be paid for in proportion to what is owned by the owners.

So what percentage of your wealth should my posse take, and how should we figure out what proportion of it came from your ownership and what proportion of it came from other peoples' labor?

[stone]

Pointed stick

Would that be a "reasonable balance" between your individual freedom and my posse's interest in the product of your labor?

The point is that much wealth is not a product of the owner's labour. It is the product of other peoples' labour that has been gathered in as a return on capital. Its seems to me that return on capital is a phenomenon that depends on government to enforce law etc. It should be paid for in proportion to what is owned by the owners.

So what percentage of your wealth should my posse take, and how should we figure out what proportion of it came from your ownership and what proportion of it came from other peoples' labor?

I think all current taxes should be replaced by a single annual tax on gross asset values. I guess a 5% per year charge would cover it. Companies would be paying no corporation tax or payroll tax etc and so productively deployed capital would be able to pay for its self.

[Pointedstick]

I think all current taxes should be replaced by a single annual tax on gross asset values. I guess a 5% per year charge would cover it. Companies would be paying no corporation tax or payroll tax etc and so productively deployed capital would be able to pay for its self.

So once a year, my posse should asses the value of everything you own and steal from your jar of money a sum equal to 5% of the number we come up with. Got it. 

[doodle]

The most important thing to understand with respect to creating solutions to these and other problems is: Symbiosis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis

This Ayn Randian "a man is an island" John Galt "I am a wealth creator!!" worldview will ultimately undermine the survival of our species.

Our laws, ethics, morals, should be biased towards ensuring the future surivival of our planet and species. Anything that undermines that is immoral....

As the Buddhists say...the path to enlightenment starts by understanding the true nature of reality. The truth is that we are all in this together.

[stone]

I think all current taxes should be replaced by a single annual tax on gross asset values. I guess a 5% per year charge would cover it. Companies would be paying no corporation tax or payroll tax etc and so productively deployed capital would be able to pay for its self.

So once a year, my posse should asses the value of everything you own and steal from your jar of money a sum equal to 5% of the number we come up with. Got it. 

We now pay transaction taxes when ever we do anything. Why is that more acceptable to you?

[doodle]

Well I completely agree with you there, but none of those three things requires government. Just because one or more may today be provided by government in some cases, that doesn't mean that no alternative social structure that lacks it/them could exist. That's all I'm saying. It may be hard to imagine a world/country/town/island/area that lacks government but still has healthy stable markets and a functioning crime prevention industry, but I just don't believe that it is impossible, as I have lived in one. The only violence in this society came from without, from the nearby government that occasionally oppressed the people.

Pointedstick,

Are we talking reality here or libertarian fantasyland? Do you really think that abolishing government is going to make the world a better place? I envision something more akin to Mad Max...or maybe Somalia.

[moda0306]

PS,

Any non-governmental organization around private property could very well simply be the "owner" of that property having enough firepower to defend it.  That's just fine, as long as the property is his... though one could see how this could lend itself to slavery/coercion by default as those without guns.. let's call them, say, Natives... simply move off the land or keep losing the fights to keep it.

I'm not saying that this is how it exists everywhere, but basically that most land disputes are simply solved by coercion of winner against the loser, and then the winner starting a government that says "this land is yours," shows the deed to the loser, and tries to convince the loser that because the deed says it is so, that any government doing anything else besides reinforcing that deed is a form of coercion at the point of a gun... some irony.

No, I think if hte government is going to allocate public natural resources to the private citizens that can do the most with them, then they can afford to take SOME private economic gains, and make them public, to pay for a social safety net for those in need.  Very fair trade to not have to live in an African villiage.  

[stone]

It may be hard to imagine a world/country/town/island/area that lacks government but still has healthy stable markets and a functioning crime prevention industry, but I just don't believe that it is impossible, as I have lived in one. The only violence in this society came from without, from the nearby government that occasionally oppressed the people.

Pointed stick, I'm fascinated. Where was this place? I'm always keen to hear about stuff like that.

[Xan]

The most important thing to understand with respect to creating solutions to these and other problems is: Symbiosis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis

This Ayn Randian "a man is an island" John Galt "I am a wealth creator!!" worldview will ultimately undermine the survival of our species.

Our laws, ethics, morals, should be biased towards ensuring the future surivival of our planet and species. Anything that undermines that is immoral....

As the Buddhists say...the path to enlightenment starts by understanding the true nature of reality. The truth is that we are all in this together.

No, the most important thing is freedom.  That's what's rare and precious.

Did this hypothetical wealthy person get his wealth by stealing, or by entering into transactions with other free agents which benefited both parties?  If the second, which I would argue is the vast, vast majority, then he has ALREADY benefited society by earning that money for himself.

[Pointedstick]

moda, stone, and doodle, I think this important and fascinating debate on the nature and role of government gets muddied up when we talk about changing existing societies. Obviously it would be hugely disruptive if one day the government totally disappeared and all the people currently relying on it for employment, retirement income, medical care, and protection were thrown out in the cold to fend for themselves with no warning or transition period.

So let's get hypothetical. Let's say a bunch of people built a floating city in international waters not claimed by any government, and that this city was a purely private entity, with all of the parcels of "land" owned by individuals or collectives of individuals operating under a different name (not corporations per se, since current government-granted corporate protections would not exist). Let's say that this society had no taxes, and that everyone who wanted some service paid for it individually, rather in the bundled manner that taxes impose. Protection was provided by competing private defense companies and life insurance companies. Social safety nets are provided by "employment insurance" companies who collect premiums from those who wish to opt in. Competing private fiat currencies were provided by multiple companies, and even by open-source crypto-computer-nerds. 

What would be your reaction? Happy? Resentful? Jealous? Full of desire to join them? Full of desire to invade them?

[stone]

Pointed Stick, your utopian system would initially be great. After a few years; effort, ingenuity and luck would enable some people to increase their holdings of land, money etc and so use that relative disparity in wealth to gather more wealth from the rest of the population. That would lead to a viscous spiral where you would have an over-lord and everyone else being debt peons. Basically you would have an economy like that of Haiti.

My reaction would be just the same as my reaction to Haiti, pity and sorrow and hope it all comes better some day.

[doodle]

Xan,

No, the most important thing is freedom.

As long as you are chained to the material world your freedom is an illusion. Only by relinquishing desire and attachments can you transcend suffering and understand the true nature of reality....unity conciousness.

:-)

[MediumTex]

Xan,

No, the most important thing is freedom.

As long as you are chained to the material world your freedom is an illusion. Only by relinquishing desire and attachments can you transcend suffering and understand the true nature of reality....unity conciousness.

But shouldn't people be free to make these value determinations for themselves?

I mostly agree with what you wrote above, but I'm sure that some people would say that kind of ascetic outlook is ridiculous and that only hedonism will make them happy.

It's not my job to tell them they are wrong or try to coerce them into enlightenment.

[Xan]

Xan,

No, the most important thing is freedom.

As long as you are chained to the material world your freedom is an illusion. Only by relinquishing desire and attachments can you transcend suffering and understand the true nature of reality....unity conciousness.

:-)

Okay...  Well you can relinquish your desire and attachments and stop trying to take stuff from other people.

[MediumTex]

Why do he have to tax them at all? What is so wrong with someone's last wishes if they don't meet everyone else's demand? What if I wanted the largest kegger ever thrown at my funeral? If the government gets to demand 75% of my estate, was it ever really mine in the first pace then?

The government has to raise taxes somehow. We could argue all day about what the level of taxation should be and how much infrastructure, healthcare, education etc. should be provided by the state, but the level of taxation required to fund even the smallest government is never going to be zero, is it? I personally think taxing inheritance is probably one of the least harmful ways of raising revenue, certainly preferable to taxing income, becasue, after all, it is money for nothing anyway.

Why?

Why can't the government do what the private sector does and provide the things that people are willing to pay for?

We have toll roads, security guards, and private arbitration and mediation services.  There is nothing about services traditionally provided by the government under a public sector coercive threat model that means the same services can't be provided as well or better under a private sector cooperative persuasion model.  In many cases, it's just a matter of being willing to try (and letting people try).

Aristotle taught that the force that gravity exerted on an object was proportional to its mass.  This was accepted as truth for almost 2,000 years and then Galileo came along and through a series of simple experiments showed that this theory was wrong.  Why had the theory been allowed to persist for 2,000 years when it could so easily be disproved by dropping two objects from a high place?  I don’t know, I guess no one thought to try.  The unquestioned role of government in society reminds me of this sort of unquestioned belief in something that is so easily disproven if one is actually willing to try a different approach.

[MediumTex]

This Ayn Randian "a man is an island" John Galt "I am a wealth creator!!" worldview will ultimately undermine the survival of our species.

What does an island do to survive?  It trades with the other islands.  Over time, different islands specialize in the things they do best and the wealth of all of the islands increases.

I don't want to keep my own property so that I can hoard it and rub my gold coins by candlelight in the evening to soothe my miserable soul.  I want to keep my own property so that I can spend it the way I want to spend it or invest it the way I want to invest it, either of which benefits the world much more than if someone stole it from me.

Our laws, ethics, morals, should be biased towards ensuring the future surivival of our planet and species. Anything that undermines that is immoral....

Remember, though, Grasshopper, the bias of any public policy is typically tilted toward the interests of those who make the policy, not our planet and species.  Don't be naive.

As the Buddhists say...the path to enlightenment starts by understanding the true nature of reality. The truth is that we are all in this together.

The true nature of reality has as many shades as a color wheel.  No one in the history of the world has been able to agree on the essential nature of reality.  Trying to enforce one vision of the nature of reality through the coercive power of the state is how tyranny becomes entrenched.  I say leave people alone and let them come to their own understanding of reality.

If the government can't even keep the potholes filled, I'm certainly not going to rely on it for a correct understanding of the essential nature of reality.

[Bean]

Bean,

Did you read what I wrote? The government doesn't get any money. You are free to apportion it as you choose....including a giant kegger. The one stipulation is that it must be spent back into society from whence it came. Only a portion can go towards creating an aristrocratic blood legacy.

I did and saying that arbitrarily a portion has to go to "society" could conflict with what I wanted to do in the first place.  On top of this the death tax is double, if not triple, taxation under the current US tax code.  So how many times should the government be able to reach into my pocket?

Also, why does everyone assume legacy wealth corrupts?

[Pointedstick]

Pointed Stick, your utopian system would initially be great. After a few years; effort, ingenuity and luck would enable some people to increase their holdings of land, money etc and so use that relative disparity in wealth to gather more wealth from the rest of the population. That would lead to a viscous spiral where you would have an over-lord and everyone else being debt peons. Basically you would have an economy like that of Haiti.

My reaction would be just the same as my reaction to Haiti, pity and sorrow and hope it all comes better some day.

I'm not sure how you see it becoming like Haiti, seeing as Haiti's history is entirely full of slavery, invasions, revolutions, dictators, and other various state-based actors, and in general fails to follow any perceptible libertarian patterns. Can you describe in a bit more detail how you believe this Haiti-like outcome would come about in my hypothetical island society?

[MediumTex]

Also, why does everyone assume legacy wealth corrupts?

Apparently it is only private sector legacy wealth that it a problem.  Public sector legacy wealth controlled by elected officials and bureaucrats is okay.

How cool would it be if every 80 years or so all of the government's property was redistributed to private citizens?

[moda0306]

Bean,

Did you read what I wrote? The government doesn't get any money. You are free to apportion it as you choose....including a giant kegger. The one stipulation is that it must be spent back into society from whence it came. Only a portion can go towards creating an aristrocratic blood legacy.

I did and saying that arbitrarily a portion has to go to "society" could conflict with what I wanted to do in the first place.  On top of this the death tax is double, if not triple, taxation under the current US tax code.  So how many times should the government be able to reach into my pocket?

Also, why does everyone assume legacy wealth corrupts?

Why should a gift or inheritance, another economic transaction, be exempt from the same tax my income is.  When I go buy a widget with money I paid taxes on, the widget maker pays taxes on his profits... no problems there, really... Why should the recipient of daddy's inheritance be exempt from a tax built into that transaction.

[moda0306]

MT,

Toll roads, private security, and private arbitration are backed by the authority of the contract the government will back.  For instance, when a security guard or body guard shoots a criminal, it's not "just ok," there is a legal process around it.  The private road is only private so long as the government gives deed to one person to own it and protects it from abuse from others.  The arbitrators also only have authority to the degree the government will back their decision.  What if some private arbitrator told me to give $5,000 to another party in the contract, and I told him to go take a hike?  Does his bodyguard take a bat to my head?

The only reason there's order to private property is because at some point the government made that a priority or has the final word.  It's not because the government is so good, so much as there's no quasi-agreed upon legitimate use of force when each person has their own security guard who's interest rests with that individual and no common rule of law... and what good is an arbitrator without any recognized legal authority when push comes to shove in disagreements?

If the government gave all its land to the people and continued to try to issue deeds for it as the Ron Pul & Harry Browne Panacea to all problems, that would be a disaster in many ways.  All National, State & Local parks, roads, highways, common areas, freeways, and trains, ports, and airports all private now, and subject to all the monopolization that would surely occur by unnaturally large (due to limited liability and other organizational laws) corporations would be an unmitigated disaster, IMO.  Private property is not simply a function of individual rights (but instead a social/gov't construct), but also it's not very often the solution to broader problems.  Further, by exaggerating the incompetence of an entity that put a man on the moon and invented a nuclear bomb, we probably lessen the probabilities of finding solutions to problems even faster.

[MediumTex]

Further, by exaggerating the incompetence of an entity that put a man on the moon and invented a nuclear bomb, we probably lessen the probabilities of finding solutions to problems even faster.

Did the government put a man on the moon or did U.S. aerospace contractors?

The Soviet Union wanted it just as bad as the U.S. but they never could pull it off (and the Soviet Union's space program during that period was outstanding and in many ways ahead of the U.S.'s).  What do you think the difference was?

[MachineGhost]

It looks like this topic is averaging one full page per hour!

[moda0306]

MT,

I'll bite... yes, often contracting a certain goal out to the private sector works better than the gov't managing every aspect itself.  The key, though, was that this effort was still coordinated by gov't, and much of the expertise was housed within a gov't agency.  I mean at some point the government has to engage private individuals, whether that be as employees or organizations as contractors.  This doesn't mean it didn't take profound organization and ingenuity by "gov't employees."

So somehow gov't organized an insane technical feat, using a mix of private companies and individuals.  Do you think a patent law judge's job is easy?  How about someone trying to manage the subway in New York City?

So maybe the solution to some problems, even if they're imagined ones such as not having a moon colony ... is to have government engage the private sector with useful projects, but set certain goals with a dollar sign attached to them, contracting it out to the best companies of the private-sector, and doing so more often when there is a huge lag in demand in the current economy.

[MediumTex]

moda,

Government is capable of doing good things in society.  It's just the premises on which the government is based guarantee that many of the things that the government does will be far less efficient and democratic than similar efforts by the private sector.

What I mean by "democratic" is that in the private sector we each get to vote every day for the things we like and don't like in the way we spend our money.  In the public sector there is no such option--the government spends money on projects whether the public wants it or not, or whether it makes any economic sense or not.