Gyroscopic Investing

moda0306 wrote: Let me be clear, though, of course without resources being SOMEONE's for the most part, we'd have no modern economy... it might resemble that African villiage.  In fact, that's my point... the organization, property allocation & defense that government does for individuals in society is immensely valuable, and not without complication, and to constantly trash gov't as an inept entity that private citizens get little value from is asinine, because without some final decision maker economic activity simply couldn't take place anywhere near the degree it has, and those who've benefitted from massive amounts of economic activity might want to realize that they just might have benefitted from certain social structures that are almost impossible without government in any recognizable manner today.

That is true, but then that is the status quo that you are defending.  At some point in ancient history, society tolerated the "technological innovation" of sovereign individuals masquerading as "government" as the most just and fair way to accomplish whatever efficiency was needed.  But it is equally as asinine to assume that what has been, is and will always be.  Given the truly abmysal track record of "government" by any standard of the evidence, in the future:

We need separation between church and state.
We need separation between money and state.
We need separation between economy and state.
We need separation between school and state.
We need separation between health and state.
We need separation between welfare and state.
We need separation between police and state.
We need separation between justice and state.
We need separation between defense and state.
We need separation between humanity and state.
We need separation between civilization and state.
We need separation between everything and state.

hoost wrote: That's a good point.  I believe there is a legal difference between real estate (I believe it's considered "real property") and other property.  I think a similar argument might be made for taxing businesses, or most things other than personal income that is earned from the fruits of one's labor.  For instance, there are a few states that do not have a personal income tax but do tax business income and capital gains.  It seems to me that a reasonable argument could be made defending those methods of taxation as being "just".

Initiatory coercion is never just.  To think otherwise is the presupposition of those individuals masquerading as "government" as opposed to providing value via voluntary exchange.

MachineGhost wrote:

hoost wrote: That's a good point.  I believe there is a legal difference between real estate (I believe it's considered "real property") and other property.  I think a similar argument might be made for taxing businesses, or most things other than personal income that is earned from the fruits of one's labor.  For instance, there are a few states that do not have a personal income tax but do tax business income and capital gains.  It seems to me that a reasonable argument could be made defending those methods of taxation as being "just".

Initiatory coercion is never just.  To think otherwise is the presupposition of those individuals masquerading as "government" as opposed to providing value via voluntary exchange.

My thought process is that if there were no government, there would be no LLC's, no S-corps, no corporations that shield the owners from the liabilities of the corporation.  I think one could come up with an argument justifying some level of taxation on these entities, because without government they would not be able to exist.

hoost wrote: My thought process is that if there were no government, there would be no LLC's, no S-corps, no corporations that shield the owners from the liabilities of the corporation.  I think one could come up with an argument justifying some level of taxation on these entities, because without government they would not be able to exist.

Could we get sole proprietorships entirely deregulated and untaxed then?

Pointedstick wrote:

hoost wrote: My thought process is that if there were no government, there would be no LLC's, no S-corps, no corporations that shield the owners from the liabilities of the corporation.  I think one could come up with an argument justifying some level of taxation on these entities, because without government they would not be able to exist.

Could we get sole proprietorships entirely deregulated and untaxed then?

I wish.    To be clear, I really dislike taxes and most forms/functions of government in general.  But I am willing to concede that a legitimate argument could be made along those lines and I would be inclined to entertain it, as opposed to rule it out from the get-go.  I'm still trying to reason out the philosophical case for government for myself, so I try to keep a fairly open mind about it; it seems to me that some government is better than no government, but where do you draw the line, and how can you make a logically consistent argument for it? 

Simonjester wrote:

hoost wrote:  I'm still trying to reason out the philosophical case for government for myself, so I try to keep a fairly open mind about it; it seems to me that some government is better than no government, but where do you draw the line, and how can you make a logically consistent argument for it?  

i struggle to reason this out myself and the problem/paradox i run up against is some government is better than no government, but all government no matter how small or ideal the quantity is, will seek to become more government, like the unrelenting pull of gravity government will expand... so even if you could pare it down to its ideal size "whatever that may be" how do you keep it there ??

That's the $64 question, isn't it?  We could all probably agree on a utilitarian rationale for government in which we, as taxpayers, agree to surrender some of our claims on present/future consumption in return for the convenience of having government attend to certain matters like security and the defense of our rights under law.  In much the same way that we might enter into a contract with a plumber to fix our pipes.  But what should our reaction be when the plumber, having been frequently hired, becomes so familiar as to pass judgment on whether our home is too ostentatious or whether we have excess disposable income that could be put to better use if redistributed to him and his friends?  Simple.  Our reaction should be one of alarm, whether the threat is an intrusive plumber or a government which has reserved for itself the right to dispose of whatever fraction of our wealth it chooses to take.  Not solely because it needs the money, but because the mere taking is alleged to be socially beneficial.  Our alarm should be all the more when said government is rarely deterred by the populist rituals of a balkanized electorate, or a constitution which counts for little when all three branches of the federal government agree in practice to ignore it.

This is the risk of an unstoppable state, hell bent on expanding both the range of its activities and the demands on our freedom.  This process can be vulgar (such as during the Chinese Cultural Revolution when Red Guards would enter your home and cart off your best furniture) or incremental (such as now when western governments insist on creating a level of cross-generational debt servitude that would make a rural Indian moneylender blush.)  Either way, the danger persists that we may lose all leverage over what happens to us, becoming mere supplicants instead of free citizens.

To me, the key to understanding what government is involves the understanding that government is the entity that seeks to obtain a monopoly on the use of force in society.

At the heart of Apple Computer or any other private company is the belief that they can persuade you to give them your money because you will receive something in return that you value more than you valued the money you paid for it.

Government differs from Apple Computer because at the heart of government is the belief that the monopoly on the use of force can be used to compel you to give them your money because you value your personal safety more than you value the money you are handing over.

The basic difference is persuasion vs. coercion.  When someone tries to persuade me to do something, I am flattered.  When they try to coerce me into doing something I am annoyed.

It is this implicit threat of the use of force that distinguishes the government from every other entity in society.  It's no accident that the government representatives we see in public carry guns, while the representatives of private companies are typically unarmed.  In the former case, the name of the game is coercion through the threat of force and in the latter case the name of the game is persuasion through advertising, marketing and sales.  Which of these approaches to meeting the needs of society seems destined to get better results?

TBV wrote: In much the same way that we might enter into a contract with a plumber to fix our pipes.  But what should our reaction be when the plumber, having been frequently hired, becomes so familiar as to pass judgment on whether our home is too ostentatious or whether we have excess disposable income that could be put to better use if redistributed to him and his friends?  Simple.  Our reaction should be one of alarm, whether the threat is an intrusive plumber or a government which has reserved for itself the right to dispose of whatever fraction of our wealth it chooses to take.

And then one day, your heavily-armed plumber is there eating all the food out of your fridge, selling your furniture on Ebay and waving a gun at your neighbor.  You have to live with this because he will shoot you if you ask him to leave or try to hire anybody else to fix your pipes.

On the positive side, I am appreciative that in the United States our plumber still takes the time to fix pipes and generally allows us to make fun of his plumber's crack.

Lone Wolf wrote: And then one day, your heavily-armed plumber is there eating all the food out of your fridge, selling your furniture on Ebay and waving a gun at your neighbor.  You have to live with this because he will shoot you if you ask him to leave or try to hire anybody else to fix your pipes.

On the positive side, I am appreciative that in the United States our plumber still takes the time to fix pipes and generally allows us to make fun of his plumber's crack.

Not only that, he lets us carry guns too.

The amount you pay in social security taxes is indexed to inflation, rising every year.

The amount of social security benefits subject to income tax was set in stone in 1984 with no reference to inflation at all.

Don't know about ethics, but it says a lot about something, I think.

On this same note, what are the ethics on paying the taxes on gold capital appreciation if the buyer (i.e. gold dealer) doesn't report what you actually sold to the government, just that they obtained gold at a specific price. This tax that we pay on gold appreciation mirrors to some extent the purpose of this initial thread post because gold semi-tracks inflation so you're paying tax on the inflation.

I see people going into the gold dealer all the time to get money for their old gold, but not sure how many of them actually know, or even if they do know, would pay tax on their capital gains.

In short, not paying the taxes when you know it is law is dishonest. However, if you believe the law to be dishonest itself, what is the gold seller (i.e. you) to do?

1NV35T0R (Greg) wrote: In short, not paying the taxes when you know it is law is dishonest. However, if you believe the law to be dishonest itself, what is the gold seller (i.e. you) to do?

I think when gold rallies it outpaces inflation big time, but who even has an accurate basis to compare to?

The way the IRS operates is it presumes anything reported to it on a form 1090 is "taxable income".  If it doesn't receive a form 1090...

Statutory laws or IRS publications are not "the law" just because such scribbles on paper are deemed to be.  They require implementing regulations to take full force and effect.  So if there are "oversights" or "loopholes" or "giveaways" in implementing regulations, it would not be an illegal act.  However, if you attracted enough public attention in avoiding or evading taxes to be investigated by the IRS, arguing that fact is like being a strict constructionalist vs original intent.  And we all know which side of that line judges fall on...

MachineGhost wrote: Statutory laws ... require implementing regulations to take full force and effect.

It seems that was not always so, or at least not nearly to the extent it is today.

It used to be that Congress wrote and passed a law and the president signed or vetoed it.  If signed, his branch enforced it.

Now Congress passes a law which in many/most cases is nothing more than some vague intent, and if signed, then the executive branch gets to define what it means by writing page after page of regulations.  Such regulations end up being far more numerous than the law, which is incomprehensibly large by itself.

It's turned our supposed three branches with divided powers, checks and balances into a farce.  Ignorance of the law is no excuse in court, but there is absolutely no way to know the law any longer.  How many of you have read the hundreds of thousands of pages published in the Federal Register so far this year, much less your state and local governments?  It's insane.

It was intentionally started in the 1930's by FDR asking Congress for and getting essentially carte blanche.  Before then the three branches of gov't were close to the same size.  Now the executive dwarfs the others, and all three have grown entirely out of proportion to the population.

That is an excellent point, AgAuMoney.  The number and length of laws by themselves are out of control, and I hadn't even thought to include all the regulations built on top of them.  It's scary.

Though it's a rarely-used power, it basically gives the president absolute authority over everybody. All he has to do is re-interpret a regulation, or tell a political appointee who heads up a cabinet-level regulatory body to do it. BOOM! All of the sudden possession of an imported firearm is illegal. Or a shotgun with a forward grip, or lacking a. And millions of people wake up criminals.