Rider in Transport Bill taxes all cigarette manufacturers equally
Roll-your-own cigarette operations to be snuffed out - Business - ReviewJournal.com
But a few paragraphs added to the transportation bill changed the definition of a cigarette manufacturer to cover thousands of roll-your-own operations nationwide. The move, backed by major tobacco companies, is aimed at boosting tax revenues. |
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 900226)
Now what does rolling cigarettes have to do with transportation? :rolleyes:
Ray |
Would you look at that, another bill gets passed and no one hears about it until it's about passed.
|
Originally Posted by triple88a
(Post 900232)
Would you look at that, another bill gets passed and no one hears about it until it's about passed.
|
Originally Posted by paNX2K&SE-R
(Post 900242)
---- like that irks me to no end.
Makes me want to start a revolution...miatas and guns at the capital!!! |
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 900226)
Now what does rolling cigarettes have to do with transportation? :rolleyes:
Don't worry, obama will go line by line and veto out the pork. You gotta pass the bill before you know what's in it. ask yourself this: what does running our goverment have to do with ruining our country? bro, rollin' ciggies is a way to transport tobacco. |
Govt: "ATTN, RYO industry: You must pay the same taxes as other cigarette manufacturers."
RYO: "OMG, we are killface." Govt: "What? Y U no just pay tax?" RYO: "We no haz money 4 tax." Govt: "WTF? How you no haz money from selling tobacco?!?" So, essentially, the bill requires that companies which are presently evading the payment of tax on cigarettes with a clever sleight-of-hand trick must now start paying the same tax as everyone else who sells cigarettes. These companies are saying "Oh, woe is me. We haven't figured out how to make enough money from selling cigarettes to pay your tax. We will all simply have to go out of business rather than be treated equally." |
That sounds like a fair analysis, Joe. I'm sure you have more information on the operating expenses of these RYO companies and their profitability than the owners do. No doubt they are shutting their businesses down out of spite, just to show the government who's boss, not because these new taxes make their businesses untenable.
|
There's a vast difference between spite and incompetence. If you can't make enough money from selling tobacco in Vegas to cover your taxes and fees, then you probably need to be in a simpler line of work anyway.
|
So you've compared the tax rates and decided that the regulations originally designed for massive cigarette companies are also appropriate for mom-and-pop RYO shops?
|
a) Are any of these taxes disproportionately more expensive for small businesses?
b) What does this have to do with transportation? These trojan horses are a MAJOR means by which unpopular and damaging legislation gets passed. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 900278)
So, essentially, the bill requires that companies which are presently evading the payment of tax on cigarettes with a clever sleight-of-hand trick must now start paying the same tax as everyone else who sells cigarettes.
Personally, methinks big tobacco just didn't like the competition and found a way to get rid of it through this legislation. Ray |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 900249)
line liners:
Don't worry, obama will go line by line and veto out the pork. I don't agree with how this was passed, but it makes sense. You can't build a business around a tax loophole and then bitch when the loophole gets eliminated. |
Originally Posted by RayinNorCal
(Post 900310)
Joe, how can a company evade a tax to which it was never lawfully subject? That's like saying I'm evading California sales tax whenever I buy something off a person who advertises on Craigslist.
This thread has potential. :drama: |
Originally Posted by njn63
(Post 900311)
I don't agree with how this was passed, but it makes sense. You can't build a business around a tax loophole and then bitch when the loophole gets eliminated.
A "loophole" implies that the rest of the tax code is a tightly-woven and coherent document. It is not. |
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau
(Post 900304)
So you've compared the tax rates and decided that the regulations originally designed for massive cigarette companies are also appropriate for mom-and-pop RYO shops?
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 900305)
b) What does this have to do with transportation?
The concept of affixing "riders" to popular legislation is relatively new (it did not become especially commonplace until the early 1900s) however it has been affirmed as legal, and is now almost completely customary and expected. The counterforce for this is the line-item veto, which allows the executive to over-rule single riders within larger and more important bills. This use is still fairly common at the state level, although at the federal level it was found unconstitutional in 1998 in the US District Court of DC, and that ruling was affirmed later that year by the Supreme Court (Clinton v. City of New York 524 U.S. 417) You can read the full text of the Supreme Court decision here. (Jason will now argue that this concept was not thought of by the Founding Fathers, which makes it "wrong" despite being legal and constitutional.)
Originally Posted by RayinNorCal
(Post 900310)
Joe, how can a company evade a tax to which it was never lawfully subject?
Originally Posted by RayinNorCal
(Post 900310)
That's like saying I'm evading California sales tax whenever I buy something off a person who advertises on Craigslist.
Like most states, the state of California State Board of Equalization requires that its residents pay a Use Tax on purchases made for which normal Sales Tax is not collected. This includes both private transactions and purchases made from out-of-state vendors (eg: mail order). Enforcement of this law is relatively lax, however it is the law. When you filed your 2011 California income tax, this was line 95 on Form 540. You are permitted to make a single "Estimated Use Tax Liability" payment in lieu of computing the actual tax liability, based on income. For taxpayers with an AGI of between $100,000 and $149,999 for instance, the Use Tax Liability is $88. (see pages 14-15 of "Instructions for Form 540 / 540A)
Originally Posted by RayinNorCal
(Post 900310)
Personally, methinks big tobacco just didn't like the competition and found a way to get rid of it through this legislation.
An important consideration however, and one which I've not seen raised, is that everyone seems to be taking it on faith that this is, in fact, driving all the little guys out of business. While I'm sure that they'd prefer not to have to pay their fair share (I mean, who wouldn't?) it's probably a tad naive to simple take them at their word when they say "Oh, this is just going to drive us out of business," as though we are totally unfamiliar with the use of hyperbole and drama in business. |
It's all politics.... But +1 AGREED!
|
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 900330)
The concept of affixing "riders" to popular legislation is relatively new (it did not become especially commonplace until the early 1900s) however it has been affirmed as legal, and is now almost completely customary and expected.
The counterforce for this is the line-item veto, ... at the federal level it was found unconstitutional in 1998 in the US District Court of DC, ... (Jason will now argue that this concept was not thought of by the Founding Fathers, which makes it "wrong" despite being legal and constitutional.) Here's a better way than the line item veto: It's called "One subject at a time". https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/one-subject/ My team created the "One Subject at a Time Act" (OSTA) to make you more powerful. Most legislation aims to control you, but OSTA will control Congress instead. It will . . . Stop Congressional leaders from passing unwanted laws by attaching them to popular, but unrelated, bills. Require each bill to be about ONLY one subject, and to stand or fall entirely on its own merits. ..everyone seems to be taking it on faith that this is, in fact, driving all the little guys out of business. While I'm sure that they'd prefer not to have to pay their fair share (I mean, who wouldn't?) |
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau
(Post 900318)
How was it a "loophole"? The tax code is a million layers of various incentives and disincentives created at different times for different purposes, each layer creating a hundred new layers of unintended incentives and disincentives.
A "loophole" implies that the rest of the tax code is a tightly-woven and coherent document. It is not. It's like an out of state mailorders complaining about a state collecting sales tax by claiming they can't be competitive now. Other businesses are already subject to that sales tax and the government is now making the marketplace fair for everyone, not singling the mailorders out and running them out of business. |
Green party seems pretty good :rofl:
|
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 900330)
Are you familiar with the name Smokey Yunick?
You are. Like most states, the state of California State Board of Equalization requires that its residents pay a Use Tax on purchases made for which normal Sales Tax is not collected. This includes both private transactions and purchases made from out-of-state vendors (eg: mail order). Enforcement of this law is relatively lax, however it is the law. When you filed your 2011 California income tax, this was line 95 on Form 540. You are permitted to make a single "Estimated Use Tax Liability" payment in lieu of computing the actual tax liability, based on income. For taxpayers with an AGI of between $100,000 and $149,999 for instance, the Use Tax Liability is $88. (see pages 14-15 of "Instructions for Form 540 / 540A) And that may well be true. An important consideration however, and one which I've not seen raised, is that everyone seems to be taking it on faith that this is, in fact, driving all the little guys out of business. While I'm sure that they'd prefer not to have to pay their fair share (I mean, who wouldn't?) it's probably a tad naive to simply take them at their word when they say "Oh, this is just going to drive us out of business," as though we are totally unfamiliar with the use of hyperbole and drama in business. Ray |
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 900337)
I don't put much faith in the Supreme Court (see Dredd Scott, and Patriot Act), and no I don't put the Founders on as high a pedestal as you assume I do.
The Constitution established the Supreme Court, and granted it certain authority. If you support the Constitution, you can't go saying "I don't like the Supreme Court" simply because you disagree with some of their decisions. And if you find the entire institution of The Court offensive and worth of abolition per-se, then there's really no reason why we shouldn't go ahead and abolish the congress and the presidency as well.
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 900337)
Here's a better way than the line item veto:
It's called "One subject at a time". https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/one-subject/
Originally Posted by RayinNorCal
(Post 900371)
Sorry, but no. I've never followed Nascar. In any event, I'll be interested to read your comparison.
That's really all that's happened here. The states have always taxed factory-produced cigarettes at a different rate than loose tobacco, and I can't recall every hearing anyone claim that this was anti-competitive or unfair. Somewhere along the line, some clever person figured out that he could sell loose tobacco and pre-made cigarette tubes to consumers as two separate transactions, and additionally provide them with access to a machine which would automatically stuff the tobacco into the tubes, thus producing a finished cigarette which was functionally indistinguishable from a factory-produced smoke, and avoiding the tax which would otherwise be levied. That's a loophole. The only thing that the Fed has done here is to say that a retailer which hosts a cigarette-making machine which automatically creates finished cigarettes for a customer counts as a "manufacturer," and can thus be taxed in the same way as any other cigarette manufacturer. Tell me how that's not fair? Really, the only difference here is batch-size. Just because you are producing cigarettes in small batches does not make them any different from those rolling off a large factory line, especially considering that the process is, in either case, completely mechanized and automated. If you genuinely want to "roll your own", purchasing loose tobacco and rolling papers and putting the cigarettes together yourself, then nothing at all has changed. The ONLY thing this law does is to clarify that a company which uses an automatic machine to assemble cigarettes and then sell finished cigarettes to a customer is a manufacturer of cigarettes, regardless of whether they are making a thousand cigarettes an hour or a hundred-thousand. Consider the following: if there was a hypothetical Pizza Tax, would it be wrong for this tax to be collected not only on the sale of frozen pizzas from the big-chain grocery store, but also on pizzas sold by the local Pizza Hut and other pizza shops? Because that's really all that's happened here.
Originally Posted by RayinNorCal
(Post 900371)
I hate you, Joe. ;)
|
You made me laugh with that Smokey story. As for the question, "Tell me how that's not fair?" it could be answered in the fact that the customer, not the shop, is actually producing the finished product, so what rationale is there to tax a business for something it technically doesn't do? How does one construe this as cheating?
Why, because I don't cheat on my taxes? Ray |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 900386)
I can honestly never quite tell where you actually stand. Sometimes you seem to speak from the perspective of a Constitutionalist, other times you seem to just make up political philosophy as you go along.
The Constitution was a move towards centralization of power, away from the Articles of Confederation. The Swiss central gov't today is arguably less powerful than the Constitution's writers intended for this country. The Constitution established the Supreme Court, and granted it certain authority. If you support the Constitution, you can't go saying "I don't like the Supreme Court" simply because you disagree with some of their decisions. <snip> ...Consider the following: if there was a hypothetical Pizza Tax, would it be wrong for this tax to be collected not only on the sale of frozen pizzas from the big-chain grocery store, but also on pizzas sold by the local Pizza Hut and other pizza shops? Because that's really all that's happened here. |
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 900405)
My views have evolved from a constitutionalist/natural-law libertarianism and now I'm between AnarchoCapitalism/consequentialist libertarianism, and Common-Law libertarianism.
Consequentialist-libertarianism acknowledges that capitalism and the free market are merely a means to an end. Specifically, it sets forth the idea of a "greater good", which might be simplistically expressed as happiness / prosperity / security / etc. The sort of stuff that typically follows phrases like "We the People of the United States..." In other words, our goal is to make life "better," and free market capitalism is a tool by which we can move towards that goal. Such an interpretation is consistent with the original ideals and desires which went into founding the US and drafting its constitution. Anarcho-capitalism, by contrast, holds that the free market itself IS the ultimate end, and makes no judgement of the consequences of same. It makes no consideration for what is "good" or "just" for either its own individual citizens or for humanity as a whole. In a truly anarcho-capatalist society, corporations are free to sell products which are dangerous and defective, to commit fraud, to engage in extortion and espionage, and to commit acts which are harmful to society. In an anarcho-capitalist state, corporations are not merely free to dump toxic waste into the water supply and poison the environment, they would actually be encouraged and commended for doing so, as this would presumably decrease their operating costs and improve their profitability. After all, how can you have a truly free economy if The State can preferentially dictate who may dump their toxic waste into the river and who may not? Anarcho-capitalism, in its purest sense, is Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. Specifically, the land of Bartertown as run by Tina Turner and Master Blaster. "Bust a deal, face the wheel!" I'll pass on that, thanks.
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 900405)
The Supreme Court was not meant to be the final arbiter of what's constitutional and what's not. Some of the Constitution's writers argued that it was going to be just another tentacle of the Federal monster. They wanted the individual States to be that, by their power of Nullification of Federal laws within their borders.
The legislative branch gets all kinds of restrictions. Lots of "Congress shall make no law..." and "there shall not be less than 200 Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every 50,000 persons.... and so forth. Very restrictive, and extraordinarily specific. But when it comes to the Judiciary, the constitution is mostly permissive, and conspicuously succinct. Article III is by far the shortest of the three Articles defining the three branches of the government, and grants broad authority to The Court in all sorts of matters. Most importantly, Article III Section 2 grants the Supreme Court the authority to interpret the constitution, to settle disputes arising from it, and to strike down any enactments of either the Legislative or the Executive branches which it deems to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court was most certainly meant to be "the final arbiter of what's constitutional and what's not" as you put it. That authority is specifically granted to it. Given the broad authority entrusted to The Court, and the nearly complete lack of restraining covenants placed upon it, and in conjunction with the almost autocratic policy of lifetime appointment, one gets the impression that The Court was intended nearly to function as a sophocracy, adjunct to the other two, more "common" branches of the government.
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 900405)
And again, this power to create winners and losers, and to grant economic favors, is where Corporatism comes from. That's one of the reasons I prefer ZERO corporate taxes. I think the most evenly applied tax would be a straight sales (consumption) tax.
And while a general sales tax (eg: VAT) is in many ways preferable to an income-based tax, that this tax be evenly applied to all goods fails to account for the reality that not all services which are provided by the state and federal governments are equally required and enjoyed by all, and that a useful correlation can be drawn between the consumption of certain classes of goods and the enjoyment (to the exclusion of others) of certain types of state-provided services. For instance, the tax on the sale of gasoline, inasmuch as its revenue is properly allocated to the building of roads and the like, is one such example. By taxing motor vehicle fuel at a rate which is separate from the general sales tax, the burden of building and maintaining roads is apportioned unto those who enjoy the benefit of same, and at a rate equally proportionate to the degree to which the roads are used by any individual taxpayer. He who purchases more gasoline is presumed to travel more upon the roads, and is thus expected to contribute more to their upkeep. For one who lives in the city and owns not a car, or who lives very nearby to his place of employment and commutes only short distances and not upon the freeways, should they be taxed equally for the construction of the roads as one who drives upon them a hundred miles each day because he chooses to live far out in the suburbs and yet work downtown? |
I sort of got sidetracked arguing con-law with Jason...
Originally Posted by RayinNorCal
(Post 900390)
You made me laugh with that Smokey story.
Originally Posted by RayinNorCal
(Post 900390)
As for the question, "Tell me how that's not fair?" it could be answered in the fact that the customer, not the shop, is actually producing the finished product,
You are still free to purchase tobacco, rolling papers, and even the little hand-held rolling machines, and roll your own cigarettes just as before. You need not pay any additional taxes, nor will you be labeled a manufacturer. The operators in this case had gone quite a bit further. They had created machines which fully automate the process for the customer, much like a vending machine that bakes a fresh pizza while you wait. (hence my earlier joke about the Pizza Tax. I guess it was too subtle.) In this scenario, the customer is not producing the finished product. They're simply walking up to a machine, putting in some money, and taking out finished cigarettes. The vendors are skirting the tax law by purchasing raw tobacco and papers as though they were going to be directly re-sold, but then performing the act of manufacturing finished cigarettes and selling finished cigarettes to customers without collecting the tax which must be assessed on finished cigarettes. But this isn't actually about cigarettes at all. It's about a media-styled perception of "the little guy" and our selective bias in perceiving how laws ought to be enforced. When some huge corporation hires a bunch of lawyers to help them figure out clever ways to avoid paying taxes, we get all fired up and complain about how this is unfair, and demand that the laws be updated to prevent this. Why is it, then, then when a small chain of stores figures out a clever way to avoid paying taxes, we get all fired up and complain about how it's unfair for the government to update the laws to prevent this? |
Originally Posted by njn63
(Post 900311)
I don't agree with how this was passed, but it makes sense. You can't build a business around a tax loophole and then bitch when the loophole gets eliminated.
are they wrong? are the immoral? are they unfair? |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 900510)
are tax loopholes illegal?
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 900510)
are they wrong?
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 900510)
are the immoral?
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 900510)
are they unfair?
|
Originally Posted by njn63
(Post 900523)
Sure, but life isn't fair.
|
Originally Posted by rleete
(Post 900524)
I'd like to tattoo this on the forehead of every liberal that tries to "level the field".
Both sides distort the "it isn't fair" angle to fit their agenda. |
Originally Posted by njn63
(Post 900525)
Both sides distort the "it isn't fair" angle to fit their agenda.
Is a flat income tax fair? No- it means that I have to pay a lot more then someone who flips burgers for minimum wage, despite the fact that I'm not receiving any more benefits for my tax dollars (and am probably receiving less.) Is a flat sales tax fair? No- it means that the burger guy has to pay a much larger percentage of his income in taxes. Is a corporate tax fair? No- it amounts to double-taxation (once on corporate earnings, a second time on the salaries which it pays and the goods which it sells.) Is the complete abolition of all taxes, and the adoption of a "fee for service" model fair? Well, technically yes. Although there are some practical problems involved, for instance, in attempting to verify that one has paid the "Fire Protection Fee" before making the decision whether or not to send out a fire truck in response to a 911 call, especially in cases where I, having paid the fee, call 911 in response to my neighbor's house being on fire. At best, we can attempt to reach positions of compromise which seem equitable. Such as taxing the sale of all cigarettes equally, regardless of whether they were manufactured in a large factory or a small automated vending machine. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 900540)
How do you define "fair" in the context of taxation?
Is a flat income tax fair? No- it means that I have to pay a lot more then someone who flips burgers for minimum wage, despite the fact that I'm not receiving any more benefits for my tax dollars (and am probably receiving less.) (snip). |
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 900541)
Would you argue in favor of a regressive tax system then, Joe?
If you meant a regressive income tax, then yes, I would personally benefit from this, and therefore favor it. But I know it will never actually come to pass, because too many people would argue that it's unfair to the burger guy. |
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 900541)
Would you argue in favor of a regressive tax system then, Joe? Or do you support a progressive system? Somewhere in between? I'm wondering what your actual stance on the subject is.
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 900542)
A flat sales tax IS a regressive tax.
If you meant a regressive income tax, then yes, I would personally benefit from this, and therefore favor it. But I know it will never actually come to pass, because too many people would argue that it's unfair to the burger guy. Is this the conservative stance of "Oh my GAWD, we can't tax THE JOB MAKERS!!!111oneone" stance, or just a reasoned stance of personal benefit? I am assuming the latter as you are pretty clear about it, but we all know what that seems to do on this particular sub-forum. |
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 900545)
I'm trying to find out what you support and where you stand on the topic, Joe.
I stand for thought and reason. I stand for the truth. I am not trying to get up a soapbox and espouse one specific political philosophy. I'm not an evangelist. I don't need to convert you to my "belief system." This is a web forum about gay kitties, moderated by a heavily-armed cartoon chicken. If I were serious about effecting social change, I wouldn't be doing it here. All I want to see happen in situations like this is for people to actually take a step back and understand the truth about what's being discussed. Not just the truth as someone else claims to deliver it, but as understood from genuine comprehension. To analyze the real facts, rather than just accepting whatever premise has been put forward without question. I genuinely don't care whether you (or anybody else) is a communist, a socialist, an anarcho-capitalist, a corporatist, or a Lutheran. I only require that you THINK about what's being discussed, rather than parrot one-liners in response to hyperbolic and misleading headlines. Whenever I see someone make a post in a thread like this that goes "But wait; isn't such-and-such fundamentally incompatible with the idea of this-and-that..." it makes me smile. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 900546)
Then you mis-interpret my intentions.
I stand for thought and reason. I stand for the truth. I am not trying to get up a soapbox and espouse one specific political philosophy. I'm not an evangelist. I don't need to convert you to my "belief system." This is a web forum about gay kitties, moderated by a heavily-armed cartoon chicken. If I were serious about effecting social change, I wouldn't be doing it here. All I want to see happen in situations like this is for people to actually take a step back and understand the truth about what's being discussed. Not just the truth as someone else claims to deliver it, but as understood from genuine comprehension. To analyze the real facts, rather than just accepting whatever premise has been put forward without question. I genuinely don't care whether you (or anybody else) is a communist, a socialist, an anarcho-capitalist, a corporatist, or a Lutheran. I only require that you THINK about what's being discussed, rather than parrot one-liners in response to hyperbolic and misleading headlines. Whenever I see someone make a post in a thread like this that goes "But wait; isn't such-and-such fundamentally incompatible with the idea of this-and-that..." it makes me smile. That doesn't change the fact, however, that I'd still like to know what *you* think on said topic. This thread is on the verge of entering a progressive vs. regressive debate, which is something I would be very interested in reading your thoughts on. |
Get a room.
|
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 900481)
Anarcho-capitalism, by contrast, holds that the free market itself IS the ultimate end, and makes no judgement of the consequences of same.
It makes no consideration for what is "good" or "just" for either its own individual citizens or for humanity as a whole. In a truly anarcho-capatalist society, corporations are free to sell products which are dangerous and defective, to commit fraud, to engage in extortion and espionage, and to commit acts which are harmful to society. ... corporations are not merely free to dump toxic waste into the water supply and poison the environment, they would actually be encouraged and commended for doing so, as this would presumably decrease their operating costs and improve their profitability. ... Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. The closest things to it in history are the Icelandic Commonwealth which lasted longer than the USA has been around (chieftains competed for "citizens" for paid subscriptions, and there was no executive branch of gov't) Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: A Historical Case .. and the early Irish system of private law: Private Law in the Emerald Isle - Finbar Feehan-Fitzgerald - Mises Daily In a modern Anarcho-Capitalistic system, pollution would be dealt with by protection of property rights, and by an interconnected system of insurance contracts, many of which will include pollution insurance purchased by individuals. Pollution insurance companies would have to pay customers a contracted amount if pollution appears in their environment, as stipulated in their contract. It would be in the economic interest of said insurers to monitor the nearby areas if a corporation will start operations, and said corporations would have to check with insurers that cover the area. There would be conflicts of interest between corporations who want to profit and the aggregate interests of individuals nearby. IOW there WILL BE a direct economic cost to polluting. Because the monetary interests of individuals affected by the pollution will be comparable to or would typically be greater than any given corporation, (via pollution insurance), there will need to be a compromise between the 2 groups. The compromise will have to be economically viable. If there is none then said corporation wouldn't be able to set up shop. In general the majority if not all of gov't functions can be replaced by competing companies. (e.g. Fedex vs. USPS, international arbitration firms vs. the court systems) One of the important things to remember is that war is very expensive and so any protection firms that decide to go to war with another protection firm would not stay profitable. They would not have the power to tax nor print money like governments to. For those who want to learn more here are books and links: The Possibility of Private Law - Robert P. Murphy - Mises Daily http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Ma...f_Freedom_.pdf http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf |
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 900962)
No, that a free society is the ultimate end, and many proponents hypothesize that such a system produces the most wealth and prosperity for the most people. The free market is part and parcel of a free society.
Consequentialist-libertarianism encourages the use of a free market and a free society only inasmuch as that it recognizes them as tools which can be used to bring about prosperity and happiness, with the ultimate goal of making life "good" for its citizens. It also recognizes the authority of a central State to enact and enforce laws which regulate commerce, again with the aim of furthering the goal of prosperity. Anarcho-capitalism, by contrast, does not specifically seek to enrich the lives of people. Rather, it seeks to achieve a specific structure. It is a highly idealistic philosophy, in much the same way as Soviet-style communism was. Unfortunately, both seek the wrong goal. As an engineer, I'm sure you're familiar with the "functioning as designed" excuse. For everyone else, this is basically an old joke where the customer (or the marketing department, or management, or whoever) goes to engineering and says that the product isn't working properly. Engineering then points to the specifications document (which it knows to have been flawed from the beginning) and observes that the product is functioning exactly as it was designed to, and that the requirement, not the product, was faulty. The same problem occurs here. If you have a system which is designed to seek a specific organizational system, then there's no recourse if that system turns out to be harmful to the people who it was intended to serve. From the point of view of a humanist, anarcho-capitalism is like designing a race car in which you give exacting specifications for every single part right down to the color scheme, but fail to specify that the car should be capable of actually winning a race. For the purpose of not muddying this conversation too much, I'll withhold comment on USPS vs. FedEx as well as "costs of pollution" for now, other than to say that package delivery services are intended to deliver packages rather than enrich the quality of life, and we've already demonstrated that a pay-for-pollution model is good at generating revenue but bad at reducing pollution, simply by looking at the EU's carbon credit program. |
Originally Posted by blaen99
(Post 900549)
That doesn't change the fact, however, that I'd still like to know what *you* think on said topic.
Taxation, as we know it in its present form, exists. It is no less real than gravity, and no less immutable. There is nothing that I can do to change it; it is simply a constant. As such, I have no greater opinion of it than I do of Toyota Camrys or the fact that the sun appears to rise in the east. I simply don't spend a lot of time thinking about these things. The sun will always rise in the east, people will always buy Totoya Camrys, and the Federal Government will always tax income at rates of its own choosing. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 900481)
Neither the Pizza Tax nor the Cigarette Tax are corporate taxes- they are sales taxes, in that they are levied upon finished goods, and only at the time that these goods are conveyed to a purchaser. And assuming that they are applied uniformly, they do not create winners or losers, as all are affected equally.
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:47 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands