Tax cuts impact quality of life: study

[PiMan]

Society would suffer in anarchy because the poor and the weak are doomed to be abused. I'm not just talking slavery or pseudo-slavery either.

Consider the jerk running a Ponzi scheme, ripping off many people but there is no legal recourse.
Consider the disturbed kiddie-fiddler convincing children that abuse is not abuse. There is no money to be made in saving those children, so abuse will continue.

 

[Greizer85]

you run into the archon problem - you assume that you know what the market solutions will be. no one in reality does. http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=confederalsocialist&view=videos&query=archon

I watched the two first videos... The first one says that all top-down models are [technically] webs of lies, the second one that morality has an evolutionary basis. I assume the third one says that water is wet and the fourth that air is dry. So far I didn't hear much about market solutions... But a totally free market combined with the current mentality of humans would result in a catastrophy.

you seem to misunderstand market dynamics, laziness oppurtunities for people wanting to make money on others demand that are too lazy to do it themselves. same thing as saying: "oh my god! CPUs are so insanely huge and difficult to comprehend with billions of transistors now that we need the government to enforce programmers to certain systems of abstraction, no one could ever do all the microassembler and hardware programming on their own!" when in fact, the free market of computer programmers has done just the very thing government would have, except cheaper and better.

The laziness I meant relates to people's consuming habits. Various cloth chains for example use child labour. Do you see them going out of business? No... Because people are lazy hypocrites who just want their cheap clothes. And then there's cowardice, which is even worse. If you'd have to oppose gunmen with your oppressed neighbours, how many guys would you expect to turn up to protect what is not theirs? This passage sums up human moralities very well in this regard: "First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out -- because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out -- because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out -- because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -- because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak out for me." Take away police and this is exactly what would happen. New powergroups would spring up overnight, and nationwide feuding would ensue. The 'little people' would get caught between so many doors it's not even funny.

the laziness problem is not against profit incentivised decision making. it is against decision making without profit incentives, namely GOVERNMENT

big companies keep competition out by being able to make their own rules and regulations and get who to enforce them and sset barriers to entry? thats right, big GOVERNMENT http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KUfGRpWrXE&feature=channel_page

anarchy is a not a mentality, it is the freedom of mentality, it has the face of the people, as the people make their decisions, thus it cant possibly be against human attitude. government is a mentality as it forces people with different ends to work for a common one and by doing so creates aggression.

As said before, move to Somalia. In that wonderful spirit of the free people, small problems like starvation and not having a safe place to sleep at would surely be whisked away in a gentle breeze of revolutionary camaraderie.

Bolded in practice = freedom to coerce, and you know it. The face of (some) people is not a pleasant one, believe me. The want to control other people is one of the basic human desires... It makes one safe to be in control. And to have a competent leader works to the same effect. We have made the best what we can of it, in many regards. Sure the 'social contracts' are a bit shady (in that there is a lack of alternatives), but hell of a lot better than sheer anarchy.

 

[Merkinball]

It still fundamentally does not work because it is utterly alien to the way humans behave. In short, people will not choose to behave that way, and cannot be compelled to behave that way. And nothing will ever change that.

So then at what point does righteousness enter the equation?

 

[Merkinball]

But the self interest of the strong in inherently to take from the weak. And your "mechanism" for stopping that is absolutely 100% guaranteed to fail. And since it is absolutely 100% guaranteed to fail, your entire system fails. And you have no fallback from that. You are absolutely committed to the success of something that has no chance whatsoever to work.

And if you can't see that, then everything you are trying to accomplish is a bust.

Come on. You might be able to handle the amateurs with this kind of rhetorical drivel. But seriously...

 

[mrt144]

whats the problem with child labour? it has been the standard way to live for most of homo sapiens' history. the fact that people in poor countries with less capital accumulation still have to use it, shouldnt be a surprise.

What's wrong with rape? It's been a staple of reproduction for most of homo sapiens' history. Murder too. Not to mention genocide...

 

[PiMan]

why arent children taught this in schools? thats what i keep thinking, there is plenty of history, language, literature, all that, but what about actual important skills in life?

on the subject of social security. think about it. people voluntarily vote for parties that impose those beliefs, so people voluntarily support social ideas and agree with being taxed to pay for it and act upon that belief. but suddenly, when we get rid of state enforcement and let people actually make more decisions with their money, they will stop voluntarily supporting social ideas? the reason no one is making donations to the homeless and organising that they dont die is because the state is supposed to take care of it. it doesnt cost much to donate some expired food and run a crummy barracks heating for them to live in, i as a poor college student would even donate a bit, i am sure other richer people would, as well.

on evil schemes however, social security in us is a ponzi scheme, education sucks, and no one has the option to do anything about those things, that is the tragedy of monocentric law.

i wont claim what the solutions will be to exact problems of law and order, because that is the point, no one person knows them just as in the pencil example. However, when people are given more options of solving their problems then they have now, it seems realistic to expect that they will use those options. also note that other anarchies of history have solved them.

I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about with your first paragraph.

People won't donate as much because it is a case of out-of-sight, out-of-mind. People let the government donate on their behalf because they know they won't get around to doing it themselves.

The relationship between social security and Ponzi schemes is superficial at best.
But you do have something you can do about it. You have exactly one vote to use every four years, along with single votes for other levels of government.

Do you know how most anarchies solved the problems of law and order? They removed anarchy.

and guess what economic system avoids those mechanisms from forming? thats right, capitalism. it is state control of services that results in what you are talking about, that is why you know how to describe it.

the poor are doomed if they doom selves into not taking care of them. it has nothing to do with capitalism.

We are talking about mechanisms to avoid corporate tyrants. To avoid many of the negatives from uncontrolled capitalism.

In capitalism the poor are doomed, in socialism the poor are not. It has everything to do with capitalism.

the only way to prevent someone from abusing a monopolist rigth is to make sure everyone has it.

somalia had an agricultural boom just after the state collapsed btw. if the lack of support for private property rights some claim is a problem in somalia is preventing it from further rapid progress, having a monopoly in force wont achieve it anyway, it will still have the same population making decisions, organised differently

The first paragraph here doesn't make any sense. The only way to prevent abusive monopolies is to make laws against monopolies.

When there is a structure to the decision makers and there is general acceptance of what they say as law, then the decisions are more effective. Even when made by the same people.

says who? look at how pathetic police is now. it is easy for anyone intelligent to make a profit with crime and theft. airport security blows, 50% of test cases to smuggle stuff past it succeed, thus 50% of terrorist hijackings of planes in the last few years have succeeded. cops are too scared to take care of serious problems unless media focuses attention. then there is the great equalizer, the gun. notice how the anarchic wild west had less crime than state controlled east?

population making decisions, organised differently

The wild west had less crime because less things were defined as crimes. I also suspect that it was easier for people to not get caught.
The US has some of the highest rates of crime in the western world and some of the highest rates of gun ownership. I don't think guns are helping that much.

whats the problem with child labour? it has been the standard way to live for most of homo sapiens' history. the fact that people in poor countries with less capital accumulation still have to use it, shouldnt be a surprise.

As said, so rape is OK too? Because that was always popular in the past.

 

[BasketCase]

Governments in the Free World have had decades or centuries to figure out exactly which tax structure provides the most revenue for public services. That, combined with the fact that national economies are too complicated to predict, means the study in the OP is meaningless. Was it the tax cut that changed quality of life, or did the economy take a dip in spite of said tax cut???

A much more important question is whether the government has the right to be taking your money to begin with. Yeah, a number of people will say the government has a perfect right to take your money for social services, but keep in mind that different political parties will be in control of that government over time--and they'll have different ideas of "social services". When the Republicans are control, they'll happily take your money and spend it to build M1A1 Abrams heavy tanks and religious schools.

So you might want to put the keyboard down and think the question over for a while. I'm not looking for answers anyway. Just shedding some light in a dark place.

 

[potatokiosk]

but keep in mind that different political parties will be in control of that government over time--and they'll have different ideas of "social services". When the Republicans are control, they'll happily take your money and spend it to build M1A1 Abrams heavy tanks and religious schools.

They have every right to if they win the election. In a democracy the government imposes the tax that the public finds most agreeable and spends it in the way the public finds most agreeable. If you were trying to come up with something mind blowing you failed.

 

[Merkinball]

They have every right to if they win the election. In a democracy the government imposes the tax that the public finds most agreeable and spends it in the way the public finds most agreeable. - potatokiosk

Sounds like fascism to me...

 

[potatokiosk]

Sounds like fascism to me...

 

[Merkinball]

What's so confusing about that? A government gets to do whatever the hell it wants, regardless of whether it is moral or righteous simply because they are the majority? Best case scenario, that is mob rule. Worst case scenario, that is totalitarianism.

That is why America is not a direct Democracy and has a constitution.

 

[potatokiosk]

No... it gets to set taxes at a level that a majority (or possibly something that is different from a majority but similar) agrees to and then spend it in a way that a majority agrees to. That's not "whatever the hell it wants".

 

[Merkinball]

No...

That's pretty much "whatever the hell it wants."

And it's still just stealing.

If the majority just felt like stealing from people, it would be illegal. But if you manipulate law to extract the same monetary value from the same people you'd steal from anyway, it's different how exactly?

It really is an ingenius scheme for garnering power isn't it?

 

[PiMan]

Taxes are stealing? I've heard this argument many times but I don't understand how anyone except anarchists can think it.
How much tax is acceptable before it is stealing, in your eyes?
If none, then how will the government function to any degree? If just a small amount, then why not a little bit more?

 

[El_Machinae]

It really is an ingenius scheme for garnering power isn't it?

It can be, for sure. Though you'll note that the uber-wealthy really do thrive in the current system. Moreso than they thrive in other societies. There is some type of feedback benefit, even for them. So, there's a level (and type) of taxation that's really beneficial for a huge majority of society

 

[potatokiosk]

That's pretty much "whatever the hell it wants."

No, they still can't violate free speech or something. They can't tax disproportionately on the basis of race or something. I was describing one democratic principle, majority rule, and didn't mean that the majority would have complete flexibility. I could have specified that but I honestly didn't think anyone was going to take it literally.

And it's still just stealing.

If the majority just felt like stealing from people, it would be illegal. But if you manipulate law to extract the same monetary value from the same people you'd steal from anyway, it's different how exactly?

It really is an ingenius scheme for garnering power isn't it?

If the less powerful members of society want to use democratic processes to gain more power, good for them.

 

[Merkinball]

Taxes are stealing? I've heard this argument many times but I don't understand how anyone except anarchists can think it.
How much tax is acceptable before it is stealing, in your eyes?
If none, then how will the government function to any degree? If just a small amount, then why not a little bit more?

If you take money against someones will for any reason, that's stealing. That isn't a very difficult concept at face value. Having a majority and manipulating law doesn't make it fundamentally right. It may make it legal, but it's still wrong.

Obviously some level of taxation is necessary. However, I find it to be more morally upstanding when the taxation goes towards things that are mutually beneficial to the entirety of society, and not spliced into groups and divided up to pay people off and create dependence.

It is my view that government should enable people, not provide for them. Things such as common defense and common transporation infrastructure enable people equally to succeed. It equally provides the basic rights afforded in our constitution, and allows commerce to flow efficiently. I would also argue the need for government to fund education as well. Without education, we inevitably fall into an oligarchy. But so long as everyone has access to a substantive education, then everyone can be enabled to succeed independently and apart from other people.

When you subscribe to an empty mantra that the people have the will and the right to take from others to inflate their own quality of life, what do you have? How do you stop it? And why doesn't an element of moral righteousnous kick in? It's preposterous to think that the people of Canada will see a drop in quality of life simply because they are recieving less handouts. If this truly is the case, then the government of Canada is failing at its ability to properly enable people to be successful. The only way to maximize the public good is to ensure that people can function independently. If you are to blindly accept the article at face value, then Canada is destined for little more than stagnation as a country, or at best, little growth.

Though you'll note that the uber-wealthy really do thrive in the current system. Moreso than they thrive in other societies. There is some type of feedback benefit, even for them. So, there's a level (and type) of taxation that's really beneficial for a huge majority of society - El Mach

What feedback benefit is there to give people handouts? I'll use my lemonaid stand example once more:

I am a wealth and successful entrepeneur. My business is lemonade. Some call me a tycoon. I own a big house, with a big yard, and my successful lemonade stand is out front. Joe over there, he's unemployed, dropped out of high school, and doesn't do much. I have ten dollars, as it stands right now, Joe has no dollars. You are suggesting that it is somehow to my benefit to take a dollar from me and give it to Joe. The premise being that if you give Joe that dollar, that he'll spend it on a glass of cool, refreshing lemonade, and also keep my employees productive.

But in the end, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There is absolutely no fundamental gain to me in Krugman economics. It makes no sense for me to GIVE Joe a dollar so he can buy my lemonade. In this case, I am out whatever the production cost of that lemonade is. I don't gain a thing. What makes more sense is for me to have Joe mow my lawn. I'll give him a dollar for doing that, and then he can quench his thirst with my spectacular lemonade.

The error in Krugman economics is that it ignores productivity. And this is really the downfall of Obama's stimulus plan. You cannot expect to have a net economic effect by simply handing money to people that are not being productive. That's what he's doing. There's no net positive effect in handing people money. Particularly when the majority of that money is actually being paid for by future generations and their tax dollars. It is a system that is destined to implode.

We need to focus on productivity and efficiency. Canada's not doing that when the publish articles telling people that their quality of life will go down if taxes are cut. It's utterly absurd and insulting at its core.

No, they still can't violate free speech or something. - potatokiosk

I consider a persons pocket book and the money he earns as an arm of free speech. If the government controls the money supply, then it controls the ability for people to say...fund political candidates as it so chooses. Again. Totalitarianism.

They can't tax disproportionately on the basis of race or something. - Potatokiosk

Race, gender, sexuality, class. What's the difference? With a marginal system you are still disciminating.

I was describing one democratic principle, majority rule, and didn't mean that the majority would have complete flexibility. - potatokiosk

Majority rules? MAJORITY RULES! If a majority believes it to be so, and enacts legislation to make it so, is it then right?

If the less powerful members of society want to use democratic processes to gain more power, good for them. - potatokiosk

This is tyranny. That's why taxation is theft. They aren't gaining power, they are stealing it. If the less powerful members of society want to gain more power, then they should out and earn it. That's why a government should enable people. Not make them dependent, and BELIEVE they are dependent. Telling people that their quality of life will go down if there is less government dictating their lives is absolutely abhorrent.

 

[BasketCase]

They have every right to if they win the election. In a democracy the government imposes the tax that the public finds most agreeable and spends it in the way the public finds most agreeable. If you were trying to come up with something mind blowing you failed.

Naah. I just didn't explain it with short enough words.

When the Republicans are in control of the government, citizens on the political left most certainly do not just follow along, and they do not say the government has every right to build M1A1 Abrams tanks and religious schools just because they won the election. They say the Republicans are violating human rights and that they should be booted out of office, filibustered, protested, arrested, tried, and otherwise opposed in every way possible--short of the actual use of firearms. Actually, now that I think about it, there are some folks out there in the world who did say President Bush should have been shot.......

As George Orwell put it, politics is a pendulum. The pendulum swings back and forth from Democrats to Republicans to Democrats and back to Republicans again, and it cannot be stopped. The further Obama swings to the left, the harder it's going to swing to the right when Obama gets booted ass-first out of the White House. To his credit, Obama is not moving very far to the left, and so the pendulum will do less damage next time it swings.

 

[Camikaze]

how are defense and roads more important than food? To be logically consistent you have to either want all the vital services to be socialised(incl food) or admit that you are a closet anarchist and let it out

People don't actually have to be all one way or the other.

 

[PiMan]

If you take money against someones will for any reason, that's stealing. That isn't a very difficult concept at face value. Having a majority and manipulating law doesn't make it fundamentally right. It may make it legal, but it's still wrong.

Obviously some level of taxation is necessary. However, I find it to be more morally upstanding when the taxation goes towards things that are mutually beneficial to the entirety of society, and not spliced into groups and divided up to pay people off and create dependence.

It is my view that government should enable people, not provide for them. Things such as common defense and common transporation infrastructure enable people equally to succeed. It equally provides the basic rights afforded in our constitution, and allows commerce to flow efficiently. I would also argue the need for government to fund education as well. Without education, we inevitably fall into an oligarchy. But so long as everyone has access to a substantive education, then everyone can be enabled to succeed independently and apart from other people.

When you subscribe to an empty mantra that the people have the will and the right to take from others to inflate their own quality of life, what do you have? How do you stop it? And why doesn't an element of moral righteousnous kick in? It's preposterous to think that the people of Canada will see a drop in quality of life simply because they are recieving less handouts. If this truly is the case, then the government of Canada is failing at its ability to properly enable people to be successful. The only way to maximize the public good is to ensure that people can function independently. If you are to blindly accept the article at face value, then Canada is destined for little more than stagnation as a country, or at best, little growth.

You are taking a position I didn't quite expect. That it is all theft but a little theft is OK.
So why not a little bit more?

But of course it isn't against your will. If you don't want to be taxed then head for the hills and make a micronation all for yourself. No one is stopping you. Or if you want somewhere that provides you at least minimum services, there are plenty of tax havens around the world.