Progressive Taxation is Capitalism « Feed My Blog

Progressive Taxation is Capitalism?   IS capitalism?   hehe.

Again, @jaredude makes really great practical points.   But, I’m not sure he is right.   Is the loss of liberty quantitative?   Is the loss of life?   I hold that each life is worth the same, to the liver (one who is doing the living, not the organ), as another.   Rich people don’t have “more to lose” with regard to the infringement of liberty and the pursuit of happiness than poor people.   Poor people are just as entitled to freedom, liberty and the right to choose their own destiny as rich people.

The right to property is a compound and complex concept.   @jaredude makes the argument (implication) that a Ferrari is a more important and valuable piece of property than a tin-cup.   To whom?  Why?  That is all a matter of values and mores.   The truth is, no one has a right to steal from anyone, regardless of the perceived value of the article being stolen.  Which, of course, brings us back to taxes.   Is it theft?   What gives the government the right to “steal” ?   What gives the politically powerful the right to decide for us what we should pay?   I hold that taxes should be voluntary and, as @jaredude suggested in an earlier tweet, “opt-out”.   And, i further recommend that they be participatory, which brings us back to property taxes.   Earning an income does not make you participatory in the American system, whereas real property ownership, by default, does.   That is to say:   One could be a service oriented businessman, a conslutant (Did i misspell that?), ok, let’s say liar..errr. lawyer (misspelled again?).  You could charge folks in the US for your services, while living and providing actual service from the Bahamas.   You would earn US dollars, but  how would you be participating in the system?   On the other hand, if you choose to own real property in the US, you are choosing to participate in and derive rights protected by our constitution.

It is true that this is unfair in it’s distribution, but because it is voluntary and participatory, it “practically” solves the problem of contributory ability.   By nature, those with more means will participate at a higher level, and those with less will be protected just the same.   Should one choose not to participate in the funding, it doesn’t mean you won’t have protections, the system needs to function, but it will and can just fine on far less revenue than it currently does.

There are so many arguments to be made with regard to current implementation that I think I’d likely throw up before getting through four or five of them.   But to address @jaredude’s assertion that the following departments are for the protection of US Citizens, I will vehemently disagree that 1) regulatory agencies such as the FDA, EPA and FAA have the right to exist under our constitution (They are the fourth branch of government, initiated by Abe Lincoln, and answer to no-0ne.  They create and enforce their own laws; which is the job, actually, of TWO of the real branches of government). and 2) They are effective in the least at protecting the rights of US Citizens.

So:  Is Progressive (income) taxation capitalism?  Not any more or less than a flat tax, or any other form of income tax.  They are all social/commune oriented in that they seek to redistribute wealth.   (BTW:  Income tax pays for next to nothing.   Almost everything the government purchases it does with $$ borrowed from the FED, on which we pay interest, as a tax.  The principle on those loans will NEVER be repaid at this point, effectively making the US a mortgaged entity to the federal reserve ((no i’m not capitalizing those f***cks!)))

Finally, a proper form of taxation, like a proper form of government should be primarily at the local level with a hierarchy of both taxation and government all the way to the federal government.  This is the way our original system was designed, actually, with counties being the primary seat of government.  Counties then were organized together at the state level to send representatives to the federal government in the form of congressmen and senators.   The federal government was very loosely organized as a way for the states to represent themselves as a larger commonwealth against foreign nations and interests.   This is an appropriate form of government which gives everyone, regardless of their means, a real voice.

OK>.. enough for today, or at least for now.

2 Comments

Comments are closed.