Taxation - ILA vs Frank Apisa

[canceled.2021.1]

Dear Frank,

I would like to debate you on the topic of taxation. It is my belief that it is immoral to tax property and income. I believe that the progressive tax code is not designed to raise revenue as much as it is designed to alter the behavior of certain citizens. While I stipulate that the power to tax does rest with the federal government as outlined in the US Constitution that power was not unlimited and until the 16th Amendment it was long held that the Founders opposed direct taxation of its people.

Please share you feelings on this topic. Thank you

[Frank Apisa]

Thank you, ILA...and I accept.

First, though, I want to take exception to your "Liberalism is a disease" slogan. I doubt either American conservatism or liberalism is a disease, in any sense of that word. But if you are suggesting that one side or the other attracts people with disease (mental disease, for instance), my vote would go to American conservatism for that honor. NOTE: I am not, nor have ever been, a liberal.

Anyway...to the task at hand.

It is my belief that it is immoral to tax property and income.

That is your right...

...although I disagree completely and without qualification or reservation.

So...our first point of agreement will have to be to disagree on the morality of taxing property and income.

I believe that the progressive tax code is not designed to raise revenue as much as it is designed to alter the behavior of certain citizens.

I prefer not to use the word "believe" in discussions of this sort, but I appreciate the fact that you feel the way you do. I disagree...although this time with qualification. There may be some legislators who vote for progressive taxes in order to (attempt) to alter the behavior of certain citizens, but I suspect that would be a fools errand. I cannot imagine progressive taxes working materially in altering behavior...unless the progressive feature is astronomical in nature. We have nothing approaching that here in the US.

Secondly, I suspect that most legislators vote for progressive taxes not only to raise revenues...but to raise them in a way they conceive of as being "fairer." I agree with those kinds of legislators, but I acknowledge that individual conceptions of what is "fair" and what is "fairer" probably differ dramatically.

While I stipulate that the power to tax does rest with the federal government as outlined in the US Constitution that power was not unlimited and until the 16th Amendment it was long held that the Founders opposed direct taxation of its people.

Could be...but I see the power to tax as being "constitutional" even if only because the courts have held it to be so.
- - - - - - - - -

I assert that not only does the government have the power to tax...it has THE OBLIGATION to do so...to do it in a way that takes into account the way the nation and its needs have changed since its inception.

[canceled.2021.1]

Thank you, ILA...and I accept.

First, though, I want to take exception to your "Liberalism is a disease" slogan. I doubt either American conservatism or liberalism is a disease, in any sense of that word. But if you are suggesting that one side or the other attracts people with disease (mental disease, for instance), my vote would go to American conservatism for that honor. NOTE: I am not, nor have ever been, a liberal.

Anyway...to the task at hand.



That is your right...

...although I disagree completely and without qualification or reservation.

So...our first point of agreement will have to be to disagree on the morality of taxing property and income.


Just disagreeing is not enough. I will expound further. When you are taking someone else's property, you are in essence confiscating their labor and when you do it to advantage someone else that is akin to slavery. You are obviously free to disagree, but you will need to explain why my description is inaccurate.

I prefer not to use the word "believe" in discussions of this sort, but I appreciate the fact that you feel the way you do. I disagree...although this time with qualification. There may be some legislators who vote for progressive taxes in order to (attempt) to alter the behavior of certain citizens, but I suspect that would be a fools errand. I cannot imagine progressive taxes working materially in altering behavior...unless the progressive feature is astronomical in nature. We have nothing approaching that here in the US.

When it comes to politics, I have beliefs not feels. The tax code is littered with provisions based on behavior. Buy certain products and get a tax credit. Have kids and you get a tax credit. Get married you get a tax advantage. While all of those things may be noble things, it is not and should not be the role of the federal government. If states want to do it, then so be it.

Secondly, I suspect that most legislators vote for progressive taxes not only to raise revenues...but to raise them in a way they conceive of as being "fairer." I agree with those kinds of legislators, but I acknowledge that individual conceptions of what is "fair" and what is "fairer" probably differ dramatically.





Could be...but I see the power to tax as being "constitutional" even if only because the courts have held it to be so.
- - - - - - - - -

I assert that not only does the government have the power to tax...it has THE OBLIGATION to do so...to do it in a way that takes into account the way the nation and its needs have changed since its inception.

My slogan is not the topic of discussion. But your dissent is duly noted even though it won't change anything

Additionally, the progressive tax code creates an uneven playing field where there are those citizens who do not have skin in the game.

[Frank Apisa]

My slogan is not the topic of discussion. But your dissent is duly noted even though it won't change anything

Additionally, the progressive tax code creates an uneven playing field where there are those citizens who do not have skin in the game.

Just disagreeing is not enough.

Perhaps not for you...but for me it often is. For the purposes of this discussion...we will see.

I will expound further.

Expound away!

When you are taking someone else's property, you are in essence confiscating their labor and when you do it to advantage someone else that is akin to slavery. You are obviously free to disagree, but you will need to explain why my description is inaccurate.

The courts of the United States have consistently ruled that you are all wet here, ILA. There are all sorts of things the government needs money in order to do. The ability of the government to exact taxes for those purposes either is a function of what YOU say...or what the courts of the United States rule.

I suggest the latter is the better option.

K?

My slogan is not the topic of discussion. But your dissent is duly noted even though it won't change anything

Fair enough. I just wanted to let you know that I think the "disease" is the infestation of American conservatism into polite, civilized society.

Additionally, the progressive tax code creates an uneven playing field where there are those citizens who do not have skin in the game.

Since I do not know for sure what you mean here...I cannot comment. If you want to elucidate...I will attempt a response.

[canceled.2021.1]

Perhaps not for you...but for me it often is. For the purposes of this discussion...we will see.

Expound away!



The courts of the United States have consistently ruled that you are all wet here, ILA. There are all sorts of things the government needs money in order to do. The ability of the government to exact taxes for those purposes either is a function of what YOU say...or what the courts of the United States rule.

I suggest the latter is the better option.

K?



Fair enough. I just wanted to let you know that I think the "disease" is the infestation of American conservatism into polite, civilized society.




Since I do not know for sure what you mean here...I cannot comment. If you want to elucidate...I will attempt a response.

Falling back on "it's what the court" says is a copout for the purposes of this debate. I am talking philosophically here. I realize what courts have ruled. I am just debating my opinion and beliefs. I am not debating court rulings.

As for my comment about people not having skin in the game. It is a fact that a very large percentage of Americans not only pay ZERO federal income taxes, but they receive welfare through the EITC. That they pay social security taxes is irrelevant to this conversation so please do not fall back on that line of argument. That Ronald Reagan was the one who passed the EITC is also irrelevant. It doesn't make it good policy.

The fact remains that with so many people not paying federal income taxes (skin in the game) then there is less restraint on the federal government to spend and tax. The assumption is "the other guy" is footing the bill. That is not a good place for our society.

I believe that the most fair tax would be a national sales tax. Yes, I know the arguments that it is "regressive", however it would be the most fair tax of all and would limit the size and scope of the federal government.

[Frank Apisa]

Falling back on "it's what the court" says is a copout for the purposes of this debate. I am talking philosophically here. I realize what courts have ruled. I am just debating my opinion and beliefs. I am not debating court rulings.

I already commented on that facet.

I disagree with you.

You raised two arguments:

One...taxing income and property is immoral...and two...that the progressive tax code is not designed to raise revenue as much as it is designed to alter the behavior of certain citizens. You characterized both as "beliefs."

I do NOT consider taxing income and property to be immoral...and I have acknowledged that some of the people who pass these laws may have the motivation you mentioned...but it is my opinion that most do not.

There's not a hell of a lot more that can be said about our opinions. They are our opinions. I accept yours...you really should accept mine.

As for my comment about people not having skin in the game. It is a fact that a very large percentage of Americans not only pay ZERO federal income taxes, but they receive welfare through the EITC. That they pay social security taxes is irrelevant to this conversation so please do not fall back on that line of argument. That Ronald Reagan was the one who passed the EITC is also irrelevant. It doesn't make it good policy.

So...you want to eliminate my rights to bring certain arguments into this conversation.

Okay...but then I expect that I should be able to eliminate your right to certain arguments. So...I eliminate YOUR right to bring the fact that some Americans do not pay federal income taxes (BECAUSE THE TAX IS PROGRESSIVE)...and that some Americans receive help from the taxes that are paid by others.

With that in mind...can you restate your position.

The fact remains that with so many people not paying federal income taxes (skin in the game) then there is less restraint on the federal government to spend and tax. The assumption is "the other guy" is footing the bill. That is not a good place for our society.

You have to eliminate that part of your argument.

I believe that the most fair tax would be a national sales tax.

You certainly are entitled to have that "belief" or opinion. I, on the other hand, am of the opinion that the LEAST FAIR tax would be a national sales tax.

Yes, I know the arguments that it is "regressive", however it would be the most fair tax of all and would limit the size and scope of the federal government.

I understand you are of that opinion, but I am of the opposite opinion. I suspect discarding the tax structure we have in favor of a national sales tax (unless made extremely progressive) would put the country out of business.

However, I might go along with the idea if you would be willing to champion "an extremely progressive" national sales tax sorta like...1% tax on all food at the consumption stage; 1% tax on all automobiles costing $15,000 or less...and 98% tax on the cost above that; 1% tax on gasoline bought in quantities of 30 gallons or less...98% tax on gasoline bought in greater quantities; 1% on all clothing that are "rack items"; 1/2 of 1% on all pharmaceuticals; 1/10th of 1% on all school supplies; 1% of all real estate sales of less than $200,000..2% of all real estate sales for amounts between $200,001 - $300,000...and 98% for all amounts above $300,000; 98% sales tax on all jewelry, designer clothing, yachts, personal airplanes, and any of that other crap the very wealthy buy.

I might!

[canceled.2021.1]

I already commented on that facet.

I disagree with you.

You raised two arguments:

One...taxing income and property is immoral...and two...that the progressive tax code is not designed to raise revenue as much as it is designed to alter the behavior of certain citizens. You characterized both as "beliefs."

I do NOT consider taxing income and property to be immoral...and I have acknowledged that some of the people who pass these laws may have the motivation you mentioned...but it is my opinion that most do not.

There's not a hell of a lot more that can be said about our opinions. They are our opinions. I accept yours...you really should accept mine.





So...you want to eliminate my rights to bring certain arguments into this conversation.

Okay...but then I expect that I should be able to eliminate your right to certain arguments. So...I eliminate YOUR right to bring the fact that some Americans do not pay federal income taxes (BECAUSE THE TAX IS PROGRESSIVE)...and that some Americans receive help from the taxes that are paid by others.

With that in mind...can you restate your position.




You have to eliminate that part of your argument.




You certainly are entitled to have that "belief" or opinion. I, on the other hand, am of the opinion that the LEAST FAIR tax would be a national sales tax.



I understand you are of that opinion, but I am of the opposite opinion. I suspect discarding the tax structure we have in favor of a national sales tax (unless made extremely progressive) would put the country out of business.

However, I might go along with the idea if you would be willing to champion "an extremely progressive" national sales tax sorta like...1% tax on all food at the consumption stage; 1% tax on all automobiles costing $15,000 or less...and 98% tax on the cost above that; 1% tax on gasoline bought in quantities of 30 gallons or less...98% tax on gasoline bought in greater quantities; 1% on all clothing that are "rack items"; 1/2 of 1% on all pharmaceuticals; 1/10th of 1% on all school supplies; 1% of all real estate sales of less than $200,000..2% of all real estate sales for amounts between $200,001 - $300,000...and 98% for all amounts above $300,000; 98% sales tax on all jewelry, designer clothing, yachts, personal airplanes, and any of that other crap the very wealthy buy.

I might!

It isn't enough to say you disagree. That isn't much of a debate. I was hoping for more substance from you. A deeper analysis

With regards to social security, I am not eliminating your argument. I am just calling it irrelevant. The reason I think it is irrelevant is that Social Security taxes in as much as they are taxation are for a defined benefit. Everyone pays them. So the fact that certain people pay social security taxes shouldn't morally absolve them of paying other taxes should it?

OK, so you don't like a national sales tax. I would support a flat tax of 10% of all income with no caps, including dividends and capital gains. ZERO deductions. ZERO EITC. And to even throw a bone to my friends on the left, I would exempt income below $50,000/year

Now your proposal for a sales tax would never achieve your outcome and would hurt the people you claim to want to help. We have had an experiment with a yacht tax. Do you recall? The only people hurt were yacht manufacturers.

[Frank Apisa]

It isn't enough to say you disagree. That isn't much of a debate. I was hoping for more substance from you. A deeper analysis

There is no other way...no deeper analysis. You are saying that you "believe" taxing income and property is immoral...and that the progressive tax code is not designed to raise revenue as much as it is designed to alter the behavior of certain citizens.

All I can do is disagree. Neither of us can read the minds of the people who passed the tax legislation over the tens of decades to determine what their motives are. Your take is a very glass half empty viewing; I tend to think they were doing what they claim they were doing.

As for the "immorality" question...I think you are way off base, but I will listen to why you think it.

What moral code do you base your assessment on? Are you making a religious argument...or a philosophical one? Give me some idea of why you think the concerns you have outweigh the concerns others have on the continuum.

I will comment in greater depth on that.

With regards to social security, I am not eliminating your argument. I am just calling it irrelevant. The reason I think it is irrelevant is that Social Security taxes in as much as they are taxation are for a defined benefit. Everyone pays them. So the fact that certain people pay social security taxes shouldn't morally absolve them of paying other taxes should it?

Okay...but if they do not have the money to pay anything more...what difference does it make. The legislators make the rules of taxation...and they make it on a gradient, so that the people who can pay taxes, pay...and the ones who cannot...don't.

OK, so you don't like a national sales tax. I would support a flat tax of 10% of all income with no caps, including dividends and capital gains. ZERO deductions. ZERO EITC. And to even throw a bone to my friends on the left, I would exempt income below $50,000/year

You certainly can attempt to get something like that...but I think there is a better chance of setting up a human colony on the surface of the sun than getting legislators to pass it.

Feasibility is as important to decent tax policy as anything else...and the kind of thing you are proposing, in my opinion, has no chance at all. It is little more than wishful thinking on the part of people who feel the way you do on this issue.

Now your proposal for a sales tax would never achieve your outcome and would hurt the people you claim to want to help. We have had an experiment with a yacht tax. Do you recall? The only people hurt were yacht manufacturers.

Ummm...next time I am being facetious or being a wise-ass, I will make sure I post those remarks in green!

My thoughts on the issue, ILA, is that we have to do away with the entire economic system...not make a few tweaks in the tax laws. We have to change the entire philosophy of how we handle how we obtain what we need...and how it is distributed.

We can go into that in greater depth if you want, but it is complicated.

I'd expect you to at least read the OP in my:

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...t=unemployment

...a thread that got no play here at all.

[canceled.2021.1]

There is no other way...no deeper analysis. You are saying that you "believe" taxing income and property is immoral...and that the progressive tax code is not designed to raise revenue as much as it is designed to alter the behavior of certain citizens.

All I can do is disagree. Neither of us can read the minds of the people who passed the tax legislation over the tens of decades to determine what their motives are. Your take is a very glass half empty viewing; I tend to think they were doing what they claim they were doing.

As for the "immorality" question...I think you are way off base, but I will listen to why you think it.

What moral code do you base your assessment on? Are you making a religious argument...or a philosophical one? Give me some idea of why you think the concerns you have outweigh the concerns others have on the continuum.

I will comment in greater depth on that.




Okay...but if they do not have the money to pay anything more...what difference does it make. The legislators make the rules of taxation...and they make it on a gradient, so that the people who can pay taxes, pay...and the ones who cannot...don't.



You certainly can attempt to get something like that...but I think there is a better chance of setting up a human colony on the surface of the sun than getting legislators to pass it.

Feasibility is as important to decent tax policy as anything else...and the kind of thing you are proposing, in my opinion, has no chance at all. It is little more than wishful thinking on the part of people who feel the way you do on this issue.



Ummm...next time I am being facetious or being a wise-ass, I will make sure I post those remarks in green!

My thoughts on the issue, ILA, is that we have to do away with the entire economic system...not make a few tweaks in the tax laws. We have to change the entire philosophy of how we handle how we obtain what we need...and how it is distributed.

We can go into that in greater depth if you want, but it is complicated.

I'd expect you to at least read the OP in my:

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...t=unemployment

...a thread that got no play here at all.

Here is why I believe it is immoral. In essence, I believe it is stealing. Just because you do it under the auspices of the federal government doesn't make it anymore moral. That is the mistake I think most people make. Just because a majority of people "vote" something doesn't give it a stamp of moral approval. That seems to be your fallback. "Well, they voted for it so it must be OK"

Again, I am not saying that there should be NO taxation. I am just saying that we should revert back to the original intent of the US Constitution.

As for your last comment, I would suggest starting a thread in APP and I will be happy to respond. I don't want to derail this conversation as it is a violation of APP rules.


As a last note, I do appreciate you taking the time to articulate your beliefs and as such I have removed you from my thread ban list

[Frank Apisa]

Here is why I believe it is immoral. In essence, I believe it is stealing. Just because you do it under the auspices of the federal government doesn't make it anymore moral. That is the mistake I think most people make. Just because a majority of people "vote" something doesn't give it a stamp of moral approval. That seems to be your fallback. "Well, they voted for it so it must be OK"

Okay…ILA…I can only counter with “I do not consider it stealing…and I do not consider it immoral.”
The nation has to be maintained…and since the economic system we have is run using money…the money needed to do the things the people want done has to come from somewhere. Taxes…are the best way I can think of.

I see absolutely NOTHING immoral about taxation. I acknowledge that you do.

You mentioned that, “Just because a majority of people "vote" something doesn't give it a stamp of moral approval”…I would counter with, “Just because you “believe” it is immoral doesn’t give it a stamp of immorality.”

We simply are of two different minds on this. In the meantime, the nation has to operate and it is operating under the law…which allows the taxes we are discussing.

Again, I am not saying that there should be NO taxation. I am just saying that we should revert back to the original intent of the US Constitution.

I think we are. The “original intent of the US Constitution” set up ways for the three branches of government to GOVERN. That is what has happened…and the taxes are the result of all three branches of the government agreeing to them.

As for your last comment, I would suggest starting a thread in APP and I will be happy to respond. I don't want to derail this conversation as it is a violation of APP rules.

No problem. We do not have to get into my thoughts on how to handle this stuff yet.

As a last note, I do appreciate you taking the time to articulate your beliefs and as such I have removed you from my thread ban list

Thank you. We disagree philosophically…to a significant degree. I am sure we can deal with the disagreements reasonably.