Charles Anthony

Now we are talking! Sure. Let us discuss this in a more appropriate thread instead, shall we? Follow me.

I have a better idea. Day 2: everybody declares bankruptcy. Debt paid off in 1 day.

I understand. Now, you are talking my kind of language. I think the simplification and elimination of red tape will make everybody save money -- tax-man included!

That is a mistaken assumption. Whoever owns the roads, water supplies, schools and electricity will charge him a user fee at each time of use or through offering a membership pass or by sending an invoice. We do that already with roads, water, schools and electricity. I live in the same world as you do. Police forces contract their officers to be security guards at large busy entertainment events. I do not see that as demeaning. Do you? Are you describing my dream world or the real world, now? Background material?? How about you just try to talk over my head. You are the one who studied economics, right? Why?? To give you more things to look up on the internet before answering any of my economics questions?? The ownership of the money is asserted by the same principle which bars me from claiming you as my slave.

No. That is not a flaw of my policy. You can correct that by adjusting the %tax rate and the brackets to balance out the accounting. So what? Welfare is not luxury. Furthermore, these credits will not be sold at par. The different tax brackets will make them sell for more than their value. Poor people will get more than the face value of the credit. Rich people will be willing to pay more than the face value to get to bring them to a lower tax bracket. No different than any other administration. Again, you can correct that by adjusting the %tax rate to balance out the accounting. Uh.... you have not addressed the issue of splitting income with dependents. How about just eliminating the GST credit altogether so that nobody gets it.

In answering this, it would be helpful to know if you understand the economic concept of 'public goods'?How would that be helpful??? Would it tell you what web search you must do and what to cut-and-paste for your response? Not if you know what a free market is. Have you ever heard of a security guard?Even high school level economics teaches the free market.

Two wrongs do not make a right. I would advocate eliminating discrimination for everything. let me turn your statement around: the discrimination in all of those instances that you enumerated are not fair. My policy recommendation can be applied to them as well to make them fair.

Maybe I would and maybe I would not. What difference does it make? Regardless, my recommendation is more honorable than tax-splitting. Please guys! forget my smart-aleck commentary about the righteousness of taxation! My policy recommendation is still better regardless of how comfortable you guys are stealing from your neighbor. I challenge anybody to contest my recommendation. The clarity and honesty of anarchist thought will come to your rescue.

Excellent! Did you come up with that yourself? I like it. Indeed. Of which laws do you speak?

Who cares?? That is none of your business. They can do whatever they want with their own money. Do you think the government should take GeofFrey's ability to manage his own affairs away?? or, to what degree? So the national debt shound never, ever be paid off? Or paying it off should just be postponed until you are gone?Correct. It should not be paid at all. The government should declare bankruptcy. Murray N. Rothbard, 1992 This one is the best: same articleSo.... the national debt can be solved and forever avoided overnight. All you people who: - want balanced budgets - want governments to spend within their means - complain about government - complain about leaving a burden to the future generations have a permanent solution. Today's tax-payer did not consent to the borrowing of yesterday's debt-spender.

No. There is no argument with people who think they know everything about the "method of economic analysis" as you put it, after opening their high school home economics book. Rather than argument, there is fun! You are doing the same thing that Myata did above: coming up with a disconnected example and saying that it is connected. You then expect me to go for a spin. Taxation deals with personal property: your money. Your unrelated example of "two people sharing the same slice of wilderness" has nothing to do with who has power over one person's property. Their obligations vis a vis their own shared personal property is unrelated. I answered that in the same post from which you just quoted. Not 'a' Theory. Rather, theoretical analysis. ???????I said 'economic theory'. The method of economic analysis. Be explicit. What are the political and economic theories that justify people paying taxes for other people's shoes? What are you saying? The government should pay for a national footware program or not? The private sector can not provide "police protection, a justice system, roads, parks, you name it" or can it? Actually, you make it quite stultifying. On the other hand, maybe you can recommend a high school for me to attend at which I can gain such higher learning?? I am going to be graduating from the 8th grade this year! I want to learn as much "economic theory" as you have! Sure we are.I never trust electioneers either. GeofFrey, come on. I do not know whether I should feel embarrassed for having closed my first post in that other thread with a snarky comment or whether I should laugh at you guys who gave that comment too much credit! No one is forcing you to pay taxes, you have 100% the right to leave Canada. You being here is upon the condition of you paying taxes.I see a point in taxation for many things... but where we will agree is that taxation should never have the motive of distribution of wealth. Yes, all people are forced to pay taxes. Do you know what happens to them if they do not?? They can not exercise their "100% the right to leave Canada" because the state would send them to jail. Furthermore, did you know that if RevenueCanada says you are guilty, you have to prove your innocence at your own expense? Did you know that they do not compensate you if they are wrong? What do you call that??? I beg to differ. In fact, I am almost ready to argue the opposite: redistributing wealth is the ONLY justification for taxation. I just might start accepting coercive statist thievery as being the definition of righteous virtue! It certainly seems easier that way.

Under what basis does that make it fair? Do you RECEIVE services from your government based on your marital status? Imagine the emergency hospital ward treating you differently when they find out your marital status. Imagine the police officer asking your marital status before writing you a traffic ticket for speeding through a stop sign on your bicycle. Imagine (I am struggling to think of a federal government service which is of any use....... Nope!) anything you want.

Yes but she also made a promise. D'eux Indeed, she certainly sounds like she has done her homework. D'eux--or, at least she looked at the flyers! What the hell! She is probably just as prepared as Bob would need her to be. Sure! Be sure to remind us when somebody on Bob's campaign team has a kid who is presenting a Global Warming science project in school. We would not want to miss that news either.

What a fascinating idea for a highly unique and brand new topic!Come on. Dion is not even mentioned in your quotation. There are buckets of threads dealing with the politics of global warming in Canada. What is the big deal about a hypothetical minister of a hypothetical party leader whose party hypothetically gains power in the next election? Should we have a separate thread if news breaks out that some back-bench MP happens to read a newspaper from which a flyer falls out onto the ground -- a flyer which advertizes a local Global Warming fundraising party?

Keep going, keep going....

Both of you are still being too simplistic and missing one thing: "the shortfall" can be shared between the married couples and the singles if the government debases its currency. The government can tax but it can also borrow or alter the money supply.

Why does any other choice imply obligations? The only obligation I think is fair is NOT to force people to do something against their will. Live and let live. The objection to my postulate was not reasoned. It made a connection which was invalid. My postulate addresses force and coersion and taking away choice over controlling ones own property. Myata's conclusion was a spin by making a false connection to something else that people may want which they did not earn. You pick it everyday that you don't leave.That is not choice. That is force. No, I did not pick this country because I was born here. You have the choice to leave at any time - being born here does not change anything.That is no different from the choice offered by the protection racketeer. I understand they changed the rules half-way through your employment. Did they promise to you a time-span whereby they can not change of terms of your employment? Myself, personally, that may or may not be the case. I am presenting an all encompassing philosophy that treats everybody equal regardless of their personal preferences and respects their freedom. 1) I could say that you are right, I accept the benefits and the taxes of staying here. 2) I could also say that I can not afford to move. My choice of identifying taxation (under threat of imprisonment) as wrong does not discriminate. I prefer giving people choice to help their neighbors or to cooperate instead of forcing them to do so. No. I am placing more responsibility upon the people who extort taxes. What theory is that? Communism? What theory is that?!? Communism? Me alone, never. Me with my fellow citizens, every few years.You and your fellow citizens are not electing anything any more than you are electing the outcome of a lottery.

They may need them but nobody owes anybody anything other than mutually leaving eachother alone. They settle only because they are able to avoid the responsibility of their actions: taking money from their neighbor. No. There is no connection.Taxation is wrong because it is taken by force. No, I did not pick this country because I was born here. Of course it is different. What you call "no choice but to accept employment" is false. You should be saying "someone else is obligated to provide for me" instead.

People need shoes, too. Why not add that to the tab? When was the last time YOU could elect anything? You picked that job.

If that is truly the case, it is enough proof for me to say that nobody wants taxation. Therefore, taxation is wrong. If you want to be charitable, be honest about it. Pay it out of your own pocket.

Providing tax incentives for people to produce your "alternate energy technology" so that people can catch up to any country they want -- if they can.

That reasoning hinges on an assumption that people are responsible for other people beyond the results of their own actions. Nobody owes anybody else a living.

Not enough. Taxation is like a group benefit plan for which you have no choice and if you do not accept it you will be sent to jail. If you want to force people to pay for something they do not want, my proposal of raising the tax exemption on individuals still stands.

Have you ever worked at a place with a benefit package or a pension plan?No. In your example, participation is not mandatory because nobody is forced to take any job. Taxation is like unpaid labor.

How can I resist? On the surface, income splitting seems kind and fair but it is not nor is it objective. It excludes the household of two old spinster sisters who spent their entire lives taking care of their parents who are now dead and their younger orphan siblings who are now grown up and married and left the house. Discriminating based on marital status makes no sense -- unless you want to be unfair or you want to buy votes. Therefore, it is more objective for the "government" to tax individuals. Period. If taxes are too high and we want to reduce them in an objectively fair manner, it makes more sense to raise the tax exemption on individuals. People whose income is below the exemption are able to sell or transfer their exemption credit difference to whoever they want. Period. You decide what that exemption amount will be based on the violent socialist philosophy of your choice. The above is conditional on our collective delusion that taxation is right and that we need someone else to change our diapers or to pick up after ourselves.