How to screw over the little people

[Argus]

I disagree.

A civilized State must have the power to confiscate, and this power must be visible.

Your position is ludicrous. Of course the state has the power to confiscate. That doesn't mean it ought to be doing so for a minor imbalance in an account. Should the state have the right to confiscate your home and all its equity if you fail to pay a parking fine? What about if you build something, say an attached shed or deck, without a permit? What if you don't put out the right tag with your garbage?

I gather, August, that you don't believe in private property at all, that you believe your property is only yours temporarily until the state decides it wants it for whatever reason?

[August1991]

BS.

A civilized state does not take more than it's owed. A civilized state protects private property rights.

I don't mean to be glib but how do you define "owed", and how do you define "take"?

I agree that we require a Charter of Rights that limits the reach of a government and prevents arbitrary abuse. But at the same time, to live civilly with one another, we also need many institutions that are best provided by the State and to do this, we must pay taxes.

The problem with taxes is that many people want to shirk, or avoid them. That's why I argue that the best measure of the popular legitimacy of a democratic State is not voter turn-out or trust in the political system; the best measure is whether people pay their taxes.

-----

Like many things in life, people need an incentive in the form of a signal. This particular case is a signal to others: pay your taxes.

Edited July 19, 2012 by August1991

[cybercoma]

I don't mean to be glib but how do you define "owed", and how do you define "take"?

You may not mean to be glib, but that's exactly what those questions are. If the answers aren't obvious, then I certainly don't have the patience to even discuss this with you.

[August1991]

You may not mean to be glib, but that's exactly what those questions are. If the answers aren't obvious, then I certainly don't have the patience to even discuss this with you.

Glib? Admit, cybercoma, that leftists/socialists require a strong State: a State with the power to seize alot of private property.

I disagree.

I argue for a powerful but limited State, and a quickly disposable government. Federal States fit these requirements well.

Edited July 19, 2012 by August1991

[cybercoma]

Glib? Admit, cybercoma, that leftists/socialists require a strong State: a State with the power to seize alot of private property.

I disagree.

I argue for a powerful but limited State, and a quickly disposable government. Federal States fit these requirements well.

Why are you channelling kraychik (ironically, Bob couldn't spell Cratchit properly or maybe it was intentional)?

In this thread you're not arguing for a limited State. You've argued that the State ought to be able to take whatever the hell it wants from people.

[eyeball]

In this thread you're not arguing for a limited State. You've argued that the State ought to be able to take whatever the hell it wants from people.

I'm still struck more by the enthusiastic encouragement that the state adopt a really really hard-assed attitude towards any miscreant that runs afoul of it.

You see as lot of that these days and it's getting a little disturbing actually.

[cybercoma]

Try for half a second to imagine them taking this approach at the SEC, rather than going after homeowners for petty tax debts.

[Wilber]

Try for half a second to imagine them taking this approach at the SEC, rather than going after homeowners for petty tax debts.

Favouring soft targets isn't exactly a new phenomenon.

[bush_cheney2004]

Favouring soft targets isn't exactly a new phenomenon.

That's right...in 2013, the very confiscatory U.S. federal "Death Tax" goes back to 55% for heirs.

2010 was a good year to die.

Edited July 20, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

That's right...in 2013, the very confiscatory U.S. federal "Death Tax" goes back to 55% for heirs.

2010 was a good year to die.

55% of what? Methinks those with the big bucks will find ways of creative estate planning that will mitigate much of that, or at least reduce it to a capital gain.

[bush_cheney2004]

55% of what? Methinks those with the big bucks will find ways of creative estate planning that will mitigate much of that, or at least reduce it to a capital gain.

It's getting harder to shelter inheritances from the revenue man, even with trusts and life insurance dodges. My main point was that government has many vehicles with which to separate a man/woman from wealth and property.

When asked why he robbed the bank, the suspect replied, "Because that's where the money is". Same thing applies to taxes for those who have wealth/income/property. Or if you prefer the Kris Kristofferson version, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

[August1991]

In this thread you're not arguing for a limited State. You've argued that the State ought to be able to take whatever the hell it wants from people.

It depends on the situation.

I'm still struck more by the enthusiastic encouragement that the state adopt a really really hard-assed attitude towards any miscreant that runs afoul of it.

You see as lot of that these days and it's getting a little disturbing actually.

And the more the better. I'm all in favour of a limited, federal hard-ass State.

---

We all have problems in life. How best to solve the problem?

In some situations, markets with prices manage well - pay the money. In other situations, families alone can best deal with the problem. Then, there are friends, work colleagues, or various other groups, even churches. And there's always the Internet. Finally, there is the State and "forced" participation. Heck, we often seek willy-nilly a mix of all these various solutions.

But when the State is involved, it requires harsh credible threats. We may voluntarily give money to siblings but shame alone will not ensure tax payments to the State.

We don't pay our taxes to the Harper government; we pay them to our Governor-General, our federal State. And if we don't write a cheque to the Receiver-General, we go to prison.

It cannot be any other way.

Edited July 21, 2012 by August1991