Taxation.

[Capo Dei Capi]

There are various charities that run hospitals for those that cannot afford them, and if their wasn't so much regulation in medical and insurance industry it would be way more affordable.

 

[jazzc]

I appreciate that you're a decentralist and not a strong believer of doing things for the good of an entire society

The good of an entire society comes from production. Production comes from capitalism. Capitalism works when there is no intervention. Not when stealing tons of money from production and steering them into unproductive things. History has made this strikingly clear again and again and again.

The only humanitarian and ethical stance is to be against theft. Everything else is detrimental to humanity.

but surely you would agree that state provision of some goods that cannot be afforded by all, is a positive thing even for the individual? Clean streets, healthier people etc.

Wait, I need to have my money stolen to have clean streets? Because we can't pay ourselves for the service?

And people need to steal from others in order to be healthy?

Does the state provide plundered goods at no cost to the recipients? You bet. Would those recipients be worse off if they hadn't been handed the plunder? Of course, who doesn't benefit from "free" stuff? Does the economy go down the drain by doing so, forcing the next generations to be worse off? Aha. Does anybody care about it? Of course not, because why would anyone who gets handouts give a f*ck about others?

 

[Capo Dei Capi]

People would be more healthy if it benefited them in more ways. For example if Airline companies were allowed to charge people by their mass in addition to the base level fee, they would be more determined to lose weight so they can save.

 

[Deleted member 364366]

The good of an entire society comes from production. Production comes from capitalism. Capitalism works when there is no intervention. Not when stealing tons of money from production and steering them into unproductive things. History has made this strikingly clear again and again and again.

The only humanitarian and ethical stance is to be against theft. Everything else is detrimental to humanity.

Wait, I need to have my money stolen to have clean streets? Because we can't pay ourselves for the service?

And people need to steal from others in order to be healthy?

Does the state provide plundered goods at no cost to the recipients? You bet. Would those recipients be worse off if they hadn't been handed the plunder? Of course, who doesn't benefit from "free" stuff? Does the economy go down the drain by doing so, forcing the next generations to be worse off? Aha. Does anybody care about it? Of course not, because why would anyone who gets handouts give a f*ck about others?

Okay then I put this to you; a person is born with a long term health condition. The treatment is expensive and their family can't afford it - at least not for the entirety of its life. Would you see it die? Science has progressed a lot thanks to those that would have otherwise died, being treated for free or at a subsidised cost. Would those breakthroughs ceasing to exist not be more detrimental to humanity? We're in a very priveleged position and to look at the world from an entirely objective perspective certianly would not gain the support of the masses. It's nice to be so objective but without nuking the world and starting again, it would never catch on.

 

[Capo Dei Capi]

Okay then I put this to you; a person is born with a long term health condition. The treatment is expensive and their family can't afford it - at least not for the entirety of its life. Would you see it die? Science has progressed a lot thanks to those that would have otherwise died, being treated for free or at a subsidised cost. Would those breakthroughs ceasing to exist not be more detrimental to humanity? We're in a very priveleged position and to look at the world from an entirely objective perspective certianly would not gain the support of the masses. It's nice to be so objective but without nuking the world and starting again, it would never catch on.

Science progresses because their are profits to come by with better technology. People aren't given free iPhones by the government, but Apple still spends money developing their technology.

 

[Deleted member 364366]

Science progresses because their are profits to come by with better technology. People aren't given free iPhones by the government, but Apple still spends money developing their technology.

Upgrades by the pharmaceutical and technology companies, are just that, a combination of marketing and incremental innovation. I was referring to the disruptive innovation that happens very rarely. Smartpones are incremental, stretched out to dripfeed breakthroughs that someone clever made a long time ago.

 

[Capo Dei Capi]

So big breakthroughs like this?

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/175727-ibm-builds-graphene-chip-thats-10000-times-faster-using-standard-cmos-processes

The performance of medical research using super computers will skyrocket from the petaflop level all the way to nearly zettaflop level once graphene chips are ready to come out.

 

[jazzc]

Okay then I put this to you; a person is born with a long term health condition. The treatment is expensive and their family can't afford it - at least not for the entirety of its life. Would you see it die?

So your answer is that if the local community doesn't fork the money on its own, everyone should be forced to because they're not up to your standards and should be punished. Because human life is at the same time both utterly important and only exists to be a slave to the mafia.

Science has progressed a lot thanks to those that would have otherwise died, being treated for free or at a subsidised cost.

You mean thanks to the capital invested. People get sick and die by the millions every year in case you don't know, that's not exactly an asset

Would those breakthroughs ceasing to exist not be more detrimental to humanity?

For some reason you think people don't like their lives and don't invest in prolonging them in time & quality. That's far from the reality. Latest example from the high-end side, Google's Calico. From the tail side, do I really need to point out how amazingly huge the pharmaceutical sector is, from supplements, to health products, to medication?

We're in a very priveleged position and to look at the world from an entirely objective perspective certianly would not gain the support of the masses. It's nice to be so objective but without nuking the world and starting again, it would never catch on.

I do not understand this paragraph.

 

[Deleted member 364366]

So big breakthroughs like this?

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...00-times-faster-using-standard-cmos-processes

Your example was the iPhone. Furthemore your example didn't create a new industry - disruptive innovation does. Something like this: http://interestingengineering.com/mit-reveals-iron-man-reactor/ is an example. Until the oil barrons are done, you won't see them innovating disruptively. Schumpeter's Creative Destruction is what I was talking about - jumping and leaping cost curves rather than moving down them.

 

[Capo Dei Capi]

MIT is a private university, so how is it an example of government doing research? Also with the iphone it pretty much made the entire smartphone industry what it is today, and caused massive changes to society.

 

[Deleted member 364366]

So your answer is that if the local community doesn't fork the money on its own, everyone should be forced to because they're not up to your standards and should be punished. Because human life is at the same time both utterly important and only exists to be a slave to the mafia.

No I was referring to a hypothetical situation without tax, where you had the opportunity to save the potential production if you were to look at the person objectively.

You mean thanks to the capital invested. People get sick and die by the millions every year in case you don't know, that's not exactly an asset

I do, capital that would have been wasted had the project not reached its end because the person had been left to die. Think of the Irish housing crisis, homes were worth millions because of how much had initially been spent on them as well as their potential and perceived value in the boom. If those homes remain unfinished and uninhabitable however their value drops to almost 0. Then it's certianly no asset.

For some reason you think people don't like their lives and don't invest in prolonging them in time & quality. That's far from the reality. Latest example from the high-end side, Google's Calico. From the tail side, do I really need to point out how amazingly huge the pharmaceutical sector is, from supplements, to health products, to medication?

Obviously people "like their lives and invest in prolonging them in time & quality", if they're given the opportunity. I was referring to people's ability to stay alive with the bare essentials, not buying some testerone boosters and Creatine.

 

[Deleted member 364366]

MIT is a private university, so how is it an example of government doing research? Also with the iphone it pretty much made the entire smartphone industry what it is today, and caused massive changes to society.

It was restructured to give it more freedom in its teaching but still recives large amounts of state funding. The researchers studying there are also not employees of a corp.

Yes the "iPhone" was an example disruptive innovation, the iPhone range is not. A slightly better battery life from the iPhone 5 to 5s that still only lasts a day with decent usage is not a technological breakthrough.

 

[jazzc]

No I was referring to a hypothetical situation without tax, where you had the opportunity to save the potential production if you were to look at the person objectively.

What potential production? This isn't central planning.

I do, capital that would have been wasted had the project not reached its end because the person had been left to die. Think of the Irish housing crisis, homes were worth millions because of how much had initially been spent on them as well as their potential and perceived value in the boom. If those homes remain unfinished and uninhabitable however their value drops to almost 0. Then it's certianly no asset.

Some ventures end with profit and some don't. The thing with capitalism is that bad investments MUST be allowed to clear so that the capital be released to flow into productive ones. Subsidizing bad investments is very bad for the economy. Like amazingly, hugely, gigantically, abysmally bad.

 

[Capo Dei Capi]

MIT was founded as a charitable corporation in the 1800's(and still are) and they have in an investment part of MIT that makes long term investment to fund the school. As for the iphone 5 vs iphone 5s, the 5s is a much improved phone.

http://gizmodo.com/iphone-a7-chip-benchmarks-forget-the-specs-it-blows-e-1350717023

 

[Deleted member 364366]

What potential production? This isn't central planning.

That did get a chickle out of me, I won't lie. The potential production that would result of them inventing a product that creates a new market.

Some ventures end with profit and some don't. The thing with capitalism is that bad investments MUST be allowed to clear so that the capital be released to flow into productive ones. Subsidizing bad investments is very bad for the economy. Like amazingly, hugely, gigantically, abysmally bad.

Zombie firms, I agree are terrible but I wasn't talking about supporting a loss-making firm, instead dying person. It comes back to the point of helping someone else to help yourself, which can be as selfish as you make it - rather than hippie and all loving.

 

[jazzc]

That did get a chickle out of me, I won't lie. The potential production that would result of them inventing a product that creates a new market.

How do you know that specific person would end up doing something nobody else would ever do? Sooner or later someone does something. No unique snowflakes without which the universe will end.

The whole point of capitalism is that you don't know but you let things happen. The whole point of central planning is that you know and God forbid anything happens outside of the decisions of a committee.

Zombie firms, I agree are terrible but I wasn't talking about supporting a loss-making firm, instead dying person. It comes back to the point of helping someone else to help yourself, which can be as selfish as you make it - rather than hippie and all loving.

Supporting is a choice. You do it for whatever reason you like. Also, you don't do it for whatever reason you like.

 

[earnsomin]

I understand the sentiment of what you say but surely you acknowledge that some taxation is required for basic infrastructure etc?

I'm not saying the UK has it right with how they assign tax rates, they don't, from a moral standpoint though a number of projects i.e the NHS and legal aid, that they spend their tax money on are incredible institutions that as a UK citizen I'm immensely proud of. That's not to say there aren't failings in tax expenditure and indeed with the examples I gave above, there's shocking levels of waste and inefficency but the overall impact of the UK's taxation is a net benefit for the population.

Taxes at a certain level are inherently good. Coming from a industrial background, previous generations would voluntarily pay into a cooperative funds (in essence a form of taxation) which would in-turn benefit the entire community, much in the way that people voluntarily pay into the running of unions voluntarily, without any threat other than their own exclusion from the system.

A nessecary evil you say? Native americans used to let snakes slowly release venom into them over a prolonged period of time, thereby rendering the venom harmless, as the human body would become adjusted to it.

Unfortunately, that's the human body, not the economy. The economy is based around supply and demand of goods, and a little bit of theft at gunpoint even if it's in the name morality(aka the assumption mans nature is inherently egocentric, self indulging and unempathetic and must be THREATENED with imprisonment, no?) is ultimately just that. Theft.

the learned helplessness that is traumatized into everyone from a young age, the concept you need a daddy to take care of everything for you, and indeed you are morally ENTITLED to that pampering... Has actually helped to widen the gap between the elites and the peasants. Because now not only are the people lacking of as much property possession as the elites, they're also entitled to being that useless and babyish! Thereby lacking of self determination, the very driving force for nature itself.

 

[earnsomin]

Employment law obviously varies and in some countries I agree, it has got to the stage where employees are in the preferred position but, as long as the reason is not discriminatory and outside of a set time period, everyone can be fired eventually. Therefore there is possibility for fluctuation in spending and that doesn't include the opportunity for reducing capital costs if necessary.

'Eventually' can be a long time in the current anti discriminatory stringent set of laws that holds back employers from scraping a employee out of fear of accusations of discrimination. Sure, there's a possibility, but it decreases the capitol that can be metered out according to work performance. Which creates a state where the most lazy, demanding, entitled worker is favored over the hardest worker in the name of 'social equality'

A minimum wage is exactly that, it ensures a minimum wage is paid. It therefore isnt a 'uniform wage'. Firms can still reward employees, albeit with a little inflation as they possibly would not have initially paid workers as much as the set wage but as long as the wage if above the wage floor, they can do as they please. The minimum wage is an attempt to improve the standard of living as well as reduce the size of the wage gap and therefore the inequality. It came after the wage gap as a supposed remedy, it didn't come first.

Actually the minimum wage was the solution, to the problem reaction solution of the collapse of the american economy by the banking cartel which controls everything today. Under the guise of improving living standards, it really just robbed america of it's independent nature and free market. Funny how the same groups who caused the great depression solved it through goverment intervention. That period of time was wrought with goverment takeover of the private industry aka intrusion of the empire into the peoples lives yet again. It was the start of our current financial slave system.
The point i was trying to get across was that through taxation they can cap the possibility of exponential growth outside of their own black market monopoly and mob bully any blossoming ventures by restricting their profits by forcing them to pay the discrimination free-slob force of today and 'eventually' fire them. that is after copping up workers comp for their fake injuries and months long debating whether not to actually fire the person based on their ethnicity.

Had it not been for their higher income or wealth, they would be unable to employ the best accountant that is aware of the latest tax loopholes nor be able to implement them. Setting up the best of the loopholes isn't cheap at all. A simple case of a barrier to entry, which could be seen increase inequality and the 'difference within society', mentioned earlier.

It's not their wealth alone that excludes them from the rules of society, it's also their family bloodlines and cult loyalties that goes beyond the scope of rational thought. Getting wealthy, despite all of the barriers established, is not a guarantee of your protection when participating in tax loopholes. No, really the only protection is to be part of the elite club and whomever is behind it.

 

[myopic1]

A nessecary evil you say? Native americans used to let snakes slowly release venom into them over a prolonged period of time, thereby rendering the venom harmless, as the human body would become adjusted to it.

Unfortunately, that's the human body, not the economy. The economy is based around supply and demand of goods, and a little bit of theft at gunpoint even if it's in the name morality(aka the assumption mans nature is inherently egocentric, self indulging and unempathetic and must be THREATENED with imprisonment, no?) is ultimately just that. Theft.

the learned helplessness that is traumatized into everyone from a young age, the concept you need a daddy to take care of everything for you, and indeed you are morally ENTITLED to that pampering... Has actually helped to widen the gap between the elites and the peasants. Because now not only are the people lacking of as much property possession as the elites, they're also entitled to being that useless and babyish! Thereby lacking of self determination, the very driving force for nature itself.

'A necessary evil' is not what I said no (you have my exact quote above), I believe that they are not inherently evil but are necessary for good government. 'Straw man' is the term for your argument and snake example, not sure where that came from but it's a pretty left field point to make.

I didn't actually mention the economy in the post that you're refuting above, so I don't see how you're countering any of the points I made. There's no denying that taxation effects the economy though as Tony's original post demonstrates but had I mentioned the economy, I would have cited an example where intervention is necessary and that is in the breakup of cartels, where supposedly everyone acting for themselves benefits the masses.

Going back to a point I made earlier, I think most people would accept that there are weak and vulnerable people in society who through no fault of their own and circumstances beyond their control find themselves unable to care for themselves or function without some form of assistance. Now some argue that you leave nature take it's course and survival of the fittest should prevail, meanwhile suffering goes unchecked and the poor roam the streets in large numbers, lose-lose for everyone and not just a moral issue.

There's a reason governments, tribe elders and leaders exist and occur naturally even in remote civilisations where this supposed 'entitled pampering' hasn't reached and that's because the masses can't take care of themselves 100% of the time, or circumstances occur where direct intervention of a higher authority is needed, probably what you would term 'Daddy' or what I would call good government. For me taxes are an extension of good government and empower the people that we have deemed worthy to rule us to actually get things done, of course I know there are abuses and failings that terms like 'pampering' sometimes fit.

One thing to note is that you actively choose to live under a particular system or in a particular country with set rules, where you enjoy the benefits of that system, the solution is pretty clear.

 

[mqsss]

Go to Slovenia. Want to get a $6000 paycheck every month? No problem. It will cost your employer $15000. For every $1000 above $5000, your employer will have to pay additional $2000+ to the government for you. Do you have your own company? Want to cash out $50k of profit at the end of a successful year? No problem, just pay a little bit above $20k to the government.

And the situation here is fucked up. If you are rich, you are marked as being a criminal. The majority of people believe that one can't succeed without being a criminal or inherit shitload of money.

Expensive cars are even more expensive in my country because of higher taxes and idiotic fees. A local FB group posted in the news that there was a $300k sold in my area. Comments below that posts were like "And they think they are paying enough taxes? They aren't if they can afford expensive cars like that".

My country is notoriously known for enviousness. It's not a problem if your paycheck is $1000 per month. The problem is when your neighbor (whom you hate) has $1200 per month and he drives a 2 years newer Renault Clio.

I'd like to take this opportunity to tell socialists that if they weren't there when a successful man worked 16 hours per day for nothing, if you weren't there when he didn't go to vacations because he had to work for nothing, then don't be there when he reaches a financial freedom.