News Are Corporations and Governments Considered People According to the Bible?

[ThomasT]

Regarding consent, I would argue that by being a citizen of a democracy that has the capability of "throwing out the bums", as it were, you are implicitly granting consent in everything politicians do. You may disagree with what they do, but you still grant consent by living ina free republic. Otherwise, by your idea (or rather what I suspect is your idea, correct me if I'm wrong) of consent means that there is never anything that the entire nation consents to at any single time.

I'm just thinking that there's a difference between a situation where two parties agree on a course of action, and a situation where one party is coerced by the other party into following or avoiding a course of action. Because there are dissenters wrt public policies and laws, governments must ultimately function via the threat, and use, of force.

During my grandfather's time there was slavery. During my time certain ethnic groups were prohibited from entering certain establishments, or from using certain 'public' facilities and prohibited from being within town limits after 6 pm.

 

[mheslep]

Both helping and constraining are in line with the ideal of 'equality' advocated by the US republic. ...

No, they are not.

 

[mheslep]

I'm just thinking that there's a difference between a situation where two parties agree on a course of action, and a situation where one party is coerced by the other party into following or avoiding a course of action. Because there are dissenters wrt public policies and laws, governments must ultimately function via the threat, and use, of force.

During my grandfather's time there was slavery. ...

Which was not only sanctioned but enforced by government. After slavery was abolished, Jim Crow laws were enforced for decades by government.

 

[Char. Limit]

The two scenarios are nowhere close to equivalent and you can't possibly not see that. Claiming they are just because you can use the same word to describe them is like saying apples and oranges are the same because they are both fruit: You're playing word games.

I never said they were equivalent; only that they involved the same idea.

 

[russ_watters]

If the govt rules by the consent of the governed, then taxes are not taken by force. On the other hand, if you think that taxes are taken by force, doesn't that mean that you don't consent to be governed?

Taxes are taken by force from people who don't consent to be governed. For me to acknowledge the fact that the government takes taxes from some people by force does not mean that *I* do not consent to be governed. You improperly mixed together 2nd and 3rd person there.

 

[russ_watters]

I never said they were equivalent; only that they involved the same idea.

You're just playing more word games there: "equivalent" = "the same". They are definitions of each other!

Point being, no, they really don't involve the same/equivalent ideas - not in any useful/relevant way, anyway. Business deals involve coercion of terms, but only in the sense of negotiation, where both parties use intellectual force to get their way. But corporations cannot use physical force to make their way happen against your will. Corporations cannot force you to accept their terms or use force to make you buy a product. In other words, Walmart cannot lock you in jail or shoot you for not shopping there. The government can contact your employer and have them send your money directly to it, lock you in jail, or shoot you for non-payment of taxes, depending on how vehemently you try to resist (as someone said earlier).

 

[Char. Limit]

You're just playing more word games there: "equivalent" = "the same". They are definitions of each other!

Point being, no, they really don't involve the same/equivalent ideas - not in any useful/relevant way, anyway. Business deals involve coercion of terms, but only in the sense of negotiation, where both parties use intellectual force to get their way. But corporations cannot use physical force to make their way happen against your will. Corporations cannot force you to accept their terms or use force to make you buy a product. In other words, Walmart cannot lock you in jail or shoot you for not shopping there. The government can contact your employer and have them send your money directly to it, lock you in jail, or shoot you for non-payment of taxes, depending on how vehemently you try to resist (as someone said earlier).

Point taken.

 

[chiro]

There was a post that talked about hypothesizing what governments would do with a voluntary tax system.

Personally I think the whole idea of an income tax is absolutely stupid. We punish people for putting in more labor (or at least more economic units of labor) by having these so called tax brackets. This doesn't even work fairly since the really wealthy just use the complex tax laws to avoid paying most of their tax anyways.

The best solution in my view is just a general consumption tax. Get rid of income tax altogether and tax people on what they actually consume.

From the consumption tax, certain goods will have certain taxes and depending on the actual function of the good or service in question, some of that can be used to aid the government in that related area. For example goods and services that are related to transport have taxes that are used to help the government maintain the transport system which includes for example maintaining public roads and so on.

If people want to consume in a lavish way, let them pay for it. If people do not want to consume in a lavish way, then that is their choice as well.

 

[WhoWee]

There was a post that talked about hypothesizing what governments would do with a voluntary tax system.

Personally I think the whole idea of an income tax is absolutely stupid. We punish people for putting in more labor (or at least more economic units of labor) by having these so called tax brackets. This doesn't even work fairly since the really wealthy just use the complex tax laws to avoid paying most of their tax anyways.

The best solution in my view is just a general consumption tax. Get rid of income tax altogether and tax people on what they actually consume.

From the consumption tax, certain goods will have certain taxes and depending on the actual function of the good or service in question, some of that can be used to aid the government in that related area. For example goods and services that are related to transport have taxes that are used to help the government maintain the transport system which includes for example maintaining public roads and so on.

If people want to consume in a lavish way, let them pay for it. If people do not want to consume in a lavish way, then that is their choice as well.

If Government spending was based upon their actual revenues - it might be that simple. Unfortunately, the Government currently borrows about $.40 of every $1.00 it spends and owes roughly $15Trillion. The Government also has projected (long term unfunded) debt of any where from $56Trillion to over $120Trillion - depends upon which expert did the calculation.

 

[mheslep]

The best solution in my view is just a general consumption tax. Get rid of income tax altogether and tax people on what they actually consume.

...

Ok, but that's far more regressive. Is that your intent? That is, a VAT would necessarily shift the existing tax burden from the wealthy to the less wealthy who may pay no federal income tax. As the lower incomes can not avoid purchases for housing, transportation and food, they'll incur the (federal) sales tax.

My preference is a federal tax on the state governments alone, requiring increased state taxes but completely eliminating any kind of personalized federal tax, income or otherwise, and thereby strengthening the US federalist system.

 

[MarcoD]

You're just playing more word games there: "equivalent" = "the same". They are definitions of each other!

Point being, no, they really don't involve the same/equivalent ideas - not in any useful/relevant way, anyway. Business deals involve coercion of terms, but only in the sense of negotiation, where both parties use intellectual force to get their way. But corporations cannot use physical force to make their way happen against your will. Corporations cannot force you to accept their terms or use force to make you buy a product. In other words, Walmart cannot lock you in jail or shoot you for not shopping there. The government can contact your employer and have them send your money directly to it, lock you in jail, or shoot you for non-payment of taxes, depending on how vehemently you try to resist (as someone said earlier).

That's holds mostly for consumer goods. Try to buy stuff from a company and not pay for it.

EDIT: This is a bit simplistic. Can I be forced to buy a house or a car? No. Am I 'forced' to buy a house and a car? Yes. In a similar manner, can I be forced to use the roads of a state? No. Am I practically 'forced' to do that? Yes.

 

[mheslep]

That's known as theft or at least fraud, and it need not apply only to buying from a business.

 

[russ_watters]

...and of course it is enforced by the overnment, not the retailer!

 

[russ_watters]

Can I be forced to buy a house or a car? No. Am I 'forced' to buy a house and a car? Yes. In a similar manner, can I be forced to use the roads of a state? No. Am I practically 'forced' to do that? Yes.

Huh? I know lots of people who own neither houses nor cars! What are you talking about?!

 

[MarcoD]

Huh? I know lots of people who own neither houses nor cars! What are you talking about?!

The argument was that government or, as Noam Chomsky would say, authority should be rejected since it is uses force (to transfer ownership). I find that a rather silly thought.

If I buy a house or a car, and I don't make good on a payment, it is repossessed. (Ultimately, under gunpoint.)

If I use state roads, and I don't pay taxes, it is forcibly taken. (Ultimately, under gunpoint.)

I am neither forced to buy [or rent] a car or a house or use state roads. But since life forces me to do that, I am forced to pay for everything.

The rejection of authority with the argument "it uses force," might as well be used (is used, even) to reject capitalism. Both use force to enforce the rules of the game.

IMO, you need a better argument than that.

 

[chiro]

Ok, but that's far more regressive. Is that your intent? That is, a VAT would necessarily shift the existing tax burden from the wealthy to the less wealthy who may pay no federal income tax. As the lower incomes can not avoid purchases for housing, transportation and food, they'll incur the (federal) sales tax.

My preference is a federal tax on the state governments alone, requiring increased state taxes but completely eliminating any kind of personalized federal tax, income or otherwise, and thereby strengthening the US federalist system.

Each industry would have different tax rules for goods and services. It would not be fair to tax necessities like food in the same way that recreational drugs and gambling are taxed.

If someone works their backside off and earns a lot in a fair manner, why should they suffer from having their hard work punished by getting a tax of over 30/40%? If these people own businesses, they are employing people, and that has a domino effect.

The way things are going now, some of these elites are paying less tax than the janitors!

With regards to your first sentence, you can define taxes based on necessity and luxury. Standard food products should not taxed as high as say a bottle of really expensive wine. Same with housing: if you want a ridiculously extravagant house, then it should cost you more.

I do however, agree that a no income tax system would have to be a bit more thought out. Defining the difference between necessity and luxury is a hard one because it is subjective. But it does allow the consumer at the end of the day what to spend all of their income on, and to me, that is in favor of freedom for the consumer.

 

[DoggerDan]

Both the premise and the conclusion are faulty, but the reasoning is not faulty.

When such reasoning leads one to believe that a faulty conclusion is true when it is in fact faulty, then such reasoning is itself faulty.

 

[ThomasT]

Both helping and constraining are in line with the ideal of 'equality' advocated by the US republic. ...

No, they are not.

What do you mean?

What I mean is that constraining certain behaviors can enhance the 'egalitarian' situation for certain participants, or in general. For example, armed robbery is against the law. While this constrains or diminishes the freedom/equality of the would be armed robbing subset, it enhances freedom/equality wrt the general societal situation.

 

[ThomasT]

Which was not only sanctioned but enforced by government. After slavery was abolished, Jim Crow laws were enforced for decades by government.

Yes. The point being that government functions via the threat and use of force.

Pro-slavery and separatist laws as well as anti-slavery and civil rights laws require the threat and use of force to facilitate compliance.

 

[chiro]

Just a question that relates to tax for you guys and girls, currently part of tax revenue goes towards things like unemployment insurance (you call it social security I think) and other programs like medical ones (do you call it medicaid or medicare? I'm not sure).

The question specifically is how would you set a tax system that doesn't punish producers but still enables the kind of egalitarian types of systems that help out those with certain problems (like unemployed, disabled, pensioners and so on)?

It's not an easy question, but I'd like to hear your opinions (and I didn't mean to hijack the thread if anyone's wondering).

The reason I made a statement about abolishing the income tax, but I am wondering if this was a bad idea because of its effect on helping other parts of society.

 

[mheslep]

Each industry would have different tax rules for goods and services. It would not be fair to tax necessities like food in the same way that recreational drugs and gambling are taxed.

Doesn't work. One can't replace the income tax with such a sales tax, as you won't collect sufficient revenue. Look abroad for similar examples. With a sales tax, if it is structured to severely target certain industries then those industries decline or go abroad or go black market, in any case revenue is curtailed. So a sales tax can be targeted to discourage an industry if that is the goal, but if it is to be used as primary revenue source everybody must pay.

...The way things are going now, some of these elites are paying less tax than the janitors!...

Lower rate perhaps.