7 ms·

Why would the prices change? The demand hasn't changed? The supply hasn't changed? People are still buying the same basic things they did before. The money

Why would the prices change? The demand hasn't changed? The supply hasn't changed? People are still buying the same basic things they did before. The money is simply shifted around from the rich to the poor?

jakeogh 10y ago
"shifted around" is nice euphemism for theft.
- anonfunction 10y ago
  With that logic all taxes and social policies are theft.
  - jakeogh 10y ago
    Correct. Personal taxes (taking things via threat of force) are theft. It does not matter who is doing the taking.
    - EliRivers 10y ago
      You have redefined the English language for your own propaganda purposes. This significantly degrades any chance of you being taken seriously.
      - vostok 10y ago
        It's not necessarily for propaganda purposes, but I agree that this is a highly nonstandard terminology and it's not obvious to me that it improves anyone's ability to communicate.
    - raintrees 10y ago
      Thank you. If my seizing my neighbor's extra car because I do not have one is theft, it is still theft if I convince a majority to pass a law take it for me. And it is enforced with the threat of (or actual) violence against my neighbor, if my neighbor refuses.
      - EliRivers 10y ago
        Negative. Theft is a crime. Crime is defined by the criminal law. If you choose to have your own personal criminal law, so that you can call whatever you like theft, that's up to you, but if you're going to do that with language, you can claim anything is anything.
        raintrees 10y ago
        Okay, we disagree. (*edit: we disagree about taxes being theft). But that is what I enjoy about communicating with other intelligent people, we can discuss ideas and not have to agree. I have been studying this in my free time for the last decade or so, and do not have a ready list of sources handy, but here are a few I gathered in the last 30 minutes, should you be curious as to why I think this way: https://mises.org/library/taxation-robbery https://mises.org/library/taxation-robbery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_as_theft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_as_theft A very short list of sites containing general backgrounders: https://mises.org/ https://mises.org/ http://www.ronpaulcurriculum.com/ http://www.ronpaulcurriculum.com/ http://tomwoods.com/ http://tomwoods.com/ https://www.freemansperspective.com/ https://www.freemansperspective.com/ A short list of sources on this direction of thinking to start with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard Much of this is intertwined in Libertarianism, Austrian Economics, and even Minarchy/Anarchy. I obey the laws of the jurisdiction that I reside in, but that does not mean that I am not trying to actively change those laws for what I perceive as "the better"... I search for as close an approximation to "the best way" as I can, understanding that humans are fallible by nature. For entertainment, I am re-reading the book A Lodging of Wayfaring Men, a fictional book by Paul Rosenberg. While it is in severe need of editing (self-published?) I find it entertaining enough to re-read to get excited/stimulated about the possibilities of correcting systems that I consider to be operating very inefficiently, or flat out wrong.
      - briantakita 10y ago
        Theft is a crime committed by another citizen. Redistribution of wealth is a "social program" committed by the State. See, with language, you can justify anything. One can make anything legal or illegal. It all depends on which Entity is saying those words. That's the nature of political power... "A traitor is everyone who does not agree with me." ---George III of the United Kingdom
    - dasil003 10y ago
      You would not have been in a position to earn any of the money you have without public infrastructure paid for by taxes. Maybe you would have been successful under an anarchy, but I doubt that is the case for the majority of HN'ers, and my best guess is that your ideological position would crumble pretty quickly if you were forced to live in the world which you ostensibly desire. Fortunately for everyone I can't see that happening without massive death and destruction.
      - jakeogh 10y ago
        I'm not advocating Anarchy. That's never going to work. We need laws, and I would love to change the laws regarding the income tax.
        frio 10y ago
        Who enforces the law? How does their labour get paid for?
        jakeogh 10y ago
        Why would you think a tax on personal income is the only way to do that?
        frio 10y ago
        I didn't say it was :). What alternative do you propose?
        jakeogh 10y ago
        Numerous states haven't had a problem with it even though they have no personal income tax. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/03/23/states-income-tax/2002991/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/03/...
        10y ago
    - prodmerc 10y ago
      Glad you are and always will be a millionaire who doesn't use any public services and will never need to worry about hospital bills, housing or food. Otherwise you're an idiot.
      - jakeogh 10y ago
        You know we had hospitals, housing assistance and food assistance before the personal income tax right? A personal income tax is just one way we fund gov services, there are plenty of other options that don't require a gun to the head. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming have no state level personal income tax.
        woofyman 10y ago
        Alaska and Texas have oil. Florida has tourists. Wyoming has coal.
    - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
      You say taxation is theft. Anarchists say that the fact that you have any property that can be taxed is theft. This is a matter of opinion, not an indisputable fact.
- psyc 10y ago
  Such a statement is only meaningful if the rules and systems that distribute wealth are sufficiently orderly and broadly considered fair. In a system considered to be significantly arbitrary or rigged, the whole concept of ownership is seriously weakened.
dingdongding 10y ago
Because this will give income to people who don't have amount of money right now. They will also come in market to buy things. So total number of people buying stuff will increase.
akjainaj 10y ago
I have the theory that if you give money to everybody, prices will go up because sellers will figure they can increase the price of everything without it negatively affecting sales, since every buyer simply has more money to spare, no excuses.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > I have the theory that if you give money to everybody, prices would go up because sellers will figure they can increase the price of everything without it negatively affecting sales, since every buyer simply has more money to spare, no excuses. That's how monopoly markets work. But if you're a grocery store and you realize everybody now has $4 more in their pockets, you can't start charging $5 for an apple when the store across the street is still charging $1.
  - prodmerc 10y ago
    You'll definitely start charging $2, otherwise you would not have stayed in business for long. If you keep the same price, but everyone is charging 4x as much, you are losing, because everyone else needs 4x less customers to make the same profit as you, not to mention the work involved. You'll run out of supply soon enough, too.
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      > You'll definitely start charging $2, otherwise you would not have stayed in business for long. If I'm buying apples wholesale for $.50 and selling them retail for $1, how many apples does it take for me to go out of business? > You'll run out of supply soon enough, too. Are people now eating more apples than farmers can grow?

jakeogh 10y ago

"shifted around" is nice euphemism for theft.

anonfunction 10y ago
With that logic all taxes and social policies are theft.
- jakeogh 10y ago
  Correct. Personal taxes (taking things via threat of force) are theft. It does not matter who is doing the taking.
  - EliRivers 10y ago
    You have redefined the English language for your own propaganda purposes. This significantly degrades any chance of you being taken seriously.
    - vostok 10y ago
      It's not necessarily for propaganda purposes, but I agree that this is a highly nonstandard terminology and it's not obvious to me that it improves anyone's ability to communicate.
  - raintrees 10y ago
    Thank you. If my seizing my neighbor's extra car because I do not have one is theft, it is still theft if I convince a majority to pass a law take it for me. And it is enforced with the threat of (or actual) violence against my neighbor, if my neighbor refuses.
    - EliRivers 10y ago
      Negative. Theft is a crime. Crime is defined by the criminal law. If you choose to have your own personal criminal law, so that you can call whatever you like theft, that's up to you, but if you're going to do that with language, you can claim anything is anything.
      - raintrees 10y ago
        Okay, we disagree. (*edit: we disagree about taxes being theft). But that is what I enjoy about communicating with other intelligent people, we can discuss ideas and not have to agree. I have been studying this in my free time for the last decade or so, and do not have a ready list of sources handy, but here are a few I gathered in the last 30 minutes, should you be curious as to why I think this way: https://mises.org/library/taxation-robbery https://mises.org/library/taxation-robbery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_as_theft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_as_theft A very short list of sites containing general backgrounders: https://mises.org/ https://mises.org/ http://www.ronpaulcurriculum.com/ http://www.ronpaulcurriculum.com/ http://tomwoods.com/ http://tomwoods.com/ https://www.freemansperspective.com/ https://www.freemansperspective.com/ A short list of sources on this direction of thinking to start with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard Much of this is intertwined in Libertarianism, Austrian Economics, and even Minarchy/Anarchy. I obey the laws of the jurisdiction that I reside in, but that does not mean that I am not trying to actively change those laws for what I perceive as "the better"... I search for as close an approximation to "the best way" as I can, understanding that humans are fallible by nature. For entertainment, I am re-reading the book A Lodging of Wayfaring Men, a fictional book by Paul Rosenberg. While it is in severe need of editing (self-published?) I find it entertaining enough to re-read to get excited/stimulated about the possibilities of correcting systems that I consider to be operating very inefficiently, or flat out wrong.
    - briantakita 10y ago
      Theft is a crime committed by another citizen. Redistribution of wealth is a "social program" committed by the State. See, with language, you can justify anything. One can make anything legal or illegal. It all depends on which Entity is saying those words. That's the nature of political power... "A traitor is everyone who does not agree with me." ---George III of the United Kingdom
  - dasil003 10y ago
    You would not have been in a position to earn any of the money you have without public infrastructure paid for by taxes. Maybe you would have been successful under an anarchy, but I doubt that is the case for the majority of HN'ers, and my best guess is that your ideological position would crumble pretty quickly if you were forced to live in the world which you ostensibly desire. Fortunately for everyone I can't see that happening without massive death and destruction.
    - jakeogh 10y ago
      I'm not advocating Anarchy. That's never going to work. We need laws, and I would love to change the laws regarding the income tax.
      - frio 10y ago
        Who enforces the law? How does their labour get paid for?
        jakeogh 10y ago
        Why would you think a tax on personal income is the only way to do that?
        frio 10y ago
        I didn't say it was :). What alternative do you propose?
        jakeogh 10y ago
        Numerous states haven't had a problem with it even though they have no personal income tax. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/03/23/states-income-tax/2002991/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/03/...
        10y ago
  - prodmerc 10y ago
    Glad you are and always will be a millionaire who doesn't use any public services and will never need to worry about hospital bills, housing or food. Otherwise you're an idiot.
    - jakeogh 10y ago
      You know we had hospitals, housing assistance and food assistance before the personal income tax right? A personal income tax is just one way we fund gov services, there are plenty of other options that don't require a gun to the head. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming have no state level personal income tax.
      - woofyman 10y ago
        Alaska and Texas have oil. Florida has tourists. Wyoming has coal.
  - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
    You say taxation is theft. Anarchists say that the fact that you have any property that can be taxed is theft. This is a matter of opinion, not an indisputable fact.
psyc 10y ago
Such a statement is only meaningful if the rules and systems that distribute wealth are sufficiently orderly and broadly considered fair. In a system considered to be significantly arbitrary or rigged, the whole concept of ownership is seriously weakened.

dingdongding 10y ago

Because this will give income to people who don't have amount of money right now. They will also come in market to buy things. So total number of people buying stuff will increase.

akjainaj 10y ago

I have the theory that if you give money to everybody, prices will go up because sellers will figure they can increase the price of everything without it negatively affecting sales, since every buyer simply has more money to spare, no excuses.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> I have the theory that if you give money to everybody, prices would go up because sellers will figure they can increase the price of everything without it negatively affecting sales, since every buyer simply has more money to spare, no excuses. That's how monopoly markets work. But if you're a grocery store and you realize everybody now has $4 more in their pockets, you can't start charging $5 for an apple when the store across the street is still charging $1.
- prodmerc 10y ago
  You'll definitely start charging $2, otherwise you would not have stayed in business for long. If you keep the same price, but everyone is charging 4x as much, you are losing, because everyone else needs 4x less customers to make the same profit as you, not to mention the work involved. You'll run out of supply soon enough, too.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > You'll definitely start charging $2, otherwise you would not have stayed in business for long. If I'm buying apples wholesale for $.50 and selling them retail for $1, how many apples does it take for me to go out of business? > You'll run out of supply soon enough, too. Are people now eating more apples than farmers can grow?