7 ms·

> Remember, he points out, that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional in 1895; it took a constitutional amendment to legalize it in 1913.

> Remember, he points out, that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional in 1895; it took a constitutional amendment to legalize it in 1913. “There’s a lot of policy innovation ahead of us,” he says. Why not just get rid of the entire Constitution then? The idea of changing our constitution from that of a liberal republic to that of an authoritarian state should be universally met with disdain. This is not a matter of liking the rich. I disagree wholeheartedly with the politics and spirituality of Gates, Zuckerberg, and Bezos. However, the idea that the government has any right to tax private property at whatever valuation they see fit is a quick step towards a totalitarian nightmare.

chadash 7y ago
> Why not just get rid of the entire Constitution then? The idea of changing our constitution from that of a liberal republic to that of an authoritarian state should be universally met with disdain. But it's wasn't universally met with disdain, it was broadly agreed upon. The amendment procedure requires 3/4 of the states to ratify it. The 16th amendment got 42 out of the 48 states at the time (87%). Aside from this, federal income taxes were just a shift away from the previous way that the federal government raised money before the 16th amendment, which was primarily through tariffs. From a libertarian perspective, is there really much of a difference? Tariffs are regressive and come with all sorts of political issues that income taxes don't have.
orthecreedence 7y ago
> However, the idea that the government has any right to tax private property at whatever valuation they see fit is a quick step towards a totalitarian nightmare. Not really? Only in the case where the government is no longer beholden to the people (or the rich). Right now, the federal government in general is more or less a captured agency of Wall St and the tax policy follows as such. Either way, no matter who controls the government, there's a vested interest in setting tax policy that above all else, optimizes for stability. I mean, you're a voluntary exchange type, right? Is it in the government's rational self interest to set a tax policy that causes revolt? Also, who protects that private property you love so much? There's a cost associated with that. This whole "taxes are theft!" nonsense is becoming tiresome. You're part of a society. Pay your membership fees and stop whining.
- tathougies 7y ago
  > Only in the case where the government is no longer beholden to the people (or the rich) No. The exact opposite. Only in the case when the government is beholden to the people can it be expected to protect the rights of those people. Otherwise, it is rule by those in power, which is just as bad (if not worse than) as rule by the rich. Power does not always come in the form of money. > taxes are theft! Stop with the strawmen. I didn't say taxes were theft, I just said this wanton approach to the legal system, especially at the highest levels of law, without any forethought for what kind of thing this opens up, should be met with universal criticism. Taxing property of the rich sounds like a great idea, but the truth of the matter is that giving government this broad power allows it to also do things like take poor people's personal possessions whenever they see fit. Already, even with our rather strong legislation in place, some government agencies have found it okay to use search warrants to seize private property (thankfully the SC reversed that idiocy), but the fact of the matter is that government is one of the few agencies well known to overstep any and all power given to it. > You're part of a society. Pay your membership fees and stop whining. I'm quite happy to support a liberal government. I would not be happy to support authoritarianism, and I think you wouldn't be too.
  - notahacker 7y ago
    The argument that passing a constitutional amendment using the approach to constitutional amendments set down in the original constitution is a "wanton approach to the legal system" is ridiculous.
    - tathougies 7y ago
      I don't think it's ridiculous at all. I never said it would be illegal, I said it would demonstrate a lack of care and consideration -- like Prohibition (also passed legally, without doubt).
      - notahacker 7y ago
        And the original constitution's treatment of tax apportionment expressly acknowledged slavery as a legitimate practice. So perhaps a constitional amendment process can do good things too! Back in the real world, the federal government has always used its constitutional entitlement to tax people, and despite your clearly bad faith insinuations, the Sixteenth had absolutely no impact on its [in]ability to take the possessions of the poor whenever it saw fit or implications for search warrant seizures. What the amendment actually did after nearly two decades of careful consideration and public debate was remove an odd quirk in the constitution whereby in the eyes of the Supreme Court the federal government could directly tax individuals and companies as much as it liked, but only if the total amount contributed from a state was proportional to its population (which made assessing direct taxes based on variables like incomes and corporate profits rather than fixed things like the right to vote difficult). If your definition of the difference between a "liberal republic" and an "authoritarian state" is based on whether the constitution mandates that the quantity of direct tax collected in each region is proportional to its census counts, you really, really don't understand the concept of liberty.
gumby 7y ago
I read his point the other way: you can't just randomly experiment; there's an existing framework, which can be adapted as we learn more / change our minds. Which seems like a perfectly rational statement.
samirillian 7y ago
> Why not just get rid of the entire Constitution then? This, but unironically
- tathougies 7y ago
  Seriously, tathougies should be King.
  - samirillian 7y ago
    yeah, don't want any of your slaves fleeing to other states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Clause
    - tathougies 7y ago
      Yeah, don't want an otherwise good constitution because of a provision that has been repealed for over 150 years.
      - moate 7y ago
        >>an otherwise good constitution This bold assumption is where the issue comes in. There's plenty of constitution that I'd be fine shredding and plenty more that could really use some specific, involved updating. The whole of the 2nd amendment can fuck off and I wouldn't shed a tear. 3rd feels like it doesn't need to be at "cornerstone of our government" levels, and the 4th could really use some extra juice to it. Also, based on recent events, we can get rid of the 10th and I'd be happier. TL;dr- Having a constitution is great. Ours could use some work.
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        I'd be a lot happier if we actually acted like the 10th means what it says.
      - samirillian 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
scott_s 7y ago
> However, the idea that the government has any right to tax private property at whatever valuation they see fit is a quick step towards a totalitarian nightmare. Many (most?) towns already have a property tax on houses and condos.
- tathougies 7y ago
  Im unsure of the point of this comment. The constitution restricts the taxing ability of the federal government. States of course are fully sovereign over their land and have broad discretion to levy taxes. Thus their ability to levy this tax speaks nothing about not wanting the Feds to have the same power. State income tax was also legal well before federal income tax. Back to your point -- while property tax is a form of wealth tax, I do believe it is different. Real estate is a kind of property that one owns at the mercy of the state. It is not something that anyone -- other than sovereign governments -- really own. That being said, there is also danger in raising property taxes so i think any such tax should be met with intense scrutiny
  - scott_s 7y ago
    > Real estate is a kind of property that one owns at the mercy of the state. It is not something that anyone -- other than sovereign governments -- really own. That would be true if that tax was only on the value of the land. But it's not. The value of the structure on that land is part of the tax.
    - tathougies 7y ago
      Permanent fixtures (like homes) are -- in common law -- typically considered part of the land.
      - scott_s 7y ago
        And condos? But I don't think this actually changes anything. Clearly, homes and condos are considered private property. Whether or not the government has certain rights to that property (eminent domain, search with a warrant), most people consider it their property. So house and condo taxes are going to be perceived by people as taxes on their property. I also claim that we are not currently in a "totalitarian nightmare." So maybe people are okay if the government decides on a case-by-case basis what kind of property can be taxed. Also: some states have car taxes. And boat taxes.
empath75 7y ago
You say you don’t like authoritarianism but what’s the difference between feudalism and a system where a tiny percentage of people control the vast majority of the wealth? Freedom isn’t just freedom from government. I don’t see much difference to someone with no money between bending the knee to Washington and bending it to google or Facebook.
- tathougies 7y ago
  > between feudalism and a system where a tiny percentage of people control the vast majority of the wealth In feudalism, the working class is considered the same as a home -- a part of the land -- that can be sold along with the estate. Asking how this differs from a free society with a subset of rich people is like asking how chattel slavery differs from modern society. The fact is that Bill Gate's wealth does not impact my personal freedom or ability to collect my own wealth. > Freedom isn’t just freedom from government The purpose of government is to ensure freedom from other people -- that is why government is the one entity allowed to use mechanisms no other individual is allowed to use. My fundamental disagreement with you is that I do not believe Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffet's, etc, wealth impacts my inalienable right to life, liberty, and property.
  - about_help 7y ago
    "I do not believe Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffet's, etc, wealth impacts my inalienable right to life, liberty, and property." That seems simple enough, however there are a multitude of secondary effects that happen when you allow individuals or corporations to amass the levels of wealth we see today. This enables them to monopolize markets through a variety of means and subvert the political process. Even without Citizen's United making bribery pretty much legal such wealthy entities would still be able to use their wealth to influence society. Simply because Gates was in the right place and time to develop a near OS monopoly he should have a disproportionate say in society's politics? These are not simple problems to solve, but then again they aren't that difficult either.
    - tathougies 7y ago
CuriousSkeptic 7y ago
Would you be ok with a geo-libertarian style land value tax?
- tathougies 7y ago
  I don't have a positive opinion on taxation that I'm willing to share really. I simply would like to urge caution with regard to the idea of allowing the government to tax wealth simply because we don't like the fact that the Zuck is rich.
wwweston 7y ago
> Why not just get rid of the entire Constitution then? Because the Constitution -- or more generally if you like, the idea of what a Republic is -- has a lot more to it than the question of whether an income tax is within the powers of its institutions. > the idea that the government has any right to tax private property at whatever valuation they see fit is a quick step towards a totalitarian nightmare. It might be interesting to examine the question of how "the government may assess taxes at rates which can be justified to the citizens who elect representatives and other officeholders" transforms in the mind to "the government has any right to tax private property at whatever valuation they see fit", apparently without any notice of either the skipped steps or the actual observable realities of not-totalitarian-nightmare in America since 1913.
- tathougies 7y ago
  > Because the Constitution -- or more generally if you like, the idea of what a Republic is -- has a lot more to it than the question of whether an income tax is within the powers of its institutions. An income tax is wholly different from a property tax. A fundamental tenant to liberalism is that you have an innate right to your life, liberty, and property. Taxing income does not tax your property; it rather taxes the rate at which one acquires property. A property tax is a tax on an inalienable right. It's like the government requiring you to pay a specific tax in order to have particular freedoms. I find that to be morally questionable. > "the government has any right to tax private property at whatever valuation they see fit" You are insisting I am arguing against income tax. I'm not. The article (did you read it?) suggests a tax on personal property including real estate, luxuries, etc. These things do not have innate value that can be measured unless sold. Thus, someone needs to come up with a valuation.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    I think arguing that real estate taxes would be totalitarianism in a country that already has them is a bit of a non-starter.
    - tathougies 7y ago

chadash 7y ago

> Why not just get rid of the entire Constitution then? The idea of changing our constitution from that of a liberal republic to that of an authoritarian state should be universally met with disdain. But it's wasn't universally met with disdain, it was broadly agreed upon. The amendment procedure requires 3/4 of the states to ratify it. The 16th amendment got 42 out of the 48 states at the time (87%). Aside from this, federal income taxes were just a shift away from the previous way that the federal government raised money before the 16th amendment, which was primarily through tariffs. From a libertarian perspective, is there really much of a difference? Tariffs are regressive and come with all sorts of political issues that income taxes don't have.

orthecreedence 7y ago

> However, the idea that the government has any right to tax private property at whatever valuation they see fit is a quick step towards a totalitarian nightmare. Not really? Only in the case where the government is no longer beholden to the people (or the rich). Right now, the federal government in general is more or less a captured agency of Wall St and the tax policy follows as such. Either way, no matter who controls the government, there's a vested interest in setting tax policy that above all else, optimizes for stability. I mean, you're a voluntary exchange type, right? Is it in the government's rational self interest to set a tax policy that causes revolt? Also, who protects that private property you love so much? There's a cost associated with that. This whole "taxes are theft!" nonsense is becoming tiresome. You're part of a society. Pay your membership fees and stop whining.

tathougies 7y ago
> Only in the case where the government is no longer beholden to the people (or the rich) No. The exact opposite. Only in the case when the government is beholden to the people can it be expected to protect the rights of those people. Otherwise, it is rule by those in power, which is just as bad (if not worse than) as rule by the rich. Power does not always come in the form of money. > taxes are theft! Stop with the strawmen. I didn't say taxes were theft, I just said this wanton approach to the legal system, especially at the highest levels of law, without any forethought for what kind of thing this opens up, should be met with universal criticism. Taxing property of the rich sounds like a great idea, but the truth of the matter is that giving government this broad power allows it to also do things like take poor people's personal possessions whenever they see fit. Already, even with our rather strong legislation in place, some government agencies have found it okay to use search warrants to seize private property (thankfully the SC reversed that idiocy), but the fact of the matter is that government is one of the few agencies well known to overstep any and all power given to it. > You're part of a society. Pay your membership fees and stop whining. I'm quite happy to support a liberal government. I would not be happy to support authoritarianism, and I think you wouldn't be too.
- notahacker 7y ago
  The argument that passing a constitutional amendment using the approach to constitutional amendments set down in the original constitution is a "wanton approach to the legal system" is ridiculous.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    I don't think it's ridiculous at all. I never said it would be illegal, I said it would demonstrate a lack of care and consideration -- like Prohibition (also passed legally, without doubt).
    - notahacker 7y ago
      And the original constitution's treatment of tax apportionment expressly acknowledged slavery as a legitimate practice. So perhaps a constitional amendment process can do good things too! Back in the real world, the federal government has always used its constitutional entitlement to tax people, and despite your clearly bad faith insinuations, the Sixteenth had absolutely no impact on its [in]ability to take the possessions of the poor whenever it saw fit or implications for search warrant seizures. What the amendment actually did after nearly two decades of careful consideration and public debate was remove an odd quirk in the constitution whereby in the eyes of the Supreme Court the federal government could directly tax individuals and companies as much as it liked, but only if the total amount contributed from a state was proportional to its population (which made assessing direct taxes based on variables like incomes and corporate profits rather than fixed things like the right to vote difficult). If your definition of the difference between a "liberal republic" and an "authoritarian state" is based on whether the constitution mandates that the quantity of direct tax collected in each region is proportional to its census counts, you really, really don't understand the concept of liberty.

gumby 7y ago

I read his point the other way: you can't just randomly experiment; there's an existing framework, which can be adapted as we learn more / change our minds. Which seems like a perfectly rational statement.

samirillian 7y ago

> Why not just get rid of the entire Constitution then? This, but unironically

tathougies 7y ago
Seriously, tathougies should be King.
- samirillian 7y ago
  yeah, don't want any of your slaves fleeing to other states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Clause
  - tathougies 7y ago
    Yeah, don't want an otherwise good constitution because of a provision that has been repealed for over 150 years.
    - moate 7y ago
      >>an otherwise good constitution This bold assumption is where the issue comes in. There's plenty of constitution that I'd be fine shredding and plenty more that could really use some specific, involved updating. The whole of the 2nd amendment can fuck off and I wouldn't shed a tear. 3rd feels like it doesn't need to be at "cornerstone of our government" levels, and the 4th could really use some extra juice to it. Also, based on recent events, we can get rid of the 10th and I'd be happier. TL;dr- Having a constitution is great. Ours could use some work.
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        I'd be a lot happier if we actually acted like the 10th means what it says.
    - samirillian 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

scott_s 7y ago

> However, the idea that the government has any right to tax private property at whatever valuation they see fit is a quick step towards a totalitarian nightmare. Many (most?) towns already have a property tax on houses and condos.

tathougies 7y ago
Im unsure of the point of this comment. The constitution restricts the taxing ability of the federal government. States of course are fully sovereign over their land and have broad discretion to levy taxes. Thus their ability to levy this tax speaks nothing about not wanting the Feds to have the same power. State income tax was also legal well before federal income tax. Back to your point -- while property tax is a form of wealth tax, I do believe it is different. Real estate is a kind of property that one owns at the mercy of the state. It is not something that anyone -- other than sovereign governments -- really own. That being said, there is also danger in raising property taxes so i think any such tax should be met with intense scrutiny
- scott_s 7y ago
  > Real estate is a kind of property that one owns at the mercy of the state. It is not something that anyone -- other than sovereign governments -- really own. That would be true if that tax was only on the value of the land. But it's not. The value of the structure on that land is part of the tax.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    Permanent fixtures (like homes) are -- in common law -- typically considered part of the land.
    - scott_s 7y ago
      And condos? But I don't think this actually changes anything. Clearly, homes and condos are considered private property. Whether or not the government has certain rights to that property (eminent domain, search with a warrant), most people consider it their property. So house and condo taxes are going to be perceived by people as taxes on their property. I also claim that we are not currently in a "totalitarian nightmare." So maybe people are okay if the government decides on a case-by-case basis what kind of property can be taxed. Also: some states have car taxes. And boat taxes.

empath75 7y ago

You say you don’t like authoritarianism but what’s the difference between feudalism and a system where a tiny percentage of people control the vast majority of the wealth? Freedom isn’t just freedom from government. I don’t see much difference to someone with no money between bending the knee to Washington and bending it to google or Facebook.

tathougies 7y ago
> between feudalism and a system where a tiny percentage of people control the vast majority of the wealth In feudalism, the working class is considered the same as a home -- a part of the land -- that can be sold along with the estate. Asking how this differs from a free society with a subset of rich people is like asking how chattel slavery differs from modern society. The fact is that Bill Gate's wealth does not impact my personal freedom or ability to collect my own wealth. > Freedom isn’t just freedom from government The purpose of government is to ensure freedom from other people -- that is why government is the one entity allowed to use mechanisms no other individual is allowed to use. My fundamental disagreement with you is that I do not believe Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffet's, etc, wealth impacts my inalienable right to life, liberty, and property.
- about_help 7y ago
  "I do not believe Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffet's, etc, wealth impacts my inalienable right to life, liberty, and property." That seems simple enough, however there are a multitude of secondary effects that happen when you allow individuals or corporations to amass the levels of wealth we see today. This enables them to monopolize markets through a variety of means and subvert the political process. Even without Citizen's United making bribery pretty much legal such wealthy entities would still be able to use their wealth to influence society. Simply because Gates was in the right place and time to develop a near OS monopoly he should have a disproportionate say in society's politics? These are not simple problems to solve, but then again they aren't that difficult either.
  - tathougies 7y ago

CuriousSkeptic 7y ago

Would you be ok with a geo-libertarian style land value tax?

tathougies 7y ago
I don't have a positive opinion on taxation that I'm willing to share really. I simply would like to urge caution with regard to the idea of allowing the government to tax wealth simply because we don't like the fact that the Zuck is rich.

wwweston 7y ago

> Why not just get rid of the entire Constitution then? Because the Constitution -- or more generally if you like, the idea of what a Republic is -- has a lot more to it than the question of whether an income tax is within the powers of its institutions. > the idea that the government has any right to tax private property at whatever valuation they see fit is a quick step towards a totalitarian nightmare. It might be interesting to examine the question of how "the government may assess taxes at rates which can be justified to the citizens who elect representatives and other officeholders" transforms in the mind to "the government has any right to tax private property at whatever valuation they see fit", apparently without any notice of either the skipped steps or the actual observable realities of not-totalitarian-nightmare in America since 1913.

tathougies 7y ago
> Because the Constitution -- or more generally if you like, the idea of what a Republic is -- has a lot more to it than the question of whether an income tax is within the powers of its institutions. An income tax is wholly different from a property tax. A fundamental tenant to liberalism is that you have an innate right to your life, liberty, and property. Taxing income does not tax your property; it rather taxes the rate at which one acquires property. A property tax is a tax on an inalienable right. It's like the government requiring you to pay a specific tax in order to have particular freedoms. I find that to be morally questionable. > "the government has any right to tax private property at whatever valuation they see fit" You are insisting I am arguing against income tax. I'm not. The article (did you read it?) suggests a tax on personal property including real estate, luxuries, etc. These things do not have innate value that can be measured unless sold. Thus, someone needs to come up with a valuation.
- pjc50 7y ago
  I think arguing that real estate taxes would be totalitarianism in a country that already has them is a bit of a non-starter.
  - tathougies 7y ago