3 ms·

> 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

> 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
    Did I argue real estate taxes were totalitarianism? No.

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
  Did I argue real estate taxes were totalitarianism? No.