4 ms·

>and how a decision made in this crisis could set the standard for the future This here is really the problem, none of these emergency changes should necessari

>and how a decision made in this crisis could set the standard for the future This here is really the problem, none of these emergency changes should necessarily become permanent. Income tax started out as a war fund some one or two hundred years ago... But I sense we are fighting human nature.

state_less 7y ago
And if not permanent, more common. Authorities might say, "We did it before and this flu is half as dangerous, so just to be safe, let's put everyone on the digital leash again." This sort control comes with its own costs. Personally, I'd rather take my risks and live free.
- klhutchins 7y ago
  yeah, how is it ensured that it gets turned off once turned on? how soon until "undesirables" meeting together for too long creates an alert to be investigated? As handy as it could be in controlling the virus, what else will it eventually be able to control?
- Gustomaximus 7y ago
  This is why democracy is so important. It is the pressure valve to excess. Sure some government will abuse this type of feature but there will be a point where people push back. Maybe not soon enough for initial abuse but eventually.
  - state_less 7y ago
    It might be possible to get a majority to vote away their right to unreasonable search, but the courts shouldn't allow it. If there is a rule to not congregate, then send the police out to these public places and write up tickets. Pay whistleblowers to report workplace violations (reasonable cause) and so on. The German approach mentioned above is better in my view. I believe we can find ways to be effective and protect people's civil rights.
wahern 7y ago
> Income tax started out as a war fund some one or two hundred years ago... Prior to industrialization almost all profit surpluses accrued to the elite, who always were taxed quite heavily. Industrialization meant the rise of the wage-earning middle-class and a shift in wealth (not to mention expenditures), thus the income tax.
- njarboe 7y ago
  The revolution in the US from England started with a tax revolt. The founders hoped to create a new nation where the government didn't try and maximize its tax on citizens and just tax enough to maintain the functions of government. The wealthy were not taxed at high rates in the US and Federal revenue was around 3% of GDP until the income tax was implemented. One could hope for a governing class that would let people live with low tax burdens, but that seems to be a difficult thing to sustain.
  - akiselev 7y ago
    > The founders hoped to create a new nation where the government didn't try and maximize its tax on citizens and just tax enough to maintain the functions of government. That's not at all what they hoped to create. The colonists didn't write no taxation or minimize taxation but no taxation without representation. Don't take my word for it, though, they wrote up a whole list of grievances (most of which have to do with the representation bit): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievances_of_the_United_States_Declaration_of_Independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievances_of_the_United_State...
    - SamReidHughes 7y ago
      That was just a slogan. They weren't going to accept taxation that came with representation in Parliament. They were happy to tax themselves -- they just didn't want to get taxed by England.
      - akiselev 7y ago
        > They weren't going to accept taxation that came with representation in Parliament. Why do you think so? My reading of history is that the term 'loyalist' wasn't coined until well after the Boston tea party and several people who were later considered loyalists were participants in that event. It wasn't until it was clear that King George wouldn't respect their rights as Englishmen (three years later) that the patriots drafted the declaration of independence and the revolution began. The actual list of grievances in the declaration of independence were focused mostly on self determination and representation, not taxes: 1. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most necessary for the public good 2. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. 3. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only 4. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. and so on.
mirimir 7y ago
No, income taxes in the US replaced taxes on alcohol after Prohibition. And they stayed after Repeal. https://www.alcoholproblemsandsolutions.org/taxes-and-prohibition-taxes-and-repeal-effects-of-tax-revenue-its-sources-on-prohibition-repeal/ https://www.alcoholproblemsandsolutions.org/taxes-and-prohib...

state_less 7y ago

And if not permanent, more common. Authorities might say, "We did it before and this flu is half as dangerous, so just to be safe, let's put everyone on the digital leash again." This sort control comes with its own costs. Personally, I'd rather take my risks and live free.

klhutchins 7y ago
yeah, how is it ensured that it gets turned off once turned on? how soon until "undesirables" meeting together for too long creates an alert to be investigated? As handy as it could be in controlling the virus, what else will it eventually be able to control?
Gustomaximus 7y ago
This is why democracy is so important. It is the pressure valve to excess. Sure some government will abuse this type of feature but there will be a point where people push back. Maybe not soon enough for initial abuse but eventually.
- state_less 7y ago
  It might be possible to get a majority to vote away their right to unreasonable search, but the courts shouldn't allow it. If there is a rule to not congregate, then send the police out to these public places and write up tickets. Pay whistleblowers to report workplace violations (reasonable cause) and so on. The German approach mentioned above is better in my view. I believe we can find ways to be effective and protect people's civil rights.

wahern 7y ago

> Income tax started out as a war fund some one or two hundred years ago... Prior to industrialization almost all profit surpluses accrued to the elite, who always were taxed quite heavily. Industrialization meant the rise of the wage-earning middle-class and a shift in wealth (not to mention expenditures), thus the income tax.

njarboe 7y ago
The revolution in the US from England started with a tax revolt. The founders hoped to create a new nation where the government didn't try and maximize its tax on citizens and just tax enough to maintain the functions of government. The wealthy were not taxed at high rates in the US and Federal revenue was around 3% of GDP until the income tax was implemented. One could hope for a governing class that would let people live with low tax burdens, but that seems to be a difficult thing to sustain.
- akiselev 7y ago
  > The founders hoped to create a new nation where the government didn't try and maximize its tax on citizens and just tax enough to maintain the functions of government. That's not at all what they hoped to create. The colonists didn't write no taxation or minimize taxation but no taxation without representation. Don't take my word for it, though, they wrote up a whole list of grievances (most of which have to do with the representation bit): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievances_of_the_United_States_Declaration_of_Independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievances_of_the_United_State...
  - SamReidHughes 7y ago
    That was just a slogan. They weren't going to accept taxation that came with representation in Parliament. They were happy to tax themselves -- they just didn't want to get taxed by England.
    - akiselev 7y ago
      > They weren't going to accept taxation that came with representation in Parliament. Why do you think so? My reading of history is that the term 'loyalist' wasn't coined until well after the Boston tea party and several people who were later considered loyalists were participants in that event. It wasn't until it was clear that King George wouldn't respect their rights as Englishmen (three years later) that the patriots drafted the declaration of independence and the revolution began. The actual list of grievances in the declaration of independence were focused mostly on self determination and representation, not taxes: 1. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most necessary for the public good 2. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. 3. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only 4. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. and so on.

mirimir 7y ago

No, income taxes in the US replaced taxes on alcohol after Prohibition. And they stayed after Repeal. https://www.alcoholproblemsandsolutions.org/taxes-and-prohibition-taxes-and-repeal-effects-of-tax-revenue-its-sources-on-prohibition-repeal/ https://www.alcoholproblemsandsolutions.org/taxes-and-prohib...