4 ms·

"The idea of taxing the socially beneficial act of working and hiring workers is pretty repugnant anyway." HEAR! HEAR! Payroll taxes are essentially a form of

by jqm 12y ago

"The idea of taxing the socially beneficial act of working and hiring workers is pretty repugnant anyway." HEAR! HEAR! Payroll taxes are essentially a form of slavery. Every week you work X number of hours for the government. Almost like you were hauling pyramind blocks under a whip. And, on this point, conservatives (who are often wrong) are exactly right. Taxing innovation and labor are hardly incentives to provide more of it. Tax something else. Tax emissions. Tax fuel. Tax aluminum. Tax land. This would encourage efficiency and conservation anyway. Encourage innovation and productivity. Discourage waste and trashing of common resources. It's more fair and would lead to much better outcomes.

mikeyouse 12y ago
Payroll taxes are nothing like slavery. You do yourself no favors with such ridiculous comparisons.
- jqm 12y ago
  I didn't say "payroll taxes are LIKE slavery" (which would be a comparison). I said "payroll taxes are a FORM" of slavery. (along with being a form of theft). Just because we have been doing it and you are used to it doesn't negate this. If one WERE to compare payroll taxes and slavery, I would say the common element is involuntary appropriation of the fruits of labor. So they are not "nothing" alike. They do share at least one very strong common trait. If you find the phrase "slavery" inflammatory or "ridiculous" as you put it... fine. I think you are wrong, but it's irrelevant to the larger point I was making anyway. And that point is... it is better to tax resource usage than to tax labor for a number of reasons. Justice being a primary one, and conservation and improved productivity being others. I'd love to hear your opinion on the actual point being raised if you have one.
  - arg01 12y ago
    I'd point out that your definition of slavery is just as applicable to any work were the person being employed needs to work to get the basics of survival (with corresponding parallels between changing jobs and changing countries, choosing not to eat and choosing not to work for income above the tax free limit, etc). The only reason I point this out is because while there are plenty of rational arguments for different forms of tax (including whether or not income scales to labour and whether this means a tax on income (especially a tiered one) is actually comparable to a tax on labour) however comparing it to slavery is not productive as it re-frames the conversation to an area of extremes where quite reasonable tax systemss become either no slavery or everyone's a slave. Much like calling the other person either a libertarian if you believe "any type of free market is ok" or a communist if you believe "any taxation is ok" would not be productive.
    - jqm 12y ago
      Very simply, involuntarily appropriated the results of someone's labor is a form of slavery. In this case, one is being caused to labor for the benefit of the state. Pointing out the essence of the practice isn't extreme. And just because it is customary doesn't change the essence. I don't think this is a productive nor a just, way to fund society. The government doesn't (or shouldn't) own us. So I disagree very strongly that this is a "reasonable" basis for taxation just as I disagree keeping some people as property is "reasonable" because it is maybe customary. These "reasonable" and "extremist" type arguments are simply support of custom and status quo and could have just as easily been leveled at abolitionists 200 years ago (and almost certainly were). But thanks for your feedback. I appreciate it. This topic is actually very important to me and I feel quite strongly about it and intend to write more in detail about it, so hearing people's perception helps. And for the record I am not opposed to taxation. I am opposed to taxation specifically on labor and innovation. I don't think the government (or society) has any moral claim on those. I think they have a very strong moral claim on resources and these should be the basis for taxation.
      - mikeyouse 12y ago
        > But thanks for your feedback. I appreciate it. This topic is actually very important to me and I feel quite strongly about it and intend to write more in detail about it, so hearing people's perception helps I can add some more color. I find it interesting because I largely agree with your stance on taxation, but could not disagree more strongly about the comparison to slavery. My first reaction is entirely visceral, "This is an obscene and offensive comparison." After some less reactionary thought, it still sounds ridiculous. You can't choose to stop being a slave. At any point, you can choose to stop paying taxes (either illegally or by ceasing to earn income). If you had adequate resources, you could live off of the land entirely on your own and keep all of the fruits of your labor. At many lower incomes, there is no income tax bill due whatsoever. So you're saying the government is enslaving the wealthy to a greater extent than the poor? And you honestly think that? The government represents the will of the people, via democratic action, we set our own tax rates. So the 'people' are enslaving themselves? I don't think that makes any logical sense whatsoever. Call income tax 'theft' if you must (a comparison I still disagree with) but slavery doesn't hold up and distracts the conversation.
- TheCoelacanth 12y ago
  I agree. Cut out that line and it's a much more persuasive comment.
scarmig 12y ago
The best things to tax have a couple of attributes: 1) Goods that have little or no elasticity 2) Activities that have high negative externalities (and, implicitly, moderate or high elasticity) 3) Easily legible to the State, meaning things that the State can easily monitor and send people at to extract resources from. Labor is very useful to the economy; you want to encourage it, not discourage it. Same with capital and technology. And they're both relatively tricky to track down. Land taxes satisfy 1) and 3), so I'm all for them, though they've fallen out of favor. But what seems best of all is carbon taxes, up the whazoo. As high as you can set them. There are two countervailing tendencies: carbon is a deadly pollutant, and fuels that emit carbon as a side effect of use are essential to the functioning of society. A carbon tax lets you straddle that: at low levels you're taxing a negative externality to discourage it, which is pretty much creating free value (in the same way that government reducing crime creates value). But, to the extent that fossil fuels are absolutely necessary to the functioning of society, their use is inelastic: at higher levels, an increasing proportion of the tax would be passed directly on to consumers, so the tax is minimally distortionary once you hit that inelastic area. Best of all, domestic production is very easy to hunt down and tax: a couple dozen very large corporations handle the vast majority of fossil fuel extraction, so you simply track them down and have them all write you a very large check once a week. The only real trickiness is handling rebates for domestic exports and tariffs on foreign imports--the implementation of which would make or break the scheme--but that's surmountable. Set a sky high carbon tax. Make it revenue neutral by setting the tax's revenues equal to the costs of abolishing capital gains and corporate taxation, which are not as economically efficient as a carbon tax and double as a sweetener to Republicans and the Chamber of Commerce. The USA and world end up a whole lot richer.

by jqm 12y ago

mikeyouse 12y ago

Payroll taxes are nothing like slavery. You do yourself no favors with such ridiculous comparisons.

jqm 12y ago
I didn't say "payroll taxes are LIKE slavery" (which would be a comparison). I said "payroll taxes are a FORM" of slavery. (along with being a form of theft). Just because we have been doing it and you are used to it doesn't negate this. If one WERE to compare payroll taxes and slavery, I would say the common element is involuntary appropriation of the fruits of labor. So they are not "nothing" alike. They do share at least one very strong common trait. If you find the phrase "slavery" inflammatory or "ridiculous" as you put it... fine. I think you are wrong, but it's irrelevant to the larger point I was making anyway. And that point is... it is better to tax resource usage than to tax labor for a number of reasons. Justice being a primary one, and conservation and improved productivity being others. I'd love to hear your opinion on the actual point being raised if you have one.
- arg01 12y ago
  I'd point out that your definition of slavery is just as applicable to any work were the person being employed needs to work to get the basics of survival (with corresponding parallels between changing jobs and changing countries, choosing not to eat and choosing not to work for income above the tax free limit, etc). The only reason I point this out is because while there are plenty of rational arguments for different forms of tax (including whether or not income scales to labour and whether this means a tax on income (especially a tiered one) is actually comparable to a tax on labour) however comparing it to slavery is not productive as it re-frames the conversation to an area of extremes where quite reasonable tax systemss become either no slavery or everyone's a slave. Much like calling the other person either a libertarian if you believe "any type of free market is ok" or a communist if you believe "any taxation is ok" would not be productive.
  - jqm 12y ago
    Very simply, involuntarily appropriated the results of someone's labor is a form of slavery. In this case, one is being caused to labor for the benefit of the state. Pointing out the essence of the practice isn't extreme. And just because it is customary doesn't change the essence. I don't think this is a productive nor a just, way to fund society. The government doesn't (or shouldn't) own us. So I disagree very strongly that this is a "reasonable" basis for taxation just as I disagree keeping some people as property is "reasonable" because it is maybe customary. These "reasonable" and "extremist" type arguments are simply support of custom and status quo and could have just as easily been leveled at abolitionists 200 years ago (and almost certainly were). But thanks for your feedback. I appreciate it. This topic is actually very important to me and I feel quite strongly about it and intend to write more in detail about it, so hearing people's perception helps. And for the record I am not opposed to taxation. I am opposed to taxation specifically on labor and innovation. I don't think the government (or society) has any moral claim on those. I think they have a very strong moral claim on resources and these should be the basis for taxation.
    - mikeyouse 12y ago
      > But thanks for your feedback. I appreciate it. This topic is actually very important to me and I feel quite strongly about it and intend to write more in detail about it, so hearing people's perception helps I can add some more color. I find it interesting because I largely agree with your stance on taxation, but could not disagree more strongly about the comparison to slavery. My first reaction is entirely visceral, "This is an obscene and offensive comparison." After some less reactionary thought, it still sounds ridiculous. You can't choose to stop being a slave. At any point, you can choose to stop paying taxes (either illegally or by ceasing to earn income). If you had adequate resources, you could live off of the land entirely on your own and keep all of the fruits of your labor. At many lower incomes, there is no income tax bill due whatsoever. So you're saying the government is enslaving the wealthy to a greater extent than the poor? And you honestly think that? The government represents the will of the people, via democratic action, we set our own tax rates. So the 'people' are enslaving themselves? I don't think that makes any logical sense whatsoever. Call income tax 'theft' if you must (a comparison I still disagree with) but slavery doesn't hold up and distracts the conversation.
TheCoelacanth 12y ago
I agree. Cut out that line and it's a much more persuasive comment.

scarmig 12y ago

The best things to tax have a couple of attributes: 1) Goods that have little or no elasticity 2) Activities that have high negative externalities (and, implicitly, moderate or high elasticity) 3) Easily legible to the State, meaning things that the State can easily monitor and send people at to extract resources from. Labor is very useful to the economy; you want to encourage it, not discourage it. Same with capital and technology. And they're both relatively tricky to track down. Land taxes satisfy 1) and 3), so I'm all for them, though they've fallen out of favor. But what seems best of all is carbon taxes, up the whazoo. As high as you can set them. There are two countervailing tendencies: carbon is a deadly pollutant, and fuels that emit carbon as a side effect of use are essential to the functioning of society. A carbon tax lets you straddle that: at low levels you're taxing a negative externality to discourage it, which is pretty much creating free value (in the same way that government reducing crime creates value). But, to the extent that fossil fuels are absolutely necessary to the functioning of society, their use is inelastic: at higher levels, an increasing proportion of the tax would be passed directly on to consumers, so the tax is minimally distortionary once you hit that inelastic area. Best of all, domestic production is very easy to hunt down and tax: a couple dozen very large corporations handle the vast majority of fossil fuel extraction, so you simply track them down and have them all write you a very large check once a week. The only real trickiness is handling rebates for domestic exports and tariffs on foreign imports--the implementation of which would make or break the scheme--but that's surmountable. Set a sky high carbon tax. Make it revenue neutral by setting the tax's revenues equal to the costs of abolishing capital gains and corporate taxation, which are not as economically efficient as a carbon tax and double as a sweetener to Republicans and the Chamber of Commerce. The USA and world end up a whole lot richer.