Gurdur

Please point me to a copy of the Constitution of the UK.

meritocrat

Of course we have a constitution. It's just not a single written document as in the US. Happy?

peacenik

Excellent Post Cicero! I couldn't agree more.

I would like to have links to the information about the effects Reagan's tax cuts. I have some information about this, but I am always trying to obtain more information so that I can correct people who have been misled by Rush Limbaugh and those of his ilk.

peacenik

Originally posted by meritocrat
Really? So a system that provides police protection only to those who can afford to pay "user fees" would not result in the violation of the property rights of those citizens who couldn't afford to pay the fees even they would be subject to having their possessions stolen with no recourse? Also a police force that is paid directly by individuals based on the "amount of protection that they can afford to buy" rather than being paid by a government that is accountable to all people regardless of their income would never result in bribery or corruption

Under your system, Bill Gates would be entitled to unlimited police protection, while some poor child born the inner city would be subject to attacks on their way to work their 16 hour shifts at the factory(since their would be no public schools), and the police wouldn't even bother to investigate since the child's family couldn't afford to pay the "user fees" necessary to obtain police protection :banghead:

Cicero

Thanks. If you want more info on Reagan's tax cut, all you have to know is that he followed it with the largest tax increase in American history. I lost the link, but google the following:

1981 - The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA) passes. Otherwise known as Reagan's supply-side tax cuts. They included: An across-the-board reduction in individual income tax rates of approximately 23 percent, phased in over 33 months. A reduction in the maximum top rate from 70 percent to 50 percent, beginning in 1982. (Only unearned income - from interest and dividends - had been taxed at 70 percent. Wage and salary income was already taxed at 50 percent.) Inflation-indexing for the individual income tax brackets, the zero bracket amount and the personal exemption, beginning in 1985. The accelerated cost recovery system (ACRS), which provided depreciation write-off periods ranging from 3 years for equipment to 15 years for structures. Reduction of the maximum tax rate on capital gains to 20 percent.

1982 - Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) passes. Institutes a half-basis adjustment for investment tax credits in calculating depreciation. Repeals the acceleration of depreciation scheduled in 1985 and 1986 by ERTA. Raises the federal unemployment tax (FUTA) wage base from $6,000 to $7,000 and the FUTA tax rate from 0.7 percent to 0.8 percent. Increases airport, airway, cigarette and telephone excise taxes. Reduces tax-free contributions to a defined-contribution pension plan from $45,475 to $30,000 and reduced limits on benefits from a defined-benefit plan from $136,425 to $90,000.

1983 - Social Security Amendment Act of 1983 passes. This drastically accelerates the schedule of tax hikes in Social Security originally passed in 1977. The schedule is to be completed by 1990 instead of the year 2030.

1984 - The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (DEFRA) passes. A repeal, beginning in 1985, of the provision that allowed an exclusion from income tax of 15 percent of up to $3,000 in interest income for a single taxpayer ($6,000 for couples). A $2 per gallon increase in the excise tax on alcohol and a one-year extension of the 3 percent telephone excise tax. An increase in the minimum recovery period for real property from 15 to 18 years. A reduction in the holding period for long-term capital gains from one year to six months for assets acquired between June 1984 and January 1988.

1986 - The Tax Reform Act of 1986 passes. A reduction in the number of individual income tax brackets to two - 15 percent and 28 percent. Increases in the zero bracket amount and personal exemptions. Repeal of the two-earner deduction, income averaging, and the state and local sales tax deduction. Repeal of the 60 percent capital gains exclusion for individuals. Reduction in the maximum corporate income tax rate from 46 percent to 34 percent. Broadening of the corporate tax base through repeal of the investment tax credit, limiting depreciation deductions, restricting the use of net operating losses, etc. Capital gains, top rate: 28 percent. Corporate tax: from 46 to 34 percent.

Cicero

More to the point, it would replace the republic with a corporation.

The republic has served us for two and a quarter centuries. I see no reason to change now.

meritocrat

Yes.

Voluntary taxation could fund the police. Other governmental services can easily be financed through user fees.

Under 'my' system, all would have their rights upheld. I feel it's more just than stealing people's money which occurs under your 'system'.

Dr. Retard

Concerning the legal system advocated by meritocrat, bear in mind the distinction between:

(1) what is allowed and forbidden (de jure) by the laws of this legal system, and

(2) what would actually result (de facto), if this legal system were adopted.

Meritocrat wants laws that would outlaw murder, assault, fraud, theft, etc. He wants these prohibitions to extend to the government itself. He wants all these infringements to be outlawed.

However, maybe if the legal system outlawed all these infringements, the number of infringements would actually increase, due to the weakness of the system. Or, as meritocrat hopes and believes, maybe the number of infringements would greatly decrease. But this is an empirical matter. You can't settle it just by looking at what the laws of his favorite legal system allow and forbid. You have to try to figure out the real-world results of such an institution.

MarkW

[B]Voluntary taxation could fund the police. Other governmental services can easily be financed through user fees.[/]

Most people would see a term like "voluntary taxation" as an oxymoron. In any case, there are some well-known problems with attempting to fund public services through voluntary contributions: 1) in the case of goods that are non-excludable, you get what is known as the free-rider problem; 2) in the case of goods with large positive externalities, voluntary funding would result in a severe underprovision of the good.

As for user fees, I have pointed out in another thread that reliance on user fees, besides posing numerous practical problems, would in many cases violate the basic principles of tax equity, such as the ability-to-pay principle.

Mark

peacenik

So poor people would be entitled to police protection, but not an education. I mean you can't honestly tell me that "voluntary" taxation would be enough to finance public schools. Well at least the poor inner city child would be entitled to police protection on their way to work their 16 hour shift at the plant.

You mean that all those with money would have their rights upheld under your system, which in reality provides little to no hope for those born without money. The old saying "it takes money to make money" would ring truer than ever under a system like yours where workers have no rights and the government does nothing to help those who have the misfortune of being born into a family that doesn't have enough income to pay for an education or provide them with the advantages bestowed upon a youngster with the fortune of being born into a wealthy family.

Of course you will argue that charity will take up the slack where the government is currently helping the poor, but you know as well as I do that under such a laizzez faire system with no government compelled redistribution of wealth the rich will leave the working class poor with nothing more than mere crumbs. Yes, they may provide enough money to send the poor children to a substandard school that provides them no opportunity to succeed in life, but they will always send their children to the most elite schools and colleges, ensuring that their wealth and privilege is passed down according to birth right, not according to merit. Do you honestly think that the rich robber barrons that lived so well at the expense of the working class during the 1920s, leading to the great depression, acheived their wealth due to merit, and that the working class suffered because they were inferior people. No, they acheived their position in society because they took advantage of their positions of power at the expense of those who made them their riches in the first place!! Lets face it, the majority of those with wealth aren't wealthy because they "earned" their money, but they are instead wealthy mostly because of what family they were born into. Similarly, those who are poor are largely in their current state because they were born into a family with meager means of subsistance. There are of course notable exceptions, but those are merely just that, exceptions to the general rule.