Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Left with Nothing

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–287 of 287 posts

Re: Left with Nothing

#281

Post by wpietri »

snitko wrote: post #257
wpietri wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I certainly grant that things are not perfect here. Regarding your particular questions, in May 2003, 79% of Americans thought the Iraq war was justified, so the majority clearly didn't oppose it. Most now believe it was a mistake. Only 41% of citizens agree with the president's plan to close Guantanamo. A majority of Americans think the TSA is doing a good job. I think the majority of Americans are wrong on all of t…

As a side note: you feeling that you're not being robbed has nothing to do with what actually happens, which is extracting money by a threat of force. You may not think about it this way, but it becomes painfully obvious once someone refuses to pay. To me, the refusal to see this is akin to a Stockholm Syndrome. No offense though, I did not mean to discard your argument using this comparison. I may add this is what i…

I understand you believe you have some magic power to judge my motivations and behaviors based on zero actual knowledge, a little theory, and a lot of arrogance. To which I say: have fun. Just don't expect me, or anybody, to take you seriously when you're doing that.

Re: Left with Nothing

#282

Post by wisty »

dnautics wrote: post #230
wisty wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the tax that's the problem. It's a law which lets them seize the land for a few dollars in unpaid tax. That's just a heinous law. What's the next step? Repossessing kidneys for small unpaid medical bills? Many countries have land taxes which work reasonably well. There can be some proscribed formula (based on a regression on nearby property). Or they can do valuations. There'll always be problems, but it's n…

1. >It's not the tax that's the problem. It's a law which lets them seize the land for a few dollars in unpaid tax. What happens if they refuse to pay the tax, then? As an agent of the state, how do you make them pay ? You might send them some letters with warnings. Of course then they might continue to shirk the law. You can ratchet up the tax, by charging interest. Ok, but that's a number. They still refuse to pay.…

> How do you make them pay?

OK, in extreme circumstances then seizing the land, selling it, then giving any residual (after taxes are paid) back might be necessary. The problem in this thread is, the residual didn't get given back, and it doesn't seem they followed due process.

> Having children is a huge investment, driven by unsophisticated people, prone to stupid fluctuations, which can destroy the lives of normal people when it does something funny

There's no "child bubble", in which people all want to have children when the price of children goes up. I don't follow the analogy. Wait ... you mean it's a financial risk? Good point, maybe children should be taxed, but since having children isn't always voluntary, and there's no way you can stop a person who can't afford the tax from having a kid (at least, no ethical way), then it's' probably not such a great idea.

> And aside from the policy ethics I strongly doubt your model that property taxation is a significant 'tempering agent'.

It just makes sense. As you've asked, I can find some economists who think it's a good idea. Here's some review - http://www.enhr2011.com/sites/default/files/Paper-Haffner%20...

One of the things it cites:

http://search.oecd.org/officialdocuments/displaydocumentpdf/...

Basically, yes a tax on value reduces volatility. Maybe. It's a credible idea, though it would be nice to have some more research. Transaction taxes are not such a great idea. Tax breaks on houses increase volatility.

And it's not a tax with regressive outcomes. Really poor people rent. I'm just saying "unsophisticated" to mean "people who don't trade for a living". Most people who invest in housing aren't professional real estate investors.

Re: Left with Nothing

#283

Post by pkinsky »

grellas wrote: post #208

Tax enforcement schemes are conceived, enacted, and executed by governments because they have a monopoly over the taxing power. If private profiteers are allowed to exploit local citizens, it is strictly because the entity holding that power has deliberately chosen to set up an enforcement scheme that arms those predators with everything they need to conduct their exploitation. The vultures, despicable as they are, w…

>Tax enforcement schemes are conceived, enacted, and executed by governments because they have a monopoly over the taxing power.

Enacted and executed perhaps, but I would be very surprised if lobbyists hired by 'vultures' didn't do the conceiving.

Re: Left with Nothing

#284

Post by cmccabe »

muzz wrote: post #192
cmccabe wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. If we had reasonable property taxes in CA, we wouldn't have a housing shortage, and middle-class people would be able to live in SF again. But try explaining this to the average voter...

By reasonable you mean the same taxes for the same value, ie the opposite of Prop 13, right?

yep

Re: Left with Nothing

#285

Post by kaonashi »

mistermann wrote: post #277
kaonashi wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The principles emphasize process over outcome. So it's not that they want people to lose their homes, but if things happen the 'right' way and that's the outcome, so be it.

Actually, they don't emphasize process, they emphasize who does it, and what is done. Objectivism prefers the government not to handle most anything, but would never advocate people losing their property over a minor tax bill - that is theft , a very big no-no in Objectivism.

> they emphasize who does it, and what is done

Yea, that's what process usually entails. I don't see outcome in that list.

Re: Left with Nothing

#286

Post by mistermann »

kaonashi wrote: post #285
mistermann wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, they don't emphasize process, they emphasize who does it, and what is done. Objectivism prefers the government not to handle most anything, but would never advocate people losing their property over a minor tax bill - that is theft , a very big no-no in Objectivism.

> they emphasize who does it, and what is done Yea, that's what process usually entails. I don't see outcome in that list.

> I don't see outcome in that list.

Well, property is sacred in Objectivism and "stealing" is a deadly sin. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether taking someone's home over a tiny unpaid tax bill would be considered stealing. (Hint: it is.)

Re: Left with Nothing

#287

Post by kaonashi »

mistermann wrote: post #286
kaonashi wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they emphasize who does it, and what is done Yea, that's what process usually entails. I don't see outcome in that list.

> I don't see outcome in that list. Well, property is sacred in Objectivism and "stealing" is a deadly sin. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether taking someone's home over a tiny unpaid tax bill would be considered stealing. (Hint: it is.)

…and thus the internal contradictions inherent in Objectivism are laid bare.
Post reply on HN