Why has nobody ever refuted Nozick's critique of the income tax?
Oh of course: because he was right.
Those who earn the most money owe the least to society since they already give more than anybody else through their voluntary economic activity. Unemployed hippies and NEETs should be put into productive slavery before taxes are ever levied.
>>969389
Not familiar with Nozick or his critique of income tax, but what you're talking about after that has been refuted pretty thoroughly.
Those who earn the most money benefit most from the rule of law, and thus owe the most back for its existence.
>>969389
>Those who earn the most money owe the least to society since they already give more than anybody else through their voluntary economic activity
Sorry to break up your hero-worship but people in charge of corporations are just as easily replaceable as people in charge of government. Should we make sure a POTUS always leaves office with at least a few tens of billions for his services? Don't be an idiot. This is pointless moralizing and has nothing to do with a discussion of rational economics.
>>969409
Everybody receives equal protection from he law and everybody can recognise the regularity of legal rules and act accordingly to make the most of their circumstances and contribute to society.
I'm not sure how it follows that those who decide to avail themselves of this common opportunity and actually contibute something to society therefore acquire an added obligation to pay millions to the government in addition to all the economic and social good they have done. I'm not sure how some hippie living in his mom's basement gets to work ten hours a week to pay for his weed and his hacky sacks and avoids any obligation to contribute to the public purse by avoiding any positive contribution to the good of the community in the first place.
>Those who earn the most money owe the least to society since they already give more than anybody else through their voluntary economic activity.
This is something that can only be accepted if those who earn the most money also accept the downside when they completely fuck up.
I would only accept the abolishment of the income tax if and only if every person employees depend on also accept a debt-for-failure clause, that is, a few million dollars in debt if they sink their own companies
>>969435
Replaceability has nothing to bear on valuation.
The idea is (1) relative quality of candidates as well as (2) the size of the pool you can draw from for replacement.
If you think Joe Schmo would be as could as POTUS at running the US government, then I guess that tackles 1.
If you think there are as many feasible replacements for POTUS as there are for a given carpenter, then I guess that tackles 2.
But if you believe those things, that seems a little wacky to me.
I'm not arguing re: how much to pay or to tax or anything, I just think your notion of replaceability is silly.
>>969449
>Everybody receives equal protection from he law
I love that meme.
LA Riots.
Poor/middle-class districts are devoid of police, they're all concerned about protecting Hollywood.
>>969449
The more shit you have, the more shit you have to lose, the more the continued protection of law benefits you by ensuring you don't lose it.
>>969492
You are acting like the amount of shit you have is a fixed value when the rule of law actually enables people to get more shit as a function of their propensity to work. You are in effect saying that people owe taxes because they choose to work hard, which is inherently sick and morally backwards.
>>969609
>work hard
>>969409
If it weren't for law they'd have their own private armies
>>969628
and pay them
>>969389
Everyone has to have skin in the game. VAT or otherwise.
>>969389
Let's start with the theoretical issues. The fundamental mistake of the Austrians is that they suppose that the only thing that's circulating in an economy is MONEY. They see only money, they analyze only money, and they are surprised when their analyses and policy recommendations are ridiculed and ignored in the real world, where they are simply inapplicable. Because in the real world, you see, it's not only money that's circulating, but also RESSENTIMENT. Success generates, not only money, but also resentment, resentment which must be somehow dealt with if the society in which your economic principles are to be applied is to continue functioning properly instead of fall to pieces. In the old days, ressentiment was dealt with by brute violence, plain and simple. Slaves were envious of their masters' prosperity, and so when this envy flared up and threatened the civic order, the masters would bring out their clubs and start the beatings. In ancient Sparta, for example, where the slave to master ratio was 7 or 8 to one, the people had to turn their society into an armed camp, open 24/7, 365 days a year, we never close "because everyday someone somewhere deserves a beating", in order to retain a semblance of stability and control over things. The masters LITERALLY BLED on a regular basis in order to be able to enjoy their prosperity and success. And is it any different with the modern masters, 50% or more of whose output is being regularly confiscated by the state to be redistributed, in one way or another, to the modern-day slaves so that they'll keep the peace? Whether you bleed literally or figuratively, ressentiment will have its portion, and the only thing you can do about it is man the fuck up and pay up, all the while (hopefully) realizing that it is you who are responsible for its occurrence, and that that is the price you have to pay for your success.
Nozick ended up disowning most of his theories.
>>969389
>earn
>not stole
ftfy
>>969389
income tax isn't exclusively about who owes the most.
>>969389
>tax is bad
>slavery is good
wew
>>970427
No he didn't. He just required that his landlord honor a rent control law because it meant that the landlord owed him money. This affair got construed into Nozik disowning his theories by his opponents. Truth is he just likes money.
>>969814
>people be jealous
>gov take monis by force
>redistribute
Youre retarded if you believe the government tax people because of "ressentiment".
>americlaps actually believe this garbage
Do businesses somehow not benefit from public projects paid for by taxes?
Entrepreneurial spirit and creativity are held with godlike idolism by many. But why hasn't it been able to generate a desirable alternative to government services? Or has it?
Where is this libertarian utopia I keep hearing about?
Never been tried, I suppose ;^)
>>969389
>Those who earn the most money owe the least to society since they already give more than anybody else through their voluntary economic activity.
No they don't, they invest it all to try and make more money. If rich people spent all their money on shit things would actually be better
>>970577
It's a roundabout way of looking at the distribution of wealth, but I thought it was actually very interesting food for thought.
The rich are not the sole group of people who leverage power against others because they think they are owed.
Shit, I see that behavior anon described in this macrocosm in the smaller, petty interactions of people week by week.
>>969389
>Why has nobody ever refuted Nozick's critique of the income tax?
A lot of people have actually. Judging by how biased your whole post is, it seems likely that you simply refuse to even consider any arguments against it, which is always a poor choice if one wants to remain attached to reality rather than idealism.
>>971250
This, right here. They extract and horde the wealth instead of spending it on anything except more wealth.
If they were going full-Medici then maybe I could get on board with Nozick's critique.
>>969389
A lot of good they do by hiding money in off-shore accounts
>>971250
Yep. The poor actually spend a far larger portion of their money on goods than the wealthy.
>>971250
Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner.
>>969609
>morally backwards.
top lel
Corporations shouldn't be allowed to horde billions if that could be used to build the state. The state provided the safety and resources necessary for production and is entitled to its fair cut. Even with income tax many businesses remain profitable and have some assurance the state will assist them during hard times. Their voluntary economic activity is the sum of the work exploited from society and should therefore be paid back. Neo-liberal economics shift state-corporate relations from mutual to being fucked over.
>>969389
Not related but why is personal income tax still a thing? IRS deals with 300 million people's taxes and stuff while it could only be through corporate or business taxes which would be far fewer than number of people. And in return businesses can pay their workers less.
>>971975
Why deal with fewer people when you could deal with more and build a massive bloated bureaucracy that wastes even more of the money you're stealing?
>>972006
In a way I can understand that to create jobs because government is still the biggest job creator for people with bad records and such. But being more efficient and overstaffing is better than being less efficient and processing tax returns in 6 months.
This is politics, wrong board.
Also, OP is a complete jew who believes employment somehow creates a positive externality. The "voluntary employment" put on by the rich is literally it's own reward. They don't need to be spared taxes because they employ people, they still utilize services and thus must be taxed like any other person. In fact, taxing the rich a higher marginal rate is best because they have diminishing utility functions. A rich person feels much less when 1000 is taken from him than a poor person feels when 100 is taken from him. Any rich faggot who tells you "it's the principal of having my money stolen" is a greedy stupid faggot who really deserves no better than to have his assets seized.
>>969389
BOSS: “Hay you workers, keep doing that job that you know how to do!”
WORKERS: “Ok, boss.”
BOSS: “Welp, I’m off to collect my 100% of the profit due to my “valuable” voluntary economic activity!”
WORKERS: “What about taxes?”
BOSS: “Fuck that! You pay them!”
>>969389
You can only get rich by exploiting the population's labour. The contribution to the common good is a marginal by product of economic power.
That's why some of the surplus should be returned to the general population.
>>969389
Believers of Nozick and similar libertarian principles should be put in working camps.
Muh roads.
>>972149
>You can only get rich by exploiting the population's labour
Not necessarily.
>already give more than anybody else through their voluntary economic activity
what a load of fucking bullshit
they do it for yourself, they make a living from it, its like saying im working here voluntarily
well duh retard, its not a gulag they dont force me
>>972167
Allright maybe I should add that you can get rich from rent or by getting lucky. But the majority of economically powerfull people became rich by owning a company.
>>969609
The rule of law enables them to gain that wealth, but also to keep that wealth. They have the opportunity at all because of rule of law, and they get to retain the rewards of that opportunity due to rule of law, and thus owe more to the system, having benefited from it more.
>>971932
Nobody is against investment, and if you knew how the economy worked you would understand that quantitative easing has basically injected shitloads of cheap cash into banks to loan out. But, the productive economy is still suffering. Because there's no fucking demand. Because nobody's buying shit. Because all the capital is tied up trying to give out more loans!
Try reading Piketty and analyze where they money is in the US economy. We have a massive glut of investing that's just skyrocketed since the 1970s, and correlates perfectly with a decline in production
>but but muh Adam smith
>>971379
nothing wrong with that
>>969389
I do enjoy that this is beside the objectivism thread in the catalog
>>972227
>try reading piketty
Ya goofed. Piketty's r<g hypothesis comes from cherry picked data, not to mention the fact that he takes inequality as having a negative impact to be overall a bad thing rather than detailing why he thinks it is. It might be, but it's shoddy academics to make assumptions without justifying them.
>>973003
Lol nice claims. Just because counter arguments exist doesn't mean they're accurate or worth reading. There are no good critiques of his work, and making claims they're "cherry-picked" goes far beyond the criticism I've read. Most economists can't find problems with his work.
Stop posturing.
>>969389
It's not income per-se that should be taxed too much, that I concede.
What should be taxed heavily is income gain through rent-seeking and jew-like banking activities which don't actually contribute to the real economy but only extract from it.
The biggest parasites of the economy are not blacks, hippies or NEETs, but rent-seeking bankers.
>>969389
Because if you have a brain and you're not an edgy 16 year old you shouldn't need an active refute of it. It's common fucking sense.
>>969389
>why has nobody ever refuted this
Because he's a 'literally who?'
>>969389
>they already give more than anybody else through their voluntary economic activity
exactly guys, you just need to wait for the wealth to trickle down to you!
>>969389
Income tax, surprisingly as the name indicates, applies to everyone that earns an income, regardless of whether it comes from wage-cucking or from capital investment benefits, whether it is a million moneys per month or just 1 thousand per month.
So removing this tax would deprive the state from much of its revenue and leave it down to tax collections from corporations/societies, taxes on goods (VAT style), and a number of arbitrary taxes and duties such as property taxes and etc.
So with the population not paying income taxes, the state either becomes a little thing that can't pay for basic stuff like infrastructure, defence, police, adminstration, (I was also going to say health services, pensions, and social welfare, but murricans don't consider taking care about its own citizens a basic duty of the modern state), or, it increases revenue by increasing taxation on the only options left; corporations/societies/financial stuff and those who have things that can be duty/taxed upon such as estates, vehicles, lands, etc, which ofc will be for the most part the wealthiest citizens too
All in all, sounds pretty fucking retarded.
>>975520
Don't bother. Most americans don't even understand basic economics.
