"Yep, zero taxation." Yeah like I say. You persist with total idiocy. I can't get you to stop and take reality seriously. You won't stop and you refuse to argue your case honestly. Zero taxation means anarchy. Simple as that. Brunei used oil revenues doofus. You could do it after the government bought up all the land and rented it back or something of this nature. But you don't say that.
"Lichtenstein is a principality with about a population of about 38,000 and a land area of approximately 44,000 acres!
Until the late 1970's they were stuffed until they set out to attract companies to set up head office there.... It is a tax haven and good luck to them."
What happened is that the Euro economic zone gave them something close to free trade within the EU itself. Tax havens don't automatically get rich so thats not the explanation. The explanation is sound management particularly banking management. Lending for producer goods for job creation. As opposed to lending for land inflation. Your dismissal doesn't fly. Which head companies do you imagine got set up there? Their success is not through big business. Its through manufacturing.
""Lichtenstein is a principality with about a population of about 38,000 and a land area of approximately 44,000 acres!"
These are HANDICAPS. Not advantages. So we are back to their excellence in management to explain their manufacturing workers paradise. Your implied contention is that you get to low taxation through deficits. In the real world you get to low taxation through persistent surpluses.
"UAE's defense force bird....how do they do that?!?"
You complete fucking moron. They do it through state ownership of oil assets and from reinvestment of those oil revenues. That is to say RAMPANT SURPLUSES. Now do you want our government to buy up income producing assets, so they thereafter don't have to tax? Do you want them to simply nationalise these assets without compensation? If thats what you are claiming say that.
Post by NoFixedAddress on Jul 2, 2022 13:24:19 GMT 8
Tell me of one productive thing you have ever done in your life because you come across as part of the birds nest of useless people who can only survive on the hard work of your parents and the largess of big government.
Poffta Panzi, Just Crap and some dot are all your mates and your are authoritarian arseholes who need slaves.
If you are so clever go and fix some problems in Afreican countries.
Tell them of the evils of fractional reserve banking.
The enemy have us surrounded. Good! Now we know where to find the bastards! -various
Norway has used its oil revenues wisely to reduce its future tax burden. If you want the Australian government to own a lot of income producing assets, thats actually not a bad idea. But you don't say that.
I try to tell everyone of the evils of fractional reserve. Some people get it. But not many. Most are too stupid to get it. Many must know they are doing worthless wealth destroying jobs that probably wouldn't be there without fractional reserve. And its hard to get anyone to condemn a practice whose livelihood may depend on it. Basically almost everyone on Catallaxy were performing bullshit jobs. We need more people in agriculture and manufacturing. Most jobs are parasitic on these undertakings, in a world of funny money. One reason the Russians can Pistol whip the US and all the Nato countries simultaneously is that there economy is involved comparatively more with real stuff. There is less froth. Less bullshit jobs. Phasing out fractional reserve would create more real jobs and lead to less of the bullshit kind. We didn't get massive inflation right away with the Covid restrictions and one reason was because many people, if not most people, weren't doing anything very useful in the first place.
You really are a thick bastard bird. You can't see past government control of things that don't need government control. So far you've admitted governments can fund defence forces without taxation but can't get your head around why it has to be government doing so. The mind of a socialist is a closed shop.
No no. Get this right. Its just that you are being an idiot. Thats all. Thats all. Your examples show it. The Sultan of Brunei owns everything. So he can afford to pay for the functions of government lavishly, without raising taxes. If he sold off his oil wells and ran deficits that capacity would end. The UAE state doesn't run on taxes, only because it runs on oil revenues. You can't give an example where the government doesn't use income from its assets to perform state functions. Plus the UAE must suck up to the British and Americans and even help with terrorism on the behalf of these two villainous countries in order to maintain their fortunate current situation. They have to suck up to Israel. So its not like they are their own sovereign people, rich though they be. The problem isn't with me. The problem is you being an idiot. Now if you want Australia to buy back or nationalise its mines, a lot of the residential land and so forth, and pull revenues from that, this is not a bad idea. But always the reform must come on the spending side.
This is what Laffer and Kemp and the other supply-siders of the Reagan era have done to you stupid people. They have convinced you that reform can be had by reducing revenue primarily. But you should get beyond this stupidity because reform has to come on the spending side. Its got to come by way of closing down unnecessary bureaucracies. Its all about closing down government departments by the bakers dozen. As I used to tell the President, SISSIES CUT TAXES. REAL MEN CLOSE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS, but do you think he would listen to me .... No. So the US is now number 2 global power and is still in the process of being destroyed. The only two decent Presidents were Reagan and Trump and neither of them got rid of a single government department. If the elections had not have been rigged Ron Paul would have won and he would have been the first President to at least attempt to close government departments. But he too would have had to raise taxes in the first instance. You see his pledge was to get rid of the income tax immediately which he interpreted as unconstitutional. In the American context that would have been brilliant. He would have had to raise some money from tarriffs and then get rid of government departments, sending almost every federal function he could think of to the states. But this was never going to happen. Because once you let the private sector have money creation they will subvert the government. Despite all this libertarian logic, and very well thought out logic it is, the practical facts on the ground is that you have to get the oligarchy under control, more than the government.
What a moron.Every government service can be provided by the private sectorr better and cheaper. Governments should be very small and confined to representative law making. That is all. As you admit....governments can fund better defense forces without taxation than we have with taxation. Therefore it's just a question of who does it and how a nation choses to do it. You have only agreed that taxation is not necessary to raise a defense force and that rich individuals have done so by owning things. Rich individuals owning things is not confined to dictatorships....you say alot but say nothing.
"What a moron.Every government service can be provided by the private sectorr better and cheaper."
No thats not true and definitely not true now that the cartelised finance sector is cartelising other parts of the economy. Now the provision is cheer-leading has become a monopoly in the United States. So the functioning free enterprise market stops where fractional reserve starts.
You must have the right market form for each different section of the economy. If you get private welfare queens to run water supply they will create an artificial shortage to leave you with a high price. Thats just a fact. Thats what they do with private health care in the US, which is an unclear private-public partnership. Thats why weapons provision is so costly in the US. Because they are big suppliers who are welfare queens. The models you rely on, for your misinformation would work if business was still sole trader heavy. You are simply factually wrong.
If we leave fishing to property rights we will lose all our access to the ocean and the fish quality will be crap. Fishing doesn't fit the free enterprise model either. That has to be communist habitat provision, coupled with regulated hunter-gathering. Hardly a capitalist model. The libertarian ideology and intellectual paternity can get the kids thinking more clearly. But taken too far it can stop the adults thinking. It can freeze you in a state of arrested development. As we see from your quote above.
"As you admit....governments can fund better defense forces without taxation than we have with taxation."
This is compounded wrongness in that 1. Its untrue and 2. I never would have said such a damn fool thing. Government cannot supply anything without revenue. The question is where they should get the revenue from. From owning land and mining resources could be a substitute for many forms of taxation. But you don't say that. Because you are deliberately being an idiot. Its far from clear if we can evolve to an anarcho-capitalist society. The philosophy should only be used for didactic purposes any time soon because its used to help the oligarchy win. So we ought to be careful about even giving so much as a hat tip to prospects for longer run anarcho-capitalist. When we right now need to be getting all our schoolboys used to the idea of training with rifles, artillery and on various naval assets.
Anytime soon, a more efficient Singapore is the best we can really hope for.
The main thing to figure out is how we can make our own local decisions locally. That requires us to be really powerful like a big version of Singapore. From there we can get 1. the infrastructure side of government spending getting more and more momentum 2. The non-defence government spending shrinking 3. The financial sector shrinking 4. Still having great welfare provisions for many decades, but almost no-one accessing it, thanks to such great employment opportunities.
One way to achieve all this is to make finance a government function. Because government is a necessary evil and finance is a necessary evil. So combining these two functions we can get less overhead. Now this doesn't jibe with libertarian theory either. But its still a fact.
There is no way to have any kind of human freedom without defeating the oligarchy. That ought to be obvious by now. When in the last two years, all our politicians have been recruited to push a program of genocide, you should have gotten the message by now. So thats the governments actual role and reason to be. The role of government is to defeat the oligarchy. Or resist its malign interest. If that means getting rid of big corporations then they have to do that. If it doesn't mean getting rid of all big corporations some of them can stay. But we now see that a lot of vaccine compliance is being projected through the finance sector and through the corporate sector. So if you are equating unfettered corporate behaviour with human freedom that position has already been refuted. We have to put our faith in a sole trader focused capitalism. Since the corporate version already failed.