Evolution of Compromise by dreamtrove

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Evolution of Compromise

POSTED BY: DREAMTROVE
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 8, 2010 02:23
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2389
PAGE 2 of 2

Tuesday, December 7, 2010 10:39 AM

I wasn't denying geezer a veto, I was criticizing his rhetorical techinque.

I agree the veto is a problematic premise, but it has to be if we are going to reach consensus.

Only urge that constructive comprehensive arguments why something wouldn't work

I think we've all agreed on an online no cost payment system for taxes.

Geezer. The evolution ultimately doesn't require the support of everyone, I figured if it has everyone here, then it does okay. If it doesn't have everyone here, its in trouble.

But outside of here there will be many people who have an interest in the current entrenched powerbase. It would be foolish to grant Bush and Obama veto power over our libertarian agenda.

I think there's a fair amount of bickering over semantics here that is slowing down debate of some fairly straightforward ideas.

I didn't hear geezer veto anything, but I would like to veto apocalyptic predictions on all side as a reasonable excuse for rejecting policies on the grounds that it amounts to fear mongering.

Let's try to keep it reasonable. Congress changes the tax code all the time. Many countries have many different tax codes that don't result in cannibalistic post-apoc mad max street wars.

Geezer,

I gave some examples, I think it's plain that the 20k-ish deaths a year, about 10k-ish from street warfare, just under 1000/year in LA alone, is going to dwarf figures from the example war torn areas I gave, even on a percentage basis.

Sure, some wars are worse, but I don't think america will descend into chaos, that's an extremist argument for rejecting what are really moderate policy changes.

I support the end of wage garnishes in favor of an automatic free self pay.

I would also say that in the information age, there is no reason to have the tax schedule be annual. It could be biweekly, or anytime. By attaching these taxes to services, since service is personalized now, we could do an exhaustive search of services used by different income groups and tax accordingly.

It also bothers me that the truly wealthy who inherit get to live not only with higher assets, but tax free in the system. If you were born with a million, you are in much better shape than if you work 20 years at 50k/year. This sort of system encourages a rigid class structure and endorses sloth.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 7, 2010 10:45 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Dream,

How do you specifically differentiate between someone collecting a resource in a non-thefty way and someone doing it in a thefty way? Right now the concept seems very vague and hasn't been nailed down with specific descriptive language.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 7, 2010 12:05 PM

DREAMTROVE

Anthony,

If they paid for it, it's not theft. Like a fair market value, or a market determined price. If they didn't pay for it, or they got it for pennies on the dollar because they bribed some official, then it's theft.

I don't really see this as a grey area, I think it's pretty cut and dried.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 7, 2010 12:26 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"If they paid for it, it's not theft. Like a fair market value, or a market determined price. If they didn't pay for it, or they got it for pennies on the dollar because they bribed some official, then it's theft.

I don't really see this as a grey area, I think it's pretty cut and dried."

Hello,

I know it probably seems I'm hammering on semantics and insignificant details, but I have learned that you and I think about similar subjects in very different ways- even when we agree.

So, if someone buys Land X in Texas, and pulls out Oil, refines it into Gasoline, and Exports the Gas to Japan...

How does that fit in the 'paid for it' vs. 'stole it' legislative scale?

Also, if someone buys Mountain X in California, pulls out Iron and sells the Iron to a Steel company, who makes the Iron into Steel, who sells it to a Car company, who makes the Steel into Car frames, who and Exports the Car frames to South Africa... How does that fit in the 'paid for it' vs. 'stole it' legislation? Is anyone stealing? Did everyone pay? Is there a tax, and if so to whom?

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 7, 2010 12:47 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Anthony, I can't answer for DT. But I'm going to take a stab at it, based on the "resource theft" principles I agree with.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
So, if someone buys Land X in Texas, and pulls out Oil, refines it into Gasoline, and Exports the Gas to Japan...

Stop at Oil. If someone comes to our land and pull out OUR oil, he pays us a fair market value. After he pays for it, he can do whatever he pleases. He can invest it back in the country of origin or he can take it elsewhere.

Quote:
Also, if someone buys Mountain X in California, pulls out Iron and sells the Iron to a Steel company, who makes the Iron into Steel, who sells it to a Car company, who makes the Steel into Car frames, who and Exports the Car frames to South Africa...

Again, stop at "pulls out Iron."

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 7, 2010 12:47 PM

DREAMTROVE

Anthony

Because mineral rights are tricky. Land ownership does not imply ownership of the earth. I cannot take my land and blow it up, build a world trade center or a tunnel to China.

This is part of why fracking is so absurd: It grants infinite rights to people who don't even own land.

But back to oil: If you buy land, you buy the land from a land owner, for its surface use. Since I farm, and have a number of land use questions that come up, I'm pretty aware of what my land use restrictions are, and they're pretty severe. I don't have infinite power. I can only take a tiny fraction of the water on my own land, let alone any resources.

So, ideologically, what does this mean?

Think about it this way:

The oil under the US is finite.
The gold under the US is finite

The total value of the US is finite, and the mineral value is a part of that. If we were Saudi Arabia or Equitorial Guinea, that mineral resource value would be the majority of our net worth as a nation, so it's not a minor detail.

If a company takes out, say, 1/2 of the oil under the US, and they pay nothing for it, than the US has lost a lot of value. Since the people doing this are making a profit by devaluing the US, why should they not be taxed?

Maybe it's Texas they should be paying to. Or Kenedy County. Or Corpus Christie which yes I know isn't strictly speaking in Kenedy County but I didn't check the map. Okay, Nueces County, next county over.

At any rate, the resource takers should pay a tax, because they are devaluing the land. I would like it if there was an environmental clause in there so that they could have to pay a different amount depending on how much damage they did to the environment of America, which also devalues America, in the process of taking the resources.

I'm not saying that such companies provide no service. The oil is not doing us much good in the ground. However, it's not a vastly complex operation, and the service of extracting it is not the main value, their should be equal shares for everyone involved, the US, as provider of the resource, and the company, as extractor. (as well as refiners, prospectors, etc.) Provided it is done in a non-destructive fashion.

ETA: Sorry if I didn't answer all your questions. Valid questions all, and these are details that need to be hammered out, but I have a bit too much going on at the moment. My first guess would be that resources belong to the state, since Alaska seems to have taken that attitude and gotten away with it. My guess is also that no one cares about iron theft, until people start acting in an internationally predatory manner re:iron. Right now most resource theft is oil, precious metals and gems, fish and forestry.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 7, 2010 12:58 PM

DREAMTROVE

CTS

Yes,

But let's simplify it. Apply just to oil first. Later we can deal with fish. I think we can more or less skip iron, since I already showed that the raw value of the iron ore is nominal.

We need to assess a value of "oil in the ground" because it's not fair to say that the oil company has to pay a full price, since that's going to cost them something to get out.

But this value is probably already being traded by someone on some international market.

Extraction costs are around $8/barrel for a standard oil field. Offshore rigs etc. will be more. I think the valuation at 1/2 market value would be fair. If that is more than extraction cost in some places, those places will shut down, causing the price to go up, and then they will start up again. This already happens around the world in copper and silver mines, and there are no serious problems with the system.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 7, 2010 1:06 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I keep seeing the words 'resource theft' and I think that term is confusing me.

What you seem to be saying is that any removal of resources needs to be taxed, at the time it is removed, and regardless of what is done with it later.

And I suppose this would need to be coupled with import tariffs so that foreign countries who have no such tax are put on a level playing field with our native companies who are forced to pay it.

Is that right?

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 7, 2010 3:04 PM

DREAMTROVE

Anthony

That would be one way to do it, here's a more free market approach that might help American goods to be competitive, and not to be marked up by tax:

If you use the resources to produce products in the US, there should be an exemption. So, if you draw up oil, and ship it out, you have to pay at the door. If you use the oil to make american plastics, then there's no cost.

If you take iron ore to make cars, there's no charge, but if you're shipping the resource out, there's a charge.

The idea here is to stop this practice of what I'm calling "resource theft" I think anyone who has been following developing world economies would get the idea. My point being, it's happening to us as well.

Here's the underlying logic:

If your business is just taking stuff out of the ground and heading out of town with it, then you are taking money away from the country. That's why you should pay a tax, to compensate for what you're taking away.

If there is no such balance, than it's to the advantage of every nation on earth to rape america and take her money.

The main area this is a concern is fish. Second, oil. For lots of countries it's gold, gemstones, or lumber.

Our natural resources are mined so that americans can make stuff. They aren't supposed to be mined so that international commodities traders can get rich off of ripping us off.

So, if you are here, mining minerals to help americans make stuff: No tax. Tax exemption for all that which is mined which goes to make stuff.

If you mine raw resources and ship them overseas, then you are not helping americans make stuff, you are probably hurting them, and you should be paying for the stuff that you're taking.

Because Asian commercial fishers capture 10 times roughly as many fish in Alaska, fish populations are plummeting. As a result, Americans fisheries catch a lot fewer fish. We're being used in this instance to feed an asian appetite for fish, which is actually a dietary choice, they eat fish daily, in Japan and China, but they don't have to. It's a choice. If they can farm that many fish? Great. Then they can eat that way. But that lifestyle should not subsist off of depopulating the fish levels in Alaska. That's just a new face on old style imperialism.

As for oil? Our nation's attitude towards oil is very third world. The Saudi's are much smarter about it: If oil leaves Saudi Arabi, the Saudi's get paid. If oil leaves Nigeria, they get the nominal $3, which I think is the same here. Chad tried to demand $6, and we tried to spark a civil war over it, and last I heard the upshot was they sold to someone else at market.

Thanks for making me dig for facts, because in doing so, I uncovered a complex dynamic within the oil industry to manipulate retrieval costs. Shale is very expensive, ranging from $40-$150, whereas oil sands $8-$12. Shutting down easy oil options helps the monopoly for the more expensive options, crashing the price of oil helps a monopoly for the cheaper field. There's clearly an inner-oil industry battle here, and that might be something we can exploit in the anti-fracking movement. Or "Fractivism" as I heard someone call it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 7, 2010 4:52 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
If you use the resources to produce products in the US, there should be an exemption. So, if you draw up oil, and ship it out, you have to pay at the door. If you use the oil to make american plastics, then there's no cost.

This would be very different from the scenario I explained to Anthony, to tax at the point of resource mining. Personally, I think this would lead precisely into the complicated scenarios Anthony was describing.

I favor tariffs on all incoming merchandise made from untaxed resources.

Of course, our goods still wouldn't be competitive with untariffed goods overseas. But the way I see it is, legitimate products will always outprice products that were obtained through less than honorable means. It doesn't mean we should all start selling stuff from the backs of trucks.

And I would couple these resource drain taxes with the abolition of the income tax.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 7, 2010 7:01 PM

DREAMTROVE

I was presupposing the abolition of the income tax, but thanks for stating it outright.

I think that taxation included in the price of domestic goods would harm the US. I would rather gain that taxation at the endpoint of profit, than in any manner which would up the cost of production. Not only would this harm exports, it would slow the production of products which might benefit the productivity of Americans, or whichever nation might actually consider any plan we might actually eventually come up with.

I think a dichotomy should be drawn between those that help and those that hinder the local economy, but that the trace run through the system. If in face someone is just using the resources to create something to export for the purpose of stealing from America, again, then yes, at that point they should be taxed.

If, however, someone is extracting a barrel of oil from the ground and *not* selling it, then they should not have to pay $37 for it, because that tax puts and artificial barrier to the use of resources. If they do at some point sell it or use it for profit, then those profits should be considered taxable, which I think is a fair trade off.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 8, 2010 2:23 AM

CANTTAKESKY

It sounds complicated and vague, DT. Maybe you should answer Anthony's questions on what happens to the iron and the oil, where you would tax--instead of me.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE