So it's about interesting content?

Some of the threads I have started are shorter than the longest of yours.

The obvious confusion in the OP is the dithering between profitable and ethical. Perhaps you might clean that up.

I want to follow you but it is quite complex when it is hard to me understanding principles of economics. Nevertheless, thanks for your statements and arguments to make me have more knowledge.
Here is interesting how you explained to me what was the path of the US dollar after the WWII ended.

Primarily, all other currencies would be valued against the USD as they were towards gold previously. — synthesis

. This makes a country so much powerful. Having a currency that is so valuable around the world makes the difference.
But I guess (If I finally get your points) one of the most difficult goals is facing the dollar. So probably this is the reason why the Eurosystem was created. New profitable currency which can face the Dollar.
Nevertheless p, it is interesting because we are giving “value” to some coins than others.

You should read up on how the international monetary system works — synthesis

I will. Thank you for the recommendation.

The obvious confusion in your OP is your dithering between profitable and ethical. Perhaps you might clean that up. — Banno

Here it is clearly stated to everyone that you do not know the difference between Egotism and Egoism, therefore, you did not understand anything that was said on my part.

Miserable are all those who only think about profit.
Profit - and only profit - is what made men miserable.

...you say that like it meant something...?

...you say that like it meant something...? — Banno

As I have already stated, and I will continue to say: - While the people you love to belittle and degrade bring interesting content and questions to the table of debate, you glorify yourself by copying and pasting the link of an article on the forum and making a statement of two lines.

I believe that the real "whinning" here, are just those who truly have no content, and when they leave relevance, let themselves be consumed by bitterness. — Gus Lamarch

...interesting content.

As I pointed out, some of the threads I have made have as few replies as your longest thread.

Is "interesting content" your best comeback?

Or are you going to continue to introduce non sequitur after non sequitur?

It was you who took offence at my little post. Who is bitter? Do you consider yourself a Sovereign Citizen? Or are you just a fellow traveler?

Why do you feel so defensive?

Robbery is taking someone’s property by force or by threat of force. — NOS4A2

You people are so funny.

So if I just drive your car away without any force or threat of it (just because you happened to have left it unlocked) that's not robbery? Remind me to to pop round to your house next time you're out.

Oh, and 'property' is decided how exactly, if not by law?

How many would pay taxes if there wasn't a punishment for not doing so?

Thus, governments take what they want under threat of violence.

Whether that is ethical I will leave to each to decide for their own.

What is this, an interview? or can you only speak in questions? Do I have to speak in questions too?

What can better avoid an argument than quibbling and nitpicking about the choice of words?

What can better avoid an argument than quibbling and nitpicking about the choice of words? — NOS4A2

It's not nitpicking, it's central to the whole issue. What constitutes property is defined by law.

20% (or whatever) of your wages legally belongs to the government because it is defined by law that it does. That's absolutely no different to the way in which the remaining 80% belongs to you - because it is defined as such by law.

You want to claim one is 'robbery' but the other not when they are of no different status at all.

How many would pay taxes if there wasn't a punishment for not doing so?

Thus, governments take what they want under threat of violence. — Tzeentch

True of all property. So what's special about taxes?

except that it's wrong on several counts. For starters, it ignores the circulation of money. The ease of exchange and number of transaction have a lot more influence on rates of inflation than the money supply itself. So, no, deflation is not a "natural" order, whatever that even means when talking about a medium that only works because we agree it's an accepted means of exchange.

How many would pay taxes if there wasn't a punishment for not doing so?

Thus, governments take what they want under threat of violence.

Whether that is ethical I will leave to each to decide for their own. — Tzeentch

This post is very important. Here where my debate started for.
Literally only a few of people would pay their own taxes if laws were not punished them. So I guess this is why it is interesting how we have a dilemma/debate in the modern world.

Is ethical to pay taxes? Well supposedly yes... But sometimes it looks like the government does not take advantage of this. So all the problems is how we are governed in the the country you live in.
As someone previously said the Nordic countries have a lot taxes but it looks like it works so well. They have the so called "welfare state" but somehow only works there

we agree it's an accepted means of exchange. — Benkei

True. This is why I say it is philosophy of Economics because we accept some monetary patrons instead of others. Because they are powerful. It is not the same having euros/dollars in your bank account than pesos or rupees.
I mean, it is quite interesting how literally a coin has more value than others. But yes I am agree depends in other facts as goods, industry, revenue, etc... That makes the monetary system of this country more powerful than others

True of all property. — Isaac

Is it?

True of all property. — Isaac


Is it? — Tzeentch

Well, it would have been a bit silly of me to say so if an empty (rhetorical?) question were enough to counter it.

In a world where people would not pay taxes unless forced by threat of violence to do so, I can't see how those same people would refrain from just driving away in your car unless threat of violence prevented them. what is it about your car which makes it sacrosanct in the minds of the same people who would let children starve for want of a few pounds on their tax bill?

If you posit a world where people care as little as possible about the welfare of others unless forced by threat of violence to do more, I don't see ownership being anything other than a free-for-all with the strongest winning.

The problem with the assumption that tax is theft is that there's either a moral or legal right to pre-tax income. There isn't. The legal argument is clear, the law clearly prescribes your don't have a right to your entire pre-tax income.

Morally is incoherent too, because it assumes the market automatically leads to just outcomes. It quite clearly doesn't because economic transactions are representative of relations of power, not moral worth.

it assumes the market automatically leads to just outcomes. It quite clearly doesn't because economic transactions are representative of relations of power, not moral worth. — Benkei

Absolutely, but not only that, it ignores that the market-valued income they currently enjoy is arrived at by a market which already assumes taxation exists. Companies in a no tax environment would have considerably more expenses and risk hedging to pay for and a much more desperate pool of potential employees. I can't see how that's going to end up with anything but a huge reduction in wages, certainly no better than net income now.

Oh, I suspect many of these people consider themselves self sufficient and self reliant and believe they will be entirely unaffected by such a change in society.

Oh, I suspect many of these people consider themselves self sufficient and self reliant and believe they will be entirely unaffected by such a change in society. — Benkei

You may be right.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43587224?seq=1

It's not nitpicking, it's central to the whole issue. What constitutes property is defined by law.

20% (or whatever) of your wages legally belongs to the government because it is defined by law that it does. That's absolutely no different to the way in which the remaining 80% belongs to you - because it is defined as such by law.

You want to claim one is 'robbery' but the other not when they are of no different status at all.

This is more casuistry. I’m going to have to ignore it.

This makes a country so much powerful. Having a currency that is so valuable around the world makes the difference.
But I guess (If I finally get your points) one of the most difficult goals is facing the dollar. So probably this is the reason why the Eurosystem was created. New profitable currency which can face the Dollar.
Nevertheless p, it is interesting because we are giving “value” to some coins than others. — javi2541997

One of the disadvantages to being the reserve currency is that you have to run trade deficits so as to create enough dollars for the world to use. IOW, if the US runs a trade surplus and other countries are buying more US products (and you basically must use USDs to trade), where are you going to get your USDs from? One of the reasons the US trade deficit has been kept so high (through outsourcing the manufacturing base) was to create deficits that would increase the global supply of USDs (it was a banking decision).

The global economy is a massive ruse in many ways and although it works on some levels (particularly for governments and corporations), the small company and individual gets hosed unless they are willing to adopt the practices of larger concerns and lie, cheat, and steal as their primary business model.

The entire Euro-system was doomed from the beginning but that's another story!

The global economy is a massive ruse in many ways and although it works on some levels (particularly for governments and corporations) — synthesis

Yes! And in this quote that you mentioned it is interesting how some countries used the secret bank/tax haven policy (this is why I started this debate) just to try being something in this world.
For example, Nauru and Cook Island were in bankruptcy some years ago. They can pick up the tourism card but let’s be honest it will not work in the long run. So they decided put tax haven policies and it looks like “something” has changed. It is true they are far from the average HDI members but it is better than literally nothing. So... are some countries forced to make cheats just to survive? I guess yes.

The entire Euro-system was doomed from the beginning but that's another story! — synthesis

Agree. This can start a different debate lol.

The problem with the assumption that tax is theft is that there's either a moral or legal right to pre-tax income. There isn't. The legal argument is clear, the law clearly prescribes your don't have a right to your entire pre-tax income.

Morally is incoherent too, because it assumes the market automatically leads to just outcomes. It quite clearly doesn't because economic transactions are representative of relations of power, not moral worth.

Governments have always given themselves the legal right to appropriate the fruits of their subject’s labor. The law clearly prescribes this, yes, and no one is arguing otherwise. So much for the legal argument.

The moral argument is that it is wrong to take something from another against his will. You either believe this or you do not. If you believe it is right for the government to take from another against his will, then you believe it is right to take from another against his will. It’s actually quite coherent.

In a world where people would not pay taxes unless forced by threat of violence to do so, I can't see how those same people would refrain from just driving away in your car unless threat of violence prevented them. what is it about your car which makes it sacrosanct in the minds of the same people who would let children starve for want of a few pounds on their tax bill? — Isaac

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I think the somewhat bleak picture you are sketching is exactly the world we are living in now. People apparently need to be forced to care. I think that fact is as unfortunate as the coercion itself.

The difference is that between coercion and deterrence. In addition, the violent reprisal to the would-be car thief is an assumption on the thief's part, whereas the intention of government to coerce one with violence is clearly stated in law.

For example, I'd imagine that if the object to be stolen was a loaf of bread and the thief had some good reason for stealing it, there may not be any violent reprisals at all.

If you posit a world where people care as little as possible about the welfare of others unless forced by threat of violence to do more, I don't see ownership being anything other than a free-for-all with the strongest winning. — Isaac

I don't posit this. Doesn't the fact that people need to be forced to pay taxes imply it? And wishing for all the power to be in the hands of government is simply another version of the strongest winning.

The moral argument is that it is wrong to take something from another against his will. — NOS4A2

So if I take your car it's morally wrong for you to try and take it back if I don't want you to? God, it's like discussing with a three year old.

The entire Euro-system was doomed from the beginning but that's another story!
— synthesis

Agree. This can start a different debate lol. — javi2541997

Countries having their own currencies are critical because you need to be able to adjust the value of the currency (v. the USD) based on what happening in your economy.

And of course, war is now economic, so why mess with bullets and bombs when you can just steal it through the currency manipulation, taxes, fees, and transfers.

The imposition of the Euro is like a stealth European war.

So if I take your car it's morally wrong for you to try and take it back if I don't want you to? God, it's like discussing with a three year old.

We’re talking about taking the fruits of someone’s labor, their money, their property, which I’ve said countless times. You’re talking about taking things that have already been stolen. It’s silly sophistry.

People apparently need to be forced to care. I think that fact is as unfortunate as the coercion itself. — Tzeentch

Yes, I agree in principle, but remember, you've not made your case that people only pay taxes because they're forced to do so, you've only assumed it.

In addition, the violent reprisal to the would-be car thief is an assumption on the thief's part, whereas the intention of government to coerce one with violence is clearly stated in law. — Tzeentch

Is not police restraint and eventual imprisonment not a violent reprisal clearly stated in law?

I'd imagine that if the object to be stolen was a loaf of bread and the thief had some good reason for stealing it, there may not be any violent reprisals at all. — Tzeentch

I'd like to think so too. So the crux of the matter isn't anything to do with legal property, it's to do with the fairness of each person having their needs met. we'd allow the starving man that loaf, regardless of the means by which he acquired it, regardless of his legal rights to it, regardless of the fact that another has a claim on it...rather we'd allow him it entirely on the grounds that he should have it, that it would be inhuman to deny him it.

So how are taxes different, in essence?

If you want to say - I don't like the way the government spends my taxes - then you'd have an argument. But taxes sensu lato are just like the bread. It would be inhuman to let the poor starve so we organise a system of skimming off enough money from workers to help feed them.

We’re talking about taking the fruits of someone’s labor, their money, their property, which I’ve said countless times. — NOS4A2

Ah. So theft of inheritance is fine then?