The Glade 4.0

And you think that the employees would, collectively, not realize that the company was no longer paying unemployment insurance, and that employees would be okay with receiving less "benefits" associated with their compensation package, with no commensurate increase in salary?

By that token, if your company went and stopped offering insurance plans as a benefit, would they pocket the difference? And keep the employees?

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

And you base that claim on what, exactly?


1) I said that it probably happened that way.
2) I never said it wasn't a cost.
3) Even if I were in total, unambiguous agreement on this point, you're still arguing for symmetry in an obviously asymmetrical system. I don't profess to know exactly what would happen. I only profess that you can't determine what would happen by repealing the law in 2010 based on a naive reversal of what happened in 1939.


I'm not even going to touch this, because it has nothing to do with unemployment taxes. Arguments about anti-discrimination employment laws are down the hall, 3 doors to your right.

I will make note of an irony, though. In claiming that the money your employer puts into FUTA belongs to you, you're making a claim against a non-existent contract yourself. Your employer agreed to pay you certain wages, and they did. FUTA costs are, indeed, a cost to your company of your employment. But as those costs don't come from the wages you negotiated with your employer, you have no legal claim to them. Once again, FUTA may be theft, but if so, it is theft against your employer. They made no agreement or contract to give you any money other than the wages they pay you.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

The contact established under duress of the federal government knowing that money is going to be taken and tehy've compensated for the theft. Just as in the shop owner cutting back on some thing because he knows he has to pay the mob 500 bucks this week.

Yes ignore the apt comparison for...oh right you didn't give a reason.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Setting aside the syntactic **** that is your first paragraph, I gave you a perfectly good reason. A hypothetical involving discriminatory hiring practices has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

Whether or not your analogy is "apt" depends on whether the federal government is authorized to create this sort of taxation. All taxation carries a threat of punishment for non-payment. That doesn't make all taxes illegal or unjust. You need to present some actual argument and reasoning for why unemployment taxation is specifically unconstitutional. So far you've just declared it to be so. Before I can accept that the government is the mob, I have to accept that they're perpetrating a crime.

However, as to the general shape of your analogy, consider this:

The mob extorts $500 out of shopkeeper, which he had originally planned to spend on new goods for his store. The next day, having less money, he negotiates a discount on the goods he was going to buy from his suppliers. The police then arrest the extortioners and recover the $500. To whom does the money rightfully belong?

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

It would go to the shopkeeper who then would buy new goods. It would revert back to the order of things and thus all of the 500 dollars in the past would have gone to the goods supplier, and both shopkeeper and supplier would be better off. This just further helps illustrate that the funds would go back to the worker and it was taken from the worker. Unlike in a single instance snapshot the worker's wages rise and fall as the shopkeeper reallocates resources as would his negotiations with the supplier.

And where it is illegal? Article 1 Section 9 direct capitation.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Only it's not a direct capitation. First and foremost, it isn't a direct tax on individual citizens. Secondly, it's an "event tax" triggered by the payroll event and tied to its amount. That makes it an indirect, or excise tax. Even if the tax were being directly collected from individuals, it wouldn't be unconstitutional any more than the income tax would be. On that point, I'm inclined to agree with Khross, that the 16th amendment is a null amendment. That power already existed without it.

That's not to say that I feel the current income tax or unemployment tax schemes are necessarily either fair or good. But as a method of taxation, it is nevertheless constitutional. Whether the expenditures of these programs are constitutional is a more complicated affair.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

That being the case:

Even if we accept that unemployment tax is theft, then you agree that you (the supplier in our example) are not the aggrieved party, but rather your employer (the shopkeeper). It may even be true (but not necessarily so) that the negotiated discount on goods (your labour) will evaporate in the long run. But even so, that doesn't change the fact that the extorted money belongs to the shopkeeper to do with as he sees fit.

This refutes:



(emphasis mine)

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

ooh . . . shiny

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

It is not a tax that can be avoided through inaction unless one is expected to magically conjure money, food, shelter and the like. It is most assuredly a direct tax on citizens. I suppose we could make an excise tax on breathing and that would be Kosher?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

If the tax is stopped the funds are going to not be going from the company as the first action of course, the second action is it is going to to go to me. No, I don't really care about the microsecond it stays in my employer's hand because the end result is that they don't have any control over where it goes, the market would force them to pay it out in wages. Being that I am myself and not my employer from my perspective what I care about is being in control of my full wage - not having it siphoned off by extortion. Since the market effect of the end of the extortion would be that my wage is fully returned I don't think the point is moot. It's my money in the end and thats the point of the injustice as the company is not absorbing the cost of the extortion - the worker is.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

If I'm not mistaken, you take no issue with the idea of a federal sales tax. In fact, if I remember correctly you support this as a better alternative to the income tax. A federal sales tax would tax you on food, shelter, and the like. I don't really see a problem with this, even though they are basic necessities. And since when does a tax have to be 100% avoidable to be constitutional? I don't remember that clause.

This is really very simple. Unemployment tax is a federal sales tax paid by companies on the purchase of labor. If a general federal sales tax is a constitutionally acceptable method of taxation, then so is this.


You are presuming this. Even if your presumption is right, you can't gloss over that the money in question belongs to the employer. It's their property, which they can chose to give to you or not.


Really, now? The market would force them to do this? What kind of market are we talking about, here? Certainly not a free market if that's the case.


And once again, FUTA is not deducted from your wages. It is no more a part of your full wage than the other cost-of-employment overhead incurred by your employer (ex. employee training costs).


And? Sales tax is passed on to the consumer as well. That doesn't make it illegal or necessarily unjust. And as I've demonstrated multiple times already, it isn't "your money" in any legal sense, even if we accept your unproven presumption that your employer would inevitably respond to decreased employment costs by raising wages.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

I'd just like to say that I find this experiment interesting and would like to subscribe to your news letter. Maybe instead of just doing this over facebook, you could start a website and write about the stuff you've received, this would also ensure a possible income in the form of google advertising and popups.

Any non-agreed to tax is unjust Stathol. It isn't moral to take another person's property without permission despite how many people really want to.

And yes the market exerts force, demand is a force, supply is a force, taxation is a force - the all affect outcomes.

I've already said it would be the employer's money temporarily but it is irrelevent since the market would force the compensation back to me.

The only reason I advocate a Federal sales tax is because it is less complicated than our current tax code. It is a baby step in the right direction in that it is less unjust than our current system - this does not mean that it is just.


Lydiaa - If this takes off maybe. Who knows.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Except that I gave an analysis of how this tax is functionally identical to a federal sales tax:

In a federal sales tax, Party A purchases a good/service from Party B. A portion of the sales price is assessed as tax revenue.

In a federal wage tax, Party A purchases labor from Party B. A portion of the labor price is assessed as tax revenue.

Being in form the same thing, both of these are excise taxes, which are an authorized power of the U.S. federal government according to the Constitution. Since the Constitution is, in effect, the contract between the government and its people, you have agreed to this sort of taxation, whether you like the tax or not. Unless, of course, you're arguing that individual citizens should be able to just exempt themselves from anything they don't like in the Constitution...


You were using the word "force" to imply inevitability and a lack of free will on the part of the employer. You're still doing it now:


You've yet to demonstrate that this is necessarily and inevitably so. I therefore reject your assertion that the employer's ownership is irrelevant. Furthermore, even if this truly were the inevitable outcome for 100% of employer-employee relationships, that still doesn't make it "your" money until your employer has, by mutual assent, agreed to raise your wages. Claiming it as your money now is claiming someone else's property as your own without their consent. Bringing the conversation full circle, this is immoral according to the standard you put forth.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

I question the concept that a contact can be impelled on people by the agreement to the contract of their ancestors - yes.

I disagree that it is not a direct capitation. Commerce is an unavoidable consequence of existence. If the power was meant to be granted to Congress to impose such taxation when the nation was started they would have used that power to tax to to pay off the debt from the war, they did not. Their view of direct capitation was a tax that is mandatory - for example the Whiskey tax was not viewd as direct capitation because one can choose not to buy Whiskey.

Its a force, they can choose to not do so but it would be the worst case of the options prevented. Just as one can choose to hit themselves in the head with a hammer or not but the consequences of doing so tend to force us into not taking that action.

If you've agreed (as you have) that the tax burden actually falls on the worker and that therefore it is a tax on the worker which the worker pays for - that the income of the worker suffers direct consequence - how can you not view it as the end result being taking money from the worker?

I've already acknowledged that it would be the companys money for the short duration before they increase my wage back to where it should be. The duration of their ownership would be small and I consider the return of the wage to be to such a case that it isn't worth arguing. I expect the end result is the natural increae in my compensation to the levels that would exist without the extortion ocuring. I don't see how you can not understand this after all this explination.

That aside

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

So, the state should inherit property when the owner dies?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Property isn't a contract. The owner has full control over property including where it goes when they die.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

So, your opinion is that property cannot be passed to inheritors if it is under contract for deed?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

If the owner of the property has final say on control of their property.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Then, not, if no instructions are left for executors?

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Its generally assumed individuals want their posessions to go to help out their family or loved ones.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Elmarnieh,

You contractually agreed to give up part of your wage as taxes when you became employed. Do you not believe in contracts now?

The form one fills out is placed there under coercion. Duress invalidates contacts Lex.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Then how do you explain this again? -



Since a contract is some sort of a formal agreement between two or more parties, and as such it compels both parties, I don't see how you can suggest that a contract isn't binding while simultaneously assuming it's binding.

For instance, when someone inherits property that is under contract of deed, they inherit the debt. Now, they can formally refuse the inheritance with a disclaimer, but that must be done and since that is required, the inheritor is compelled by a contract of their ancestor. I can't imagine the concept of inheritance without that provision. Without it, I'd think any debt on property where there is a death of the person who was a party to the contract would automatically cause foreclosure.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

There is no duress, you are free to walk away from that contract, never fill out the form and they will wave goodbye and hire someone else. No one held a gun to your head and forced you to sign the form. It wasn't the only job you could take. Of course any other company offering you a legitimate job would have had you sign the same form, or hire you as a contractor and tell you you're responsible for your own withholding and benefits.

Signing a contract you don't intend to honor is fraud.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones