Isn't it ironic that

[kandrathe]

Again you mistake my proposal for communism.

No. I don't see much of a difference between everyone working for the government, and the government taking most of your wages. It is a system that will guarantee a huge gap between those who "own" business versus those that "work" for the business. Even then, the State will begin to tax the business to the point where there is little difference between corrupt influence and state control of capital. Shall we talk about Freddie, Fanny, or Haliburton anyone?

You see things too black and white. Do you think somebody that is such a bad example of a human being that wants to sit on his ass to get half a salary would certainly become a hero if the government takes away his income? No he would problem become a burglar, a drug dealer or an investment banker.

Freedom is a pretty black and white issue. If the fruits of your labor are not yours, but taken by the State, then you are not free. Consider that 100 percent taxation is just another name for 100 percent slavery. At some point, the overseer will need to come by and make sure we are all working.

Your example of 1/2 a salary does not make sense because even in Holland a single mother with small child living on welfare does not have a great life in terms of spending money. And I have 0 possibility to think that people would choose for that 'deal' if they were able to find a normal job. And if I was that single mother on welfare reading your post I would be very insulted. Because their work is of no use you mean???? Too black and white again, and on the edge of insulting.

53 percent of American's are employed by the government already. The point is not whether the work is useful or not, it is where the funds come from to support the weight of the government. When I redo my bathroom, I make decisions on the materials based on what I can afford. The government just raises taxes to cover their expenses, and every new government job is another pig at the public trough. When 47 percent of tax payers are expected to support social programs and the other 53 percent, something is wrong. It is an unsustainable overhead. It is the same thing that is wrong with the US education system, where in many school districts 2/3rds of the employees are administration. Imagine a business where 53% of the employees were managers who only supervised other staff. It is a ludicrous proposition which would kill a business. The welfare system I was describing was the one that collapsed in Germany after reunification. It was unsustainable for a number of reasons which had to do with attitude. You immediately paint the dramatic picture of the poor single mother on government assistance. Yes, there will be those cases of a 90 year old blind quadriplegic with diabetes that may need our help to survive. What about the 25 year old software engineer who was laid off and would rather sit in his parent basement and play video games rather than get a new job?

The form of capitalism today finds investment bankers, photo models, Britney Spears and professional athletes the most valuable people......this is of course NOT a basis for a sound economy.

Why not. I'm not a big fan of "stardom" as a career, but it does show what a person can be worth at the extreme. Value is what one person will pay for a good or service. If someone, or something is undervalued it will be sold in a "black market", which is what happens in Russia and the US. There is also the problem in the US where recipients sell their "Food Stamps" or some products purchased with them in order to buy drugs (including cigarettes and booze). If you tried to limit a "Britney Spears" income, she would have secret concerts and sell CD's on the black market. The reality is "she" makes very little of the money produced by her stardom, and her handlers, and distributors make most of the money. "She" is a product, just like "GI Joe" and just as plastic and unreal. It is exactly the basis of a sound economy. Here is a better example. Say I make and sell clay pots from 100% home grown materials on my property. What part of my earnings from my labor will the government take from me?

Sorry for the incorrect sentence. I mean the government should make sure these greed motives can be realized to the extreme. In the society in the west today it was seen as positive to be as greedy as possible; lend as much as you can, don't study but try to be a good basketball player because you will be rich, play with other peoples money and get very rich and if you screw up we will bail you out etc.

I'm not against some regulations to protect people from predation by the most unscrupulous. The problem we see now is that certain institution's became "too big to fail". This means that the failure of companies like AIG, Bear Sterns, Merrill, and Lehman would destabilize the entire global financial market. I'm not opposed to the bailout, but it should have some consequences for those that were running with the scissors. In fact, the $700bn bailout, might actually turn a profit if most people are able to repay their mortgages. It's the risk of these mortgage backed securities that has become untenable because of the down turn in the valuation of homes.

The more social countries in Europe like Denmark and Sweden are also among the richest, most productive and happy places. It is not like Soviet Russia here, people drive big cars, makes lots of money etc.....the only thing we do is pay a little more tax.

There is little taxation difference between Sweden, Denmark and the USA now. Except, the US spends much of its tax money on things that are beyond the borders of the US. In that respect, the people of Sweden are better off, but just as much of a slave as those in the US.

Again you are talking to me as if I was proposing a new Maoist state.....which I was not.

China is just a different shade of gray. It matters little if I'm a slave to the State directly, or indirectly by excessive taxation.

And poor Orwell, he would turn around in his grave when he could here all those people using his books as an argument against communism.

The principle I was getting at is the difference between the pipe dream that is sold as propaganda Mr. Snowball, and the reality of tyranny revealed by Napoleon the pig. Try applying the book to the current US government, rather than the Soviet Union. The difference is how fast you boil the frogs, but the end result is the same. Frog soup.

[--Pete]

Hi,

53 percent of American's are employed by the government already.

I'm not sure I buy that. From your link, "The economist Gary Shilling totaled up federal, state, and local government workers, plus private-sector workers who owe their jobs to government, plus recipients of Social Security, other transfer payments, and benefits such as food stamps. He also tacked on the dependents of these direct beneficiaries." So, the construction worker building the highway is counted even though he's working for a private company that has a government contract. The truck driver and his two kids are counted because his wife is a teacher. Etc.. Reminds me of the old saw, "figures lie and liars figure."

However, overall I do agree with you. Government should supply the minimum it can in terms of services and in regulations of the services that it does not supply. But what that minimum is is hard to determine.

Consider the history of firefighting. What started as a community effort (often ineffective) became a function of private companies. However, an uninsured property then became a liability to all surrounding properties since it would be permitted to burn uncontrolled. In some places, laws were passed requiring everyone to have insurance, but these laws were largely a failure because of people who ignored them, of abandoned properties, and of insurance carriers who did not have the actual means of containing fires. So, for the common good, the government took over the duties of firefighting.

One can argue that this is bad, a move toward socialism, an infringement by the government into private affairs, and a source of inefficiencies. And all those arguments would be valid. But they are all trumped, IMHO, by the fact that too many people were too stupid, too apathetic, too cheap to buy fire protection. And so, to protect the 10% of the worthwhile population from the 90% of the morons, the government stepped in. Of course, by doing so, it also protected the morons from themselves. What would be your solution?

So, yeah, the government keeps getting bigger. Should we privatize the school systems? Maybe. The correctional institutions? Probably not. The postal service? If you've ever lived on a rural route, as I have, you'd say "Hell, no!" The roads and highways? Possibly, though it would take a bit of technology.

It's easy to say 'cut government'. But if you examine why the government runs some functions that it does, it's harder to see how to cut it.

As to the markets, either extreme runs into problems. Somewhere in the middle, a well regulated (but not over regulated) free market (and that is NOT a contradiction) is the solution. However, unlike the simplistic and ineffectual extremes, something in the middle is difficult to achieve and how to achieve it is open to much argument. It takes intelligence to run a country, but only money and charisma to be put into the position to try.

--Pete

[Jester]

That orwell was critical towards the USSR was because he was againts totalitarianism, not because he was an anti-communist.

That would be a very fine distinction for Orwell. During his life, he was against the orthodox Communist party line, as embodied by any of Leninism, Stalinism, COMINTERN, the USSR, or any such thing. He was not a member of any Marxist political party. He insistently described himself not as a Communist, or a Marxist, but as a Socialist, also insisting on adding Democratic to the front as well. His formative political experience, that is, his time in the Spanish Civil War, was fought with the anarchists, and he was horrified by the repression, violence, and murder that the Soviets wrought amongst their supposed allies. By the time of his death early in 1950, there was exactly one type of Communism that held any kind of international sway: Stalinism.

So, if your idea is that he was not anti-Communist because he was friendly with (but not affiliated with) Trotskyites and other castoffs from the 3rd International model of Communism, then fine. But, realistically speaking, my statement stands: he was an ardent anti-Communist.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

So, if your idea is that he was not anti-Communist because he was friendly with (but not affiliated with) Trotskyites and other castoffs from the 3rd International model of Communism, then fine. But, realistically speaking, my statement stands: he was an ardent anti-Communist.

That's the problem with labels, such as 'communist'. The word can be applied to many things, from a commune to the USSR under Stalin. That makes most apparent dialogs on the subject two disconnected monologues. "It's just semantics" is the most asinine statement in debate. If we don't nail down what we are talking about, then what is said is irrelevant nonsense.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I'm not sure I buy that. From your link, "The economist Gary Shilling totaled up federal, state, and local government workers, plus private-sector workers who owe their jobs to government, plus recipients of Social Security, other transfer payments, and benefits such as food stamps. He also tacked on the dependents of these direct beneficiaries." So, the construction worker building the highway is counted even though he's working for a private company that has a government contract. The truck driver and his two kids are counted because his wife is a teacher. Etc.. Reminds me of the old saw, "figures lie and liars figure."

I agree that it is a tad high, but it shows the level at which the government has become more entrenched bureaucracy than necessary. The largest employer in this state is the State, with over 50,000 full time positions (in 2 million households, which is 1/40). The 2nd largest employer in this state is the Federal government, and then you can add in all the State College, University, county and local government jobs.

However, overall I do agree with you. Government should supply the minimum it can in terms of services and in regulations of the services that it does not supply. But what that minimum is is hard to determine.

Yes, there are sad stories for all kinds of uses of government. One big one here is "Invasive Species" where a DNR officer has to inspect every boat going into and out of the water to check for milfoil. Some idiot dumped their fish tank into the lake, and now taxpayers get stuck with trying to stop it's spread.

Consider the history of firefighting. What started as a community effort (often ineffective) became a function of private companies. However, an uninsured property then became a liability to all surrounding properties since it would be permitted to burn uncontrolled. In some places, laws were passed requiring everyone to have insurance, but these laws were largely a failure because of people who ignored them, of abandoned properties, and of insurance carriers who did not have the actual means of containing fires. So, for the common good, the government took over the duties of firefighting. One can argue that this is bad, a move toward socialism, an infringement by the government into private affairs, and a source of inefficiencies. And all those arguments would be valid. But they are all trumped, IMHO, by the fact that too many people were too stupid, too apathetic, too cheap to buy fire protection. And so, to protect the 10% of the worthwhile population from the 90% of the morons, the government stepped in. Of course, by doing so, it also protected the morons from themselves. What would be your solution?

There are many facets to fire protection. For example, our city (of 7400) just attained 100% coverage by hydrant for all homes recently, but it took some convincing to put in the additional city water systems on the side roads. Our city is somewhat unique in that we collaborate with surrounding cities to pool services like fire, and police to have one larger department, rather than many smaller inadequate ones. Therefore, also our relative costs are smaller than some other cities that don't have the cluster effect that we do. I live near a very large lake, which has attracted a cluster of residents which has caused all the cities and towns to grow together around the lake. All the towns around the lake in effect share a border even across the lake, and need to work closely with the county sheriff's water patrol. I have less argument for local taxes, like fire, police, and even the school (when they are reasonable), as long as I can trod on down to the city hall and vent my grief once in awhile. It's been effective a few times resulting in the mayor and the city council getting sacked at the next election. It's amazing what a mob of motivated citizens can do when the government is out of sync with their constituents and they get mad enough. It's harder to effect change though the higher up the food chain you go, which is why I believe the least amount of government should be at the federal level. The school is altogether another problem, where the teachers are strapped for money in the classroom, yet the spending per student is amongst the highest in the nation. In my opinion, there is too much money spent on administration, sports, swimming pools, and non-academics.

So, yeah, the government keeps getting bigger. Should we privatize the school systems? Maybe.

It should be an option. I advocate vouchers, or a partial tax rebate if you choose a private school for your child. It would be interesting to see if the teachers union remains as powerful if it had to negotiate with business, rather than government.

The correctional institutions? Probably not.

Although, I'd like to find an alternative to incarceration for non-violent crimes.

The postal service? If you've ever lived on a rural route, as I have, you'd say "Hell, no!"

It is somewhat privatized already.

The roads and highways? Possibly, though it would take a bit of technology.

In our state we have a mess regarding roads. Minnesota makes out OK with federal highway funds, but it is at the expense of the large populated states. The Twin Cities metro suffers because the bulk of the law makers in the State government are from rural areas. Therefore many hardly used roads get tended, while the city roads which are more heavily used are untended. It would be better handled as a local government problem, but it would make many rural roads revert back to gravel in many areas. That may not be a bad thing.

As to the markets, either extreme runs into problems. Somewhere in the middle, a well regulated (but not over regulated) free market (and that is NOT a contradiction) is the solution. However, unlike the simplistic and ineffectual extremes, something in the middle is difficult to achieve and how to achieve it is open to much argument. It takes intelligence to run a country, but only money and charisma to be put into the position to try.

Yeah, I'm not opposed to just enough regulation to stop the usury. I also think globalization has caused some of the problems where mergers have made worldwide mega monopolies. One bad captain at the tiller, or asleep at the wheel and the whole ship runs aground.

[kandrathe]

Hi,
That's the problem with labels, such as 'communist'. The word can be applied to many things, from a commune to the USSR under Stalin. That makes most apparent dialogs on the subject two disconnected monologues. "It's just semantics" is the most asinine statement in debate. If we don't nail down what we are talking about, then what is said is irrelevant nonsense.

Exactly. I am in full support of communism when it's done by groups of hippies, or Hutterites.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Yeah, I'm not opposed to just enough regulation to stop the usury.

Well, it takes a little more than that. Basic to a free market is competition, but a monopoly can kill competition, so you need to regulate that somewhat (and it's tricky). Caveat emptor is a great notion, but I do not want to have to analyze a sample out of each bottle of aspirin I buy, so requiring (and enforcing) some truth in advertising is necessary. Then there are all the bait and switch and other scams. It does get tricky. And, by the way, 'regulation to stop usury' is exactly the kind of thing that should *not* be done. As long as the terms are spelled out in advance, then it is the customer's responsibility to decide what deal he wants to make, not the government's.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Too far, Occhi.

-Bolty

[kandrathe]

Well, it takes a little more than that. Basic to a free market is competition, but a monopoly can kill competition, so you need to regulate that somewhat (and it's tricky). Caveat emptor is a great notion, but I do not want to have to analyze a sample out of each bottle of aspirin I buy, so requiring (and enforcing) some truth in advertising is necessary. Then there are all the bait and switch and other scams. It does get tricky. And, by the way, 'regulation to stop usury' is exactly the kind of thing that should *not* be done. As long as the terms are spelled out in advance, then it is the customer's responsibility to decide what deal he wants to make, not the government's.

--Pete

Ok, yes. I err'd low. I'd like to see the 16,845 page Title 26 income tax code burned and replaced with a consumption tax code. No taxes on investment, and no taxes on earnings. Property tax should be fixed at the time of purchase. This would end the madness of a consumer economy where government thinks it has to give away borrowed money to stimulate the economy, and it would encourage people with money to do something productive with it, like save it, or invest it.

You should only be taxed when you spend your money.

[eppie]

You should only be taxed when you spend your money.

A) Would that not mean a black market economy? andB)this tax exists already in VAT or whatever it is called in the different countries, of course together with the income tax so not so high that everybody buys 90% of their things on a black market C) this means also that a government will try to let you spend as much as possible?
Would this also count for second hand things? And if so would that mean that the government could make a few times the value of a car made by somebody? And if not would that not make the difference in price between new and second hand things so big that people buy a lot less new things (which is negative for consumerism) How would this work between different countries? If I come from a country with income tax, i would never in my life buy something from a country with pure sales tax.

I like the idea....I am however not sure how to make this work.

[Tris]

A) Would that not mean a black market economy? andB)this tax exists already in VAT or whatever it is called in the different countries, of course together with the income tax so not so high that everybody buys 90% of their things on a black market C) this means also that a government will try to let you spend as much as possible?
Would this also count for second hand things? And if so would that mean that the government could make a few times the value of a car made by somebody? And if not would that not make the difference in price between new and second hand things so big that people buy a lot less new things (which is negative for consumerism) How would this work between different countries? If I come from a country with income tax, i would never in my life buy something from a country with pure sales tax.

I like the idea....I am however not sure how to make this work.

Sales taxes suck because they are an extremely regressive form of taxation. Florida tried something called a "Luxury" tax which only applied to things such as Mercedes, Bentleys, Rolls-Royces, yachts, Lamborghinis, Ferrari's, and related items. OMG you've never heard such bitching and moaning in your life... it's not fair that I have to pay for the prvilege of driving a Bentley... the average Joe should pay for it... but not me. Needless to say... it didn't last long. What was it replaced by? A higher sales tax on non-luxury items.

It's an undisputed fact that sales taxes, VAT's, and whatever the hell else people want to call them disporportionately affect lower income folks. Let's say that the total sales tax on necessities for the year comes in at $1,000 (may even be higher in states that also tax food:P). If you're making $20,000 per year that's 5% of your income. If you're making $100,000 per year, that's 1% of your income. If you're Bill Gates you don't give a flying "f" about it. Which probably explains why sales taxes are so popular here.

[Jester]

It's an undisputed fact that sales taxes, VAT's, and whatever the hell else people want to call them disporportionately affect lower income folks. Let's say that the total sales tax on necessities for the year comes in at $1,000 (may even be higher in states that also tax food:P). If you're making $20,000 per year that's 5% of your income. If you're making $100,000 per year, that's 1% of your income. If you're Bill Gates you don't give a flying "f" about it. Which probably explains why sales taxes are so popular here.

Sales taxes in isolation are bitterly regressive. Almost every serious proposal mitigates this by slapping a pretty high ground floor on them, so that the tax is negative for the extremely poor, zero for the poor, and low as you start into the middle classes. Where the schemes seem to fall down, in my view, is in keeping a balance between the upper middle classes through to the fabulously, ludicrously rich. People who can spend their money abroad (the very rich) are at a very large advantage. Unless you have one hell of an auditor, it's going to be pretty tough to catch what someone consumes in Dubai.

On a personal anecdote, the Uruguayans (who have a sales tax model) book bus trips, one of which I was on, up to the Ciudad del Este in Paraguay (a notorious free trade zone) to buy luxury goods and evade taxes. This innocuous behaviour is harmless, but it indicates the basic issue: people will stretch their boundaries to evade taxes no matter how they're put in practise, sales, income, capital gains, estate, whatever.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

A) Would that not mean a black market economy? and B) this tax exists already in VAT or whatever it is called in the different countries, of course together with the income tax so not so high that everybody buys 90% of their things on a black market C) this means also that a government will try to let you spend as much as possible?
Would this also count for second hand things? And if so would that mean that the government could make a few times the value of a car made by somebody? And if not would that not make the difference in price between new and second hand things so big that people buy a lot less new things (which is negative for consumerism) How would this work between different countries? If I come from a country with income tax, i would never in my life buy something from a country with pure sales tax.

I like the idea....I am however not sure how to make this work.

A) There are people who also work for cash, or trade of goods for services such that they don't pay income taxes. If you don't pay your income taxes, you go to jail. The same would apply to evading sales taxes. It is a crime, and most people don't want to be criminals.
B) The governments interest in increasing spending would only be to increase the amount of revenue collected. They don't encourage increases in earnings now to increase taxes, they just fiddle with rates. If they really wanted to increase earnings, they would make 4 years of college education free for all citizens.
C) Second hand things sold by businesses today are taxed, but sales by private individuals are not. If you are a corporation selling anything you collect a sales tax.
D) Between countries would be no different than it is for citizens. One argument would be for having no tax on partial manufactured goods transfers between corporations. If Ford Motor wants to buy transmissions from company X, then the tax should be paid on the end product, and not on the intermediate part, unless that part is being sold to a consumer.
E) The bottom line is that consumerism is bad. It is bad for the environment, and it is a false prop for an economy based upon debt.

For Tris,
F) The progressive thing one might do is to allow poor people to fill out a form to get all or a portion of the tax they paid back (keep your receipts).

The US Gross Domestic Product is $14,294.5 billion. The US budget is $2,730 billion, which is 19% of the GDP. If every time you went to the store, and saw that 1/5th of your money was going into sales tax you might take a more active role in letting Congress know how you feel about their budget. The current system of siphoning off half your paycheck before you see it hides the pain, and then in April you feel elated when the government gives back the part you paid in excess.

[Tris]

Hahaha... yeah... right. I live in a place where you either have more money than god, or you're like me atm. There is no real middle class. No way in hell the uber rich here would ever let anybody, but themselves, get money back from the government.

Also, what would happen, businesses would start to charge more for the necessities of life. The sad fact is that increasing money availability only leads to higher prices due to artificial inflation (read that greed) because people are always out to find some way to screw people over. So, let's say by some amazing miracle the bottom 10% gets their sales tax back, that's ~6% here. They go to the store and discover that the item previously costing $1.00 now costs $1.06:P Before you start laughing too hard... around here during the "stimulation" by the government, prices rose about 10-20%. Remember... do unto others as they would do unto you, only do it first:)

Tris
Life -- A series of utterly futile bitter pitched battles fought with shear desperation, one of which you ultimately lose.

[Jester]

The progressive thing one might do is to allow poor people to fill out a form to get all or a portion of the tax they paid back (keep your receipts).

Because, amongst the extremely poor, there certainly aren't any who are illiterate, innumerate, homeless, crazy, economically clueless, or just plain disorganized.

Bureaucracy comes down very hard on the marginalized.

-Jester

[eppie]

Because, amongst the extremely poor, there certainly aren't any who are illiterate, innumerate, homeless, crazy, economically clueless, or just plain disorganized.

Bureaucracy comes down very hard on the marginalized.

-Jester

But at least we can say it is their own fault, and and don't lose any sleep over it.

[Delc]

F) The progressive thing one might do is to allow poor people to fill out a form to get all or a portion of the tax they paid back (keep your receipts).

Wouldn't it just be easier to make the things poor people are buying tax exempt? I mean, poor people should be spending the vast majority of their income on food, clothing, and shelter. Anyone who can afford an X-box can afford to pay taxes on it.

[kandrathe]

Wouldn't it just be easier to make the things poor people are buying tax exempt? I mean, poor people should be spending the vast majority of their income on food, clothing, and shelter. Anyone who can afford an X-box can afford to pay taxes on it.

There are many ways to deal with it.

[Tris]

Let's face it, being poor sucks. Being poor means you can't get the credentials that people wan to see. Being poor means you're automatically stamped with ever imaginable derogatory label. Being poor means you have no power, because government doesn't give a rat's ass. Being poor means that nobody wants to associate with you because: 1) They're afraid they'll catach it, and 2) because you don't have power, you don't ahve anything that they want. As somebody who hasn't known anything else but being in the lower end of the economic spectrum, I can authoritatively say it sucks.

BTW, for those wondering... the bitterness intensified circa 1999 ... before that it was more along the lines of cynicism:P

I did get a chuckle out of seeing the cost of insuring your government bonds more than triple. Is Uncle Sam headed to the poor house?:P

Tris
-- Life's a bitch and then you die.

[kandrathe]

Because, amongst the extremely poor, there certainly aren't any who are illiterate, innumerate, homeless, crazy, economically clueless, or just plain disorganized.

Bureaucracy comes down very hard on the marginalized.

-Jester

We can't make them literate, smarter, saner, or more organized. Life is tough. If you want to sponsor door to door spoon feeding, then you can do that on your own dime. In the current system, if you want money back you need to file an income tax form. What's the difference? Issue them an ID card then that they can show to skip the taxes.