Civil War, Part II

[kandrathe]

...the government will take care of me.

Which is the difference between what I perceive is the value systems of the USA and most of Europe. The nature of independance, and individual liberty calls for us to attempt to take care of ourselves without becoming subservient vassals of the State. As Paine said, "O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia, and Africa, have long expelled her--Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind."

In conflict in the US now are those who seek to adopt parts of the European system, thinking that they can have the best parts (social security), and avoid the worst parts(oppression). Think then also of Paine, when he said, "Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins." What purpose is it to relegate the Monarch to a symbolic figure head, only to hand over convert their dictatorial power to that morass known as government. Government produces nothing, but merely exists to redistribute the fruits collected from those who are able and choose to work while skimming off the top enough to feed its ever increasing bulk. When our legislatures and parliaments stop working for the good to the people, and seek to instead enrich or perpetuate the ruling class above the people, then we have descended back to the thralldom we all have sought to escape.

In exchange for 60% of your livelihood, they have promised to take care of you. Why not 80%? Why not 100%? The discussion is probably moot, since much of Europe has never really ever had the desire to shed their positions of vassalage.

[Jester]

Which is the difference between what I perceive is the value systems of the USA and most of Europe. The nature of independance, and individual liberty calls for us to attempt to take care of ourselves without becoming subservient vassals of the State. As Paine said, "O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia, and Africa, have long expelled her--Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind."

Fly in the ointment: Thomas Paine was an early believer in the things you are positioning him against: taxation to support public welfare programs.

-Jester

[Crusader]

Which is the difference between what I perceive is the value systems of the USA and most of Europe. The nature of independance, and individual liberty calls for us to attempt to take care of ourselves without becoming subservient vassals of the State. As Paine said, "O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia, and Africa, have long expelled her--Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind."

In conflict in the US now are those who seek to adopt parts of the European system, thinking that they can have the best parts (social security), and avoid the worst parts(oppression). Think then also of Paine, when he said, "Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins." What purpose is it to relegate the Monarch to a symbolic figure head, only to hand over convert their dictatorial power to that morass known as government. Government produces nothing, but merely exists to redistribute the fruits collected from those who are able and choose to work while skimming off the top enough to feed its ever increasing bulk. When our legislatures and parliaments stop working for the good to the people, and seek to instead enrich or perpetuate the ruling class above the people, then we have descended back to the thralldom we all have sought to escape.

In exchange for 60% of your livelihood, they have promised to take care of you. Why not 80%? Why not 100%? The discussion is probably moot, since much of Europe has never really ever had the desire to shed their positions of vassalage.

Eh? Vassal? Hardly. I don't have to do anything for the state in return for social benefits if I become jobless except make an attempt to look for a new job. If that fails, I still get benefits. If I refuse, I still get benefits (just a wee bit less). How does this make me a vassal of the state? All I have to do is pay my taxes. I just pay more taxes and get more in return.

[kandrathe]

Here is a new article in the American Chronicle, May 25th 2009, Does the Sovereignty Movement Go Far Enough? by Dr. Robert Owens.

"The increasing pace of America´s progression from free markets to a command economy has reached such a pace and become so obvious the Russian Prime Minister used his spotlight time at the World Economic Forum to warn America not to follow the socialist path. Now the Russian newspaper Pravda, once the leading communist voice on earth published an article entitled, "American capitalism gone with a whimper." People around the world can see the individual decisions of producers and consumers are being replaced by the form letters of a faceless central-planning bureaucracy even if the Obama boosters still haven´t swallowed the red pill and watched the matrix dissolve."

It seems ironic and in a way twisted that the President of our former communist enemy warned the US in the most recent economic conference in Davos, "Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence is another possible mistake." and "Instead of streamlining market mechanisms, some are tempted to expand state economic intervention to the greatest possible extent. The concentration of surplus assets in the hands of the state is a negative aspect of anti-crisis measures in virtually every nation. In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated." It seems that the former Soviet experience, plus our own incessant indoctrination of economic free market capitalism did sink in there, however, conversely, their incessant indoctrination of central government control also sank in over here (back in the, back in the, back in the USSA).

Dr. Robert Owens solution? "Resurrect the 10th Amendment, repeal the 17th (the popular election of Senators) and while we´re at it let´s drive a stake through the heart of the 16th (allows for levying income tax) and all that´s still on the conservative side of radicalism. Restore the balance and save the Republic!"

Again, I'm not opposed to all three of those proposals. What do you think would be the result of repealing the 17th Amendment to allow State Legislatures to again elect the Senators rather than directly by the people? Would this help to curb the TANSTAAFL effect of too much self serving democracy?

Everyone probably knows here that I'm a big proponent of consumption based taxes, and even entertain some ideas surrounding progressive consumption based taxes. One idea would be to define a standard "footprint" of consumption for an average person, then base taxes upon that footprint. This implements two strategies important for fairness in the world with one, albeit large, change. It would have the effect of helping people to consider conservation as a part of their unbounded consumption, and also be a way of fairly levying taxes. Yes, there will be those who might think that consumption based taxes are regressive, but if you adjust them based upon the "common" footprint, then I think they might be made more "fair". At least I believe it is more fair than the current "Cap in Trade" legislation being bandied about Congress.

<blockquote>As an environmentalist I need to get this [rant] off my chest. I'm very tired of consumption based schemes which are sold as environmental. Much like the "buy three, and get the fourth one for free" sales pitch, we are being hoodwinked by pseudo-environmental propaganda and the eco-snake oil salesman that their next big thing is just what mother earth needs. I'm not impressed by the Hummer that is converted to run from used fry oil, or bio-diesel. You might power two vehicles, with the same utility for the same energy expenditure. I've long been suspicious of the utility of burning crops for fuel, and its impact on land use and food availability and prices. I'm suspicious of the wind and solar argument as well, when you bundle in the massive investment and upkeep of distribution lines needed to route it to the major cities. </blockquote>

Then others might worry that changing the tax structure like this would have a negative impact on the economy, and I would admit for awhile it probably would. Consider that we currently base our economy on pushing for over consumption, and measure growth by consumer spending. In our current system, one idea to jump start a sluggish economy is to steal money from peoples future (federal budget deficit) and give it away by the bushel basket today in hopes that people will go out and buy things whether they need them or not. Another, is to lower interest rates (which at some point hit bottom) to a level where people will borrow and steal money from their own futures to spend on things they may or may not need. I believe that the upside would be longer term growth based on investment and savings, rather than based on excessive consumption.

Our focus should not be on transferring wealth to the fund the poor in an ever increasing life style, but to insure that every person has the same opportunity to become self sufficient and as wealthy as they are capable and desire to be. So, what does that mean? I see two things; Education and Employment, which are the vocations of every person. Insuring that every person has a full measure of both should be the ideal and focus of our society, although I would add that they can be a morass if left to the government to administer.

The third argument I've heard is that basing taxation upon consumption would put the government in the position of encouraging consumption to remain fiscally sound. To which I would respond, not any more than the current situation that puts the government in the position of encouraging excessive consumer spending.

Basing taxation on consumption would encourage saving, and spending on things that will eventually produce a profit and I believe it would encourage the government to be no bigger than it needs to be. To me it brings to mind the situation of any person who seeks to make something of themselves where they tighten their belts and save their money to eventually buy that farm, or invest in a company, or start one of their own. Why should the government take from the income side of the equation? The answer was that they needed money for wars and it was the most expedient way to quickly tap into the money stream of those who were earning it.

The other tax position I have is "usage" based taxes. For example, if you use the school, then you pay for the school. If you use the road, then you pay for the road. If you use city water, then you pay for the upkeep of the water system. If people want infrastructures, like libraries, or roads, or schools, or water systems, then they will need to work together to encourage their use and keep them useful. I do see a role for government in helping to organize people to do these things, however, ultimately the buck stops with the person who is willing to maintain the thing you have built. There are so many multi-million dollar boondoggle projects in my state which may be visited or used by a few dozen people per year, and while nice, they were not a good use of money and in the future the maintenance of them will remain a further drain on our resources.

In my town a while back, the mayor, and the city council where I live had this grandiose plan inspired by the State department of transportation and their grant money to rework all the roads in our little town to expand them, add sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and street lights. Myself and some of my neighbors went door to door to every home owner in the town and talked about what appealed to the folks that lived here to move here, and why now we would want to change our "rural" feel for that of a "standard" city street. Also, once built, it would be our town, and the local property taxes that would be needed to sustain this new infrastructure. Needless to say, once the people had the full story and were able to think it through, the entire plan evaporated in a summer filled with full town hall meetings and the mayor and city council were replaced at the next election.

To this day, when people campaign for town office here, the litmus test is that they are committed to preserving the character of the town. If only, the people in the US, would do the same at a national level.

[kandrathe]

How does this make me a vassal of the state?

And, then, you answered your own question.

All I have to do is pay my taxes. I just pay more taxes and get more in return.

Which you estimate is 60% of your earning power. Subtract what you need to actually live, and that gives you an idea of your ability to elevate your position through investment. So, they rob you of your money before you would get to invest it, thus robbing you also of the compounding that you might achieve by saving or investing it as well.

As an experiment; Say you earned $1 million over ten years. Your annual cost of living expenses were say $40,000, leaving $60,000 for investment. If the government taxes 60%, you have zero remaining. Whereas, here in the USA, the level is just a little less (considering taxes from all sources). Under the current system, the only way to invest, or save, is to command a salary well above the cost of living, and then with progressive taxation, you fight an uphill battle trying to do so. I would say it is obvious that you would be much better off by being able to keep your money and invest it. You are saying you are better off with the government taking all your investment power away, but guaranteeing you safety should you someday be unable to work for them anymore.

It appears that you work for the State (60%), and they allow you enough to provide for your own housing, food, and transportation. How are you not a vassal of the State?

[kandrathe]

Fly in the ointment: Thomas Paine was an early believer in the things you are positioning him against: taxation to support public welfare programs.

-Jester

I too am inconsistent. When I was young I was a socialist. But, don't hold me to my writings then. :)

[Ashock]

I too am inconsistent. When I was young I was a socialist. But, don't hold me to my writings then. :)

When one is young, they are supposed to be. It is natural to be a gullible idealist when you immature. Unfortunately, many people never graduate from that state. They just become more vocal and obnoxious about it.
This in turn, leads to the fall of Western civilization. Oh, sorry..... Got a bit ahead of myself.

[roguebanshee]

And, then, you answered your own question.Which you estimate is 60% of your earning power.

Your example does not include the fact that basic cost of living expenses also contain part of the 60% tax he gave as an example. So, if the annual cost of living is $40,000 then that includes (at least around here) most or all the taxes beyond income tax. People do not go around calculating their cost of living and then exclude the tax on eg. gas or food. In the end, your example leaves about $10,000-$20,000 for fun stuff (which will be taxed) and unforseen expenses, depending on income tax.

Yes, there are people who push their cost of living so far that they can't afford to do anything but work and pay their taxes. But that kind of stupidity does not know borders, I'm quite sure you could find plenty in USA (wasn't there something about mortgages and banks not working out as intended recently:P).

[kandrathe]

Yes, there are people who push their cost of living so far that they can't afford to do anything but work and pay their taxes.

I did find some data on country by country comparison of household savings rates. It might just be my impression, but I believe that people in the US are more likely to have more unsecured debt.

It still begs the question of the sanity of a culture that expects a person to live on less than 40% of their earnings, or put in another way, for every two years of work you get one year for yourself, and you work one year for the government.

But that kind of stupidity does not know borders, I'm quite sure you could find plenty in USA (wasn't there something about mortgages and banks not working out as intended recently:P).

It is more complicated than stupid consumers. Much of this crash is related to the tech bubble bursting in 2000, and vast amounts of capital eager for an investment vehicle that would yield better than 1% due to the hyper low interest rates. It has to do with China's currency manipulation, and the Feds allowing mortgage backed securities to be mostly unwatched and unregulated. Then, enter Freddie and Fannie which are guaranteeing loans to everyone who can spell L-O-A-N, and a credit market thats become rife with NINJA loans.

But, yes, Pete's TANSTAAFL caution also applies. If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably was a bad idea. But, like all crazy ponzi schemes, they seem like good opportunities to those who got in early, and fraudulent and criminal to the ones who lost the farm. Much of the problem with houses now are that people have very large mortgages on assets whose value has diminished substantially. So, they intentionally need to walk away from their bad investment, which unfortunately also is the place where they live.

[roguebanshee]

It still begs the question of the sanity of a culture that expects a person to live on less than 40% of their earnings, or put in another way, for every two years of work you get one year for yourself, and you work one year for the government.

People choose to pay for the same goods in a different way. That hardly calls for a question about the sanity of a different system than the one you're used to.

It's simply a different culture with different values.

[Delc]

Eh? Vassal? Hardly. I don't have to do anything for the state in return for social benefits if I become jobless except make an attempt to look for a new job. If that fails, I still get benefits. If I refuse, I still get benefits (just a wee bit less). How does this make me a vassal of the state? All I have to do is pay my taxes. I just pay more taxes and get more in return.

So why bother working then?

[--Pete]

Hi,

So why bother working then?

Indeed. Reminds me of the old Soviet joke; "As long as they keep pretending to pay us, we'll keep pretending to work."

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

I too am inconsistent. When I was young I was a socialist. But, don't hold me to my writings then. :)

Funny, when I was young, I was to the right of Attila the Hun. Must have been the Catholic-Georgia (Western one) influence. Not much difference between "Kill them all and let God sort them out." and "Nuke them till they glow, then shoot them in the dark." Even Uncle Joe (the senate one, not the soviet one) had his influence with "Better dead than red." Mutatis mutandis, I've mellowed a bit. :whistling:

--Pete

[Jester]

I too am inconsistent. When I was young I was a socialist. But, don't hold me to my writings then. :)

Tom Paine was consistent enough. You're just reading him through the filter of your own beliefs about what constitutes vassalage.

To him, that meant being ruled by a Monarch, in whose government you had no voice. To you, it apparently means taxes.

(Edit: Perhaps you misunderstood. I don't mean Tom Paine believed in these things early in his life. Quite the contrary, what I linked you was published when he was sixty. I mean he believed in these things before belief in them was widespread.)

-Jester

[Jester]

So why bother working then?

One might ask then why the unemployment rate in Europe is not extraordinarily high. Whatever the answer to your question, there must be one, otherwise, nobody would be working, which is clearly not the case.

-Jester

[Jester]

It appears that you work for the State (60%), and they allow you enough to provide for your own housing, food, and transportation. How are you not a vassal of the State?

If that's all it takes to be a vassal, then how is any employee not a vassal of their employer?

You're just taking overblown historical terms and slapping them down to make a rhetorical point, just like you do with slavery. You may not like the European welfare state, but it bears almost no resemblance to vassalage, or slavery, or whatever else you care to throw at us. (Serfdom? Peonage? Thralldom? Take your pick.)

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

One might ask then why the unemployment rate in Europe is not extraordinarily high. Whatever the answer to your question, there must be one, otherwise, nobody would be working, which is clearly not the case.

I can think of two reasons. The first is that even 40% can be the difference between state supported subsidence living and a few luxuries. The second is that doing nothing is boring.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

If that's all it takes to be a vassal, then how is any employee not a vassal of their employer?

Not to impugn the rest of your statement, this part does not make sense. Kandrathe's point is that if you give almost two thirds of your income to a third party (who, BTW, is not your employer), you can rightfully be considered that party's 'vassal' (or 'sharecropper', or 'indentured servant', or a number of less polite though more modern terms). An employee does not give 60% of his earnings to his employer (although the employer may make a large profit from the employee's work). The relationship between employer and employee is not vassalage -- though it can sometimes be unfair in other ways (both ways, given the power of the unions at times).

--Pete

[Jester]

I can think of two reasons. The first is that even 40% can be the difference between state supported subsidence living and a few luxuries. The second is that doing nothing is boring.

Indeed. But if the hypothetical problem is that the system lacks incentive for people to work, and yet they are working, and in about the same numbers as Americans or anyone else, then what's the problem?

-Jester

[Jester]

Not to impugn the rest of your statement, this part does not make sense. Kandrathe's point is that if you give almost two thirds of your income to a third party (who, BTW, is not your employer), you can rightfully be considered that party's 'vassal' (or 'sharecropper', or 'indentured servant', or a number of less polite though more modern terms). An employee does not give 60% of his earnings to his employer (although the employer may make a large profit from the employee's work). The relationship between employer and employee is not vassalage -- though it can sometimes be unfair in other ways (both ways, given the power of the unions at times).

In neither a free system nor a welfare state do you sell your free choice. You pick whether and where to work, you pick where you're going to live and where you're going to move, and even if you let someone take over those rights in exchange for money, you cannot permanently surrender them. Whatever the tax burdens may be, labour is (in the main) free.

Vassalage, indenture, slavery, peonage, serfdom, thralldom, corvee, etc... do not have these qualities. In those systems, you have lost your free choice. You do not get to pick your job, you cannot quit, you cannot stop working. Someone else makes these choices for you; you are unfree labour.

This is fundamental to forced labour, and to conflate any such system with free labour, even one whose product is heavily taxed, is misleading at best.

The other point, of course, is democracy. In Europe as in America, you can vote for change if you don't like the tax regime, or leave the country if you can't put up with it. The government is by, of, and for the people. Whether taxes are high or low, they are not that way because an arbitrary Monarch is expropriating your wealth, but because the elected government has decided it that way. Some countries may choose to tax themselves heavily, but they choose it freely.

-Jester