I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Just got back from dinner with some friends who voted for Bush in 2000.
They couldn't believe the damage he's done. They were angry about the Iraq war, the missing WMD's, and the pessimistic economy.
They couldn't remember a time, in any administration, when things were so f**ked up.
"The Thugs are out to trash the New Deal and loot what they can, now, because they can."
And because no one is going to stop them.
"When will the Times stand up?"
When Sulzberger is thrown into the duck pit.
"When will the Times stand up."
In the editorial section, who knows? In the op-eds, one need only look to the Shrill One.
Lambert--breathe in. Breathe out. Breate in. There, don't you fell better?
Now, think things through one more time. What's the problem? The Republican-controlled administration is driving our country over a cliff. That's bad. The NYT editorial page staff have noticed the problem and brought it to the public's attention. That's good.
The tone of the editorial is direct, but not strident or militant. That's because it's a NYT editorial, not a manifesto, or even a blog posting.
So the question to be concerned with is not "When will the Times stand up?" but "How do we replace our current administration with a better one in the next election?" The NYT is doing their part; why get upset with them, a sympathetic and important part of the media, for being what they are? Save your outrage for the targets that deserve it.
Whatever happened to the concept of limited government? Why is private charity seemingly looked down upon as if the government is the only method of helping the poor?
With Democrats and now Republicans it's just spend spend spend.
And I'll repeat, why is it NOT ok to reach in and steal money from someone's wallet who happens to be wealthier than you but it IS ok as long as the majority of the electorate has voted to do so? Isn't saying, "Give us more of your tax dollars or we're going to arrest you!", even though these tax dollars don't benefit you in any way, simple flat our coercion?
Isn't that just state sponsored theft?
Yep, pretty much.
Atrios, "general welfare" refers to such things as roads, police, military etc. That's why it's called the "general" welfare.
Philly,
Either we decide what public goods are worth paying for with tax money democratically, or it is decided in some other manner. You deride the democratic method as resulting in theft. How do you propose such things be decided?
Philly also ignores the fact that there are large swathes of government utility that go overwhelmingly to the rich.
The enforcement of property rights, patent protection, etc, have benefits that accrue almost solely to the holders of wealth.
And finally, Philly, you're mixing together two different questions. One is what the level of government should be. The second is how to pay for whatever level is decided on.
There are many good justifications for progressive taxation, above and beyond the ability to pay. There's the declining marginal utility of money. In recessions, there's the stimulative effect of spending money that would otherwise go unspent. Finally, progressive taxation saves capitalism. Massive wealth inequality results in bad things for the wealthy, in the end, as 19th and 20th century revolutions proved.
O.T. but,
Atrios, if you ever should read this late night, wine besotted post.
I think that you should keep the new kids on the Eschaton blog. I've been reading your blog since your April 18 count was at about 18,000. (Congratulations, me.) I really believe that, after an understandably shaky start, that Leah, Lambert and The Farmer have put a good energy into this site. (Sorry if I left anyone out, they post like about 20 people.) I would like to see them continue to contribute. Hey it might be too much for any one reader to keep up with, but, after a long winter of low liberal energy, I could use some overheated lefty to balance (or unbalance) things.
"Whatever happened to the concept of limited government? Why is private charity seemingly looked down upon as if the government is the only method of helping the poor?"
You just don't get it. Private charity has been around since the beginning of history and certainly since the beginning of the United States. If it were adequate to cover all of the need in this country there would be no need for such taxation. But private charity can barely touch all of the need out there. So the choice is either allow the poor to starve to death or support them with a little bit from everybody. Afterall, it could be you someday.
As for other uses of your tax dollars you say:
"Isn't saying, "Give us more of your tax dollars or we're going to arrest you!", even though these tax dollars don't benefit you in any way, simple flat our coercion?"
So you dont use or haven't used services like mail, fire protection, street maintenance and lighting, utilities, public schools and libraries, social security, state and federal consumer protection agencies, etc.? Yet you then say "Atrios, "general welfare" refers to such things as roads, police, military etc. That's why it's called the "general" welfare" so I guess that you are acknowledging the need for some taxation?
By the way your opinion of what is meant by "general welfare" is just that, your opinion. I would argue that using tax dollars to protect the environment for the present and future generations is definitely in the general wefare.
What Dan said. Beyond that, most of the wealthy wouldn't BE wealthy - or at least not nearly as wealthy as they are - if not for services and infrastructure provided by the state through taxation. I used an example several days ago of an owner of a trucking firm. Say he makes $5 mill a year, and pays half of that in taxes. Well, the rightwing would have you believe that this is an insufferable burden. But the fact is, after taxes he's left with $2.5 mill. Suppose there was no such thing as taxes, and as a result, there were very few roads for his trucks to use, and he had to pay for the actual cost of the wear and tear his fleet causes on the few roads there were. What do you suppose his income would be in such a situation? He'd save the $2.5 mill in taxes, but is there really anyone naive enough to believe that he'd be making $2.5 after paying the TRUE costs involved in running his business?
Rightwing "logic" only holds up for those too lazy to really consider the complete picture.
Except the social spending is profoundly undemocratic, and does not benefit the lower classes.
Take Social Security for an example. I did not vote to enter Social Security. I have no choice but to pay in to the system. In other words, I have no freedom of choice in the matter - if I choose not to pay, I go to jail. At the same time, I don't expect to see any of the money I pay in to Social Security. By the time I'm eligable, the system will likely have gone broke. I'd be just as well off to take the money I no pay in, put it in $1 bills on my coffee table and set it on fire.
Now, I won't go so far as to say we need to abolish Social Security. I don't mind helping the elderly and those who need it. However, what is so terrible about giving me the choice to take some fraction of my Social Security tax and invest it as I chose. If I lose out, the only person I'm hurting is me. If I make a decent gain on it, I'm taking more money from my account than from the general fund - meaning that there's one less person drawing from the pool, leaving more for the rest of the people who really need it. (Even wuth the recent market downturns even a novice investor can make money over the long term. If I were to start investing now, I could almost gurantee you that I'd get a return of a few percent when I retire in 40-some years.)
Moreover, contrary to what Dan says, I'm hardly rich (in fact, according to the IRS I'm one of the "working poor"
, but you better believe that property rights still have tremendous utility to me. In fact, they have more utility, because if I lose $2,000 I eat ramen for a few weeks. If Bill Gates loses $2,000, who gives a damn?
The idea that progressive taxation "saves" capitalism is also dicey. If I'm getting taxed at a high rate, I have more incentive to hide my money. (See Italy and Russia in the 1990's and their massive problems with capital flight.) Especially if I'm rich, I can hire advisors to tell me how to shield my money, or I can invest in a place with a more lucrative tax policy.
A system with a flatter tax curve doesn't have those negative side effects. There are fewer loopholes, fewer deductions, and fewer hastles. For a member of the "working poor" it means I don't waste time and resources to calculate things like Earned Income Tax Credit, deductions, and all the extra work that taxes now take up. That time has a higher utility to me because when you're not making much to begin with every little bit hurts that much more.
That's the fundamental flaw behind liberalism. Liberalism assumes that a government program can fix every social ill - instead the nature of government ensures that the ones who benefit are the ones who can best scam the system. Those people aren't the poor, who don't have neither the time nor the resources to deal with bureaucracy. The fact remains that bureaucracy, even if well-meaning, is hardly the best solution to social probl
Again, from the Constitution:
Section. 8.
"Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, [WHY?] to pay the Debts AND PROVIDE FOR the common Defence AND GENERAL WELFARE of the United States"
Jennifer: exactly what makes you think that Republicans don't want roads? I'm fine with government helping maintain transportation infrastructure. The same follows for national defense and other key tasks. However, the government wastes more per year than it spends on roads and bridges.
Moreover, looking at your hypothetical example, let's say that we abolished taxation. (Again, not even the most hardcore fiscal conservative would argue such a thing, but I'll play along.) Without government, who would build the roads?
Simple, some investor would talk to your hypothetical truck driver and say that if he pays a small fee he can use their own private road. What if the price was exorbitant you say? Then the road company doesn't stay in business unless it matches the price that the market is willing to pay.
Ah, you say, what about the poor and the downtrodden? Surely those evil capitalist plutocrats would never allow the common man on their roadways?
Well, if they were at all smart, they would. You can make a decent business out of selling only to the rich. However, the big money is in getting the most customers (which is why Ford is bigger than Porsche for example). Inevitably some company would start ValuRoads, which allows nearly anyone to drive on their roads for a small fee. Most people can afford the fee (since they’re not paying taxes), and those who can’t hitch rides with friends. Soon other companies spring up, competing with ValuRoads for marketshare. There’s McRoads, WalRoads, and a whole host of other companies. Some fail, while others prosper. Because they’re in a life or death struggle for marketshare, they’re constantly cutting prices.
Pretend ValuRoads decides to cut costs by shortchanging maintenance on their roads. Accidents start happening. However, because there’s choice in the market, people have the option to go elsewhere. ValuRoads quickly starts loosing business.
Now, the current transportation system works fairly well, even though the government is notoriously inefficient about doing nearly everything. However, it is by no means the only way one could organize society. Government can do some good things, but it also does them with much cost and inefficiency – which is why it is so critical to have a system that limits governmental power to necessities only and allows the people to do the rest unhindered.
Philly G, try to think of America as one big country club. The wealthy don't seem to mind paying membership dues for country clubs, after all.
So there you go. Although anyone can join this country club by paying their taxes, some get to enjoy some of the nicer features of the club, like million dollar homes, expensive cars, adequate health care, and so on. For the little extras, they pay a little extra in dues.
Oh, but some of that dues money is going pay for some of the services they don't even use, like public education, you say? Consider that tipping the towel boy.
Atrios, "general welfare" refers to such things as roads, police, military etc. That's why it's called the "general" welfare.
---
Philly - Even given your limited view of "General Welfare," this Administration has cut money for roads by 20%, failed to actually fund the much ballyhooed Homeland Defense for local responders, like the NYFD, NYPD, etc.. They are also cutting the promised benefits to us veterans who actually did the protecting you are enjoying the benfits of now. What will happen to the men and women who return from THIS current debacle?
As for State sponsored theft - well, when are we going to decide that we are one country, rather than simply an ensemble of Henry Potter wannabe's marching in lock step to Rove's marching orders?
ENOUGH.
This is 2003, not 1850 - it's a different world, different needs, Rugged Individualism might have been an argument when you could stil head west and homestead, but when you can't pay the rent on a one bedroom, cold water walk-up, where do you go?
I'm happy to debate, but issuing a Talking Points memo is not going to cut it.
"what is so terrible about giving me the choice to take some fraction of my Social Security tax and invest it as I chose. If I lose out, the only person I'm hurting is me."
So say you're a little old lady (or maybe someone with some learning disability, or simply someone who just isn't as suave' on investing as some few others) who has the option to invest her only source of income. Now suppose that some scam artist (they don't really exist do they?) persuades her to invest it in his operation. She does and loses it all. Her tough luck I guess. Now she either starves or has to rely on charity to survive or she becomes a double burden upon the state. Or say that there is a downturn in the economy as now. Again she loses much of her income. Oh well you might say, that's the choice she made right? She made her bed now she can lie in it. You see the idea behind social security is SECURITY.
"If I make a decent gain on it, I'm taking more money from my account than from the general fund - meaning that there's one less person drawing from the pool, leaving more for the rest of the people who really need it."
Wrong, you'd get your dividends PLUS the social security. You might store it away in a bank somewhere but it'd still be subtracted from the general SS fund.
Flak: There's a fundamental problem with your worldview. The rich do not exist because the government lets them. The rich exist because they worked to become that way. They do "pay their dues" not only through higher taxes, but also because they had to earn that million dollar home, that nice car, and they also pay extra for health care because they're subsidizing the emergency patients who can't pay. (As we all do.)
I've known plenty of rich people, (try working for a charitible organization and you'll meet plenty) and very few of them were born well off. The vast majority of them worked their way up by taking risks, employing others, and contributing to society. They are not the enemy, nor are the vast majority of them undeserving of their wealth.
Anon: Again, you're only investing a portion of your funds. The rest remains in the SS trust fund. Moreover, you're still drawing the same amount as you did before under the old system. Anything above that cap remains in the fund. (Yes, you really should be able to draw from both in full, but that's what's necessary in order to make the system work.)
As for your old lady, chances are she'd still be covered under the old system. Even if not, she still has legal recourse to go after the scammers. If that fails, the system would likely have enough from all those others who are no longer needing to draw from the general fund to cover a good portion, if not all, of her losses.
If the economy is in a downturn at your retirement age you're probably still safe. Over the long term (ie 40 years for current new workers) you're virtually guaranteed to come out ahead by a small percentage. Even if not, you've always the option to wait out the downturn. Usually recessions only last a year or two, and if you can make do for a while you're likely to recoup your investment in time without reducing your benefits in the short term.
" Inevitably some company would start ValuRoads, which allows nearly anyone to drive on their roads for a small fee. Most people can afford the fee (since they’re not paying taxes), and those who can’t hitch rides with friends. Soon other companies spring up, competing with ValuRoads for marketshare. There’s McRoads, WalRoads, and a whole host of other companies."
Think about this for a moment. Ideally it sounds good. But c'mon, what your proposing is lots of separately owned roads piled on top of each other and all going to the same places with the driving customer choosing which he is going to patronize that day. It wouldn't be like choosing gas stations. It would be chaos. How many more roads do we really want crisscrossing the country (and your hometown)?
This obviously would not work.
There would be so many roads and freeways than there are now that even LA would soon be submerged in them.
Better to have one road system paid for with a little from everyone.
Second, if you think that a free market is the holy grail for low prices ask seniors what they think of prescrption drug costs? Ever heard of a monopoly? Not supposed to happen - but it does.
"she still has legal recourse to go after the scammers"
Not on her Social Security check she doesn't. And not if government attorneys, which now protect the public’s interest from corporate fraud are eliminated by tax evaporations.
"If that fails, the system would likely have enough from all those others who are no longer needing to draw from the general fund to cover a good portion, if not all, of her losses."
Again, they would still get their SS checks. And don't count on them just giving them back to Social Security if they happen to make some dividends. Besides they wouldn't make anywhere near enough on dividends from "a portion" of a few hundred dollars a month to give anything back.
"Over the long term (ie 40 years for current new workers) you're virtually guaranteed to come out ahead by a small percentage. Even if not, you've always the option to wait out the downturn."
Not if you're that little old lady though. Apparently you're young.
I just want to say that this economy can't provide everyone with the six-figure salaries necessary to be a "rugged individualist" (putting your kids through school(s), maybe helping out your parents with health/housing costs, etc.
Sure, we can all be CEO's of some sort, but who is going to pick up your trash, teach your children, etc.
Progressive taxation (10-20-30-40%) is the best way I see to provide a society that we all can live in.
Confiscatory taxation does suck though.
Gulag America?
Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum, author of a book on Soviet concentration camps, writes about a question posed to her by a BBC interviewer -- “Do you see any parallels between the security state that George Bush has created in America since 9/11 and the Gulag?”
She writes:
I mumbled something about not having noticed that great a difference between daily life in George Bush's America and daily life in Bill Clinton's America, and left it at that. What I should have done was point out, tartly, that access to information is still far freer in America than it is in Britain, that immigrants are far better treated in America than in Britain, and that democracy remains a more open affair in America than in Britain. One always thinks of these things too late.
Several Comments on the Above Themes
I keep hearing anecdotally about friends that voted for Bush and now are horrified about where the Republicans have taken the country.
For some reason this is not showing up in public opinion polls or reflected in the media as rising discontent. Is disaffection with Republican policy really occurring in significant numbers or are we deluding ourselves?
Some time ago, as I worked a bit on family history I was told that immigrants located in America where others from the same European culture were already in colonies.
At the heart of these little colonies was a neighborhood church that communally looked after the colony. When members were out of work, were widowed or orphaned; the church helped out.
This was last half of the 1800s to about the New Deal of Roosevelt. When the government started taking over these functions, the church lost a lot of its importance.
I don't think we can return to that culture today as government services are cut.
With regard to income redistribution and all the moaning about taxes being too high on the wealthy, if management would pay a decent wage to workers there would be no effort to correct this through taxation.
The Southern culture of Republican politics reeks of plantation mentality striving to get everyone working dawn to dusk picking cotton.
As someone who does work for charity, but not ones in the US, I can safely say that Jay's views must be unique to the American perspective; You simply DON'T see rich people in charitable organisations (or most level's of the Anglican Church for that matter)... and if he thinks people will CHOOSE to use their money on charitable causes, he's utterly misguided. I once calculated that during an average day, less than 1.6% of people would actually stop and see what you were asking for support for, and only 0.25% of people would then go on to show any interest. The most common refrains were "it makes no difference" and some variation of "what does it have to do with my time?". Human nature had BETTER be considerably more altruistic in America than here in the UK, because here private charity is not anywhere near able to effectively meet the needs of the unfortunate, due mostly to public disinterest. By way of reference, Christain Aid, like all charities I've worked for, gets most of it's funding from legacies; that is, when people are dead, and no longer want the money for themselves... direct debits and other donations, the sort Jay believes would be more efficient, usually account for around 13% of income. People like Bill Gates, who use their wealth for good causes whilst he's still alive, are very much the exception.
But then again, the American body politic in particular is a curious ideologic beast; obsessed with the issue of personal taxation, and the morality of wealth in it's possesion, it never has gotten around to asking why anyone would "chose" to live in poverty, that is in the abscence of wealth, or be without health coverage etc. What is the current figure for those without coverage in the US? I have a vague memory of around 30-odd million. This is however considered a side effet of the god of market efficiency in the US, and considered a good thing... but would be considered an appalling failure here in Europe; our states work considerably better than their American counterpart in our eyes, because it fails no one when they most need it. Any form of "meritocracy" which says that people deserve to suffer, or that we should allow them too, for what ever reason it's justified seems barbaric to us, yet we are often berated for being "socialist", as if the argument that socialised medicine should somehow be so obviously wrong to us too. We just don't get it however...
Jay - You're clearly a fan of the flat tax.
Taking into account Federal payroll, income and excise taxes, state and local property and sales taxes, we have one.
You should be happy with the status quo.
Jay - You're clearly a fan of the flat tax.
Taking into account Federal payroll, income and excise taxes, state and local property and sales taxes, we have one.
You should be happy with the status quo.
My bad.
After the bubble and its crash, the continuing seepage of accounting scandals, the CEO scams, the lying broker analyst scandals, and the way the big guys walk and little fish like Martha are gutted, who but a winger ideologue would be advocating privatizing any part of social security?
What is it, welfare for the brokers? Pretty much.
What I have never understood is why these zealots don't just take ten, twenty, or thirty dollars a week out of their disposable income, and invest it in the stock market? If Jay is really "working poor," then what he would have diverted from SSI, under the investment plans I've read about, probably wouldn't amount to more that five dollars a week. If they believe so strongly that investment accounts will work, let them put their money where their mouths are.
#1. Please, nobody mention taxes as "theft". Unless you are talking about it in absolutes. If you think that some taxes are ok, then just stop, and talk about the utility of it all. No need to make moral certanties.
#2. I actually like the idea of competitive roadways. My big problem is that capitalist things such as that tend to work down to a single mind in each field. Competition would either be bought out, or "agreements" would be made, to keep out of each others turn. Where I get concerned, is situations where there is not the traffic to support the competition, or where competition is geographically impossible. (Take the only pass through a mountain for 200 miles). As well, the number of toll booths needed would impact your driving experience greatly. (You would need a toll booth on practically every turnoff)
Nice idea, like so many other things, would suck because people suck.
#3. Progressive taxation is a toughie, but I do think that the value of property is immesurable. Without society, ergo government, there would be no property of any kind. In this way alone, the value of a strong government is practically priceless. (Fine..private guards..but they CAN be bought off..and anyway, do we really want such a society?)
#4. When you're screwed on SS it's too late. Chile has had mildly better returns, but those were mostly gone by the profit taking, and were completly wiped out after the somewhat middling fraud. (Only a dab will kill you).
Now, I'm a pragmatic when it comes to taxes. I recognize that there is a time to cut them on the upper class. (When investment is lagging behind consumption), and a time to cut them on the lower classes, (when consumption is lagging behind investment). Now is time for the latter, not the former.
Philly G. sez: Whatever happened to the concept of limited government? Why is private charity seemingly looked down upon as if the government is the only method of helping the poor?
I've been paying into Social Security for two thirds of my life. Today my rate is 6.2% of my entire wage. In addition, my employer pays a matching 6.2%.
In every election for three decades candidates of both parties have solemnly promised that I shall get Social Security benefits if I live to retirement age. When George W. Bush outlined his proposed tax cuts during the 2000 campaign, he assured us that the FICA surplus - that is, the amount by which FICA contributions exceed Social Security administratrion expenses - would be kept untouched in a "locked box."
Of course, Bush lied. What's worse, he had the obscene audacity to mock those who bought his campaign promises and in the very same sentence to mock the three thousand murder victims of 9/11, by repeatedly making a quip about "hitting the trifecta." In front of audiences who laughed and applauded! Why do these people hate America so much?
At any rate as I read his question, Philly G. wants to know why, given the existence of private charity, I won't simply be content when the McKinley administration decides to hand every last cent of my FICA and Medicare tax to millionaires as a tax cut, that, being millionaires, they obviously don't need.
Jay Reding sez: The rich exist because they worked to become that way. They do "pay their dues" not only through higher taxes, but also because they had to earn that million dollar home, that nice car...
Isn't that nice. They worked hard, or inherited money, or won the lottery, or some combination of the above. Good for them. But hey, they're already rich. And the rich have been getting tax cut after tax cut - big ones too, lots bigger, percentage-wise, than any ordinary workers have gotten - during one administration after another for the last twenty years.
Now you tell me why should I stand here and applaud while I get ripped off for thirty years of FICA taxes so millionaires can get yet another tax cut. What will this next round of tax cuts buy them, 75-foot yachts instead of a mere 65-footers? For this I'm supposed to applaud the prospect of the Federal government going flat broke, our currency being turned into toilet paper, and me losing Social Security retirement benefits in my old age?
Re: Private Roadways
These actually existed in the 19th century - they were called "turnpikes" because there'd be a gate (or "pike") at each end that the toll collecter would turn aside to let traffic pass. These eventually died out and were replaced by public tax-supported roads because paying the fees at each new road section was an inefficient pain in the ass. For reasons noted by other posters above, this is just as well.
Something of this survives today in toll roads.
Flak: There's a fundamental problem with your worldview. The rich do not exist because the government lets them. The rich exist because they worked to become that way.
This alone tells us that Jay is a fuckhead.
"The rich" would be peasants scraping the soil of the earth for a few morsels if they didn't have the infrastructure of society around them.
The current rich are rich, for the most part, due to inheriting their wealth. See the Bush Crime Family for reference. Others, like George Soros, understand that the invisible infrastructure of society made it possible for them to enjoy their wealth. The trucking firm guy who makes 2.5 million a year after takes makes 2.47 million a year more than I make before taxes. He does so because millions of people like me pay taxes to build the roads that make his 2.5 million a year after taxes possible.
Jay is a fuckhead because he hasn't bothered to think ANY of this through.
The presocratic philosopher Xenophanes used to say "...if oxen (and horses) and lions had hands or could draw with hands and create works of art like those made by men, horses would draw pictures of gods like horses, and oxen gods like oxen."
When philosopers design the ideal polity, it turns out to be run by philosphers. When generals design the ideal polity it turns out to be run by generals.
Why would the result be any different when the task is given to members of the Lucky Sperm Club>
Valu-Roads? LMAO! Hey Jay, do trucking companies charge the same price to carry a small box weighing a couple of pounds as they charge for carrying a half truck load weighing 10,000 pounds? No? Then what makes you think "Valu-Roads" would charge a huge heavy truck that tears up their road the same as a passenger car that creates very little wear and tear?
In case you still can't grasp it, the trucks in the trucking company owner's fleet very likely cause much more in damage than the $2.5 mill per year that he pays in taxes. In a pay-as-you-go system (which is what your private roads would be), the roadway owner would have to charge accordingly in order to maintain his asset. Which means, the trucking company owner would either 1) have to charge such high prices on freight that he would have much less business (and would as a result make a lot less money) or 2) take a lot less pay so the company can devote that money to paying tolls. As I said before, either way, he'd be making a lot less than he makes under the current "confiscatory" tax system.
Not only that, but private roads would be more expensive for everyone who uses them, because not only must the cost of building and maintaining the road be figured into the use fee, but also some profit.
Next I suppose you'll give us examples about how much better off we'd be to privatize the postal service.
does the Govt. actually do any roads anymore? seems to me alot of infrastructure is falling apart. guess its much easier to get campaign $ for building new roads(ala Tommy fucking Thompson) and more toys for the army.
Hmmmmm...let's see, how many private industries have been receiving government-issued welfare checks? The auto industry, the defense industry, the airline industry, the agribusiness industry, the nuclear industry... And how many fat cats have made their fortunes on the back (and at the expense) of the general welfare? Who was it that said, "If I see further, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants?"
Run away before it is too late! You've entered the dreaded libertarian dystopian Hypothetical Zone! Pretty soon the word "widgets" will rear it's ugly head.
Be afraid.
Matthew - I believe it was Sir Issac Newton who said that, and the "giants" he referred to were Galileo and Copernicus.
Jennifer:
It was a rhetorical question. 
"As for your old lady, chances are she'd still be covered under the old system. Even if not, she still has legal recourse to go after the scammers."
What about when the scammers are Enron, or Worldcom? When corruption in the institution itself is so rampant that stock analysts have a vested interest to keep recommending buys on companies that are internally falling apart?
Ask the people who invested in those companies how the fight to get their money back from those scammers is going.
As for privatization, I notice a common theme with Republican trolls. An utter lack of historical consideration. These social programs they hate so much didn't arise out of nowhere. The regulations on business they despise weren't enacted on a whim. The unions they want to destroy didn't organize just because people were bored and had nothing better to do.
Many programs, regulations and organizations came into being as a response to an injustice, a social problem, or to use the President's vernacular, an EVIL. A classic example is Upton Sinclair, whose depiction of what takes place in a meat-processing plant in his novel "The Jungle" pressed the U.S. government into taking steps to regulate the industry. Business cares about profits, not people.
Jay - if the so-called free market is such a wonderful thing, why is it that companies try as hard as they can to become monopolies? Look at Microsoft and Comcast, to take two examples. Both of them go out of their way to strangle competition. (The cable TV industry is particularly loathsome in this way. I have no choice but to have Comcast because no other cable company is permitted to serve the community. And in my case, because I live in an apartment complex, I can't even go to a Dish setup. Yeah, some competition.)
Guess what Repooplicans? We have already tried it your way. Since you nitwits are obivously not students of history here's a small refresher course. During the late 1800s the Progressive movement was born (BTW many real Republicans were members of this movement) becuase of the concentration of wealth in just a few households (much like today), a lousy news media, and many other conditions that mirror today's society and political landscape. So here's the deal, as you morons convince yourselves that things will be better without Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, etc. etc. just remember about 10 to 20 years from now a new Progressive movement will take over and wipe out all the stupid bullshit policies that you're implementing now. I just hope you dumb asses are around to see it and I hope you haven't permanently damaged our country.
Another thing that private roads would engender is - more and more roads, because profit rather than necessity would now become the motive and these roads would be constructed IN ANTICIPATION that the people will come. Also expect lots more building of towns and cities popping up along the roads in once beautiful, quiet country areas. Sure those driving big city freeways might like the idea but you could expect these extra roads to begin showing up all over.
It would also stifle innovation on alternative transport because the big road corporations would be loathe to see any change that might threaten their bottom line. Kinda like the Detroit CEOs and the Big Oil corps now.
This is the problem with privatization of government programs: you take a strictly needs only system which has to account in painstaking detail its costs and change it to a for profit accountable to themselves and believe me, after an initial "introductory period" of bargain prices, costs to all will begin to climb and climb.
Jay suggests that rich people are by and large OK human beings who mostly deserve, in some sense, their elevated station in life. I admit that it's hard to argue with that. (It's easy to disagree with that, but it's hard to argue with that, because it would just be a battle of subjective generalizations.) I don't think Jay will convince many of the people here that since the rich are generally decent people they should pay less tax, but maybe his line of argument will illustrate the fact that it is a little bit silly to make tax policy based on some sort of moral calculation (implying that the rich have a moral debt therefore they should pay more taxes). Instead, we should argue that the rich should pay more taxes because that will result in a more perfect society.
Let me put it this way: since all taxation can be defined as theft, and since all government spending results in an imbalance between how much one pays into the system and how much one gets out, it is impossible to run a government without "theft" and "redistribution of wealth". Therefore, if you favor the existance of government, you accept the need for "theft" and "redistribution of wealth". Therefore, it is silly to oppose a particular tax code on those grounds, the only sensible reason to oppose a particular tax code is that some other tax code will result in an overall better life for the people taxed and served by that government, by whatever standard you define a better life.
Taxation isn't theft. Taxation is paying for the infrastructure, both tangible (like highways) and intangible (like the legal system that allows for contracts to be made and enforced) that makes the wealth these people posess possible.
They're paying for the machine that generates their wealth. Progressive taxation is the superior way, because we can measure the output of the machine via incomes, and tax those who are deriving the greatest benefit from it proportionally.
There will be plenty of money left over for booze, hookers, and SUVs for those at the top.
Another Republican lie: Social Security needs fixing, and younger payers into the system will never get out what they pay in.
That is fraudulent.
Social Security is in better shape than it was during the 60s to the 90s. It can pay benefits, even with the so-called baby-boom crunch until 2035 without raising taxes. When it runs short of money, as it has before, payroll taxes may be increased, or the age that benefits start may be raised. But this is not unusual, and it means, lucky us, that we're living longer.
Jay, sell your snake-oil somewhere else.
I say let the rich who resent paying taxes leave this country and go to Bermuda or one of the tax havens most of them use and live there. We would be better off without them. They screw up my country. America my country love it, pay for it or leave it. ....and don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
Now let's say that you decide to try a different scheme than multiple roads - use the same roads but now allow companies private ownership perhaps based on an election system. Still with the profit the fundamental motive your costs will be higher than currently. Also expect collusion between companies to drive up costs (yes that actually happens, can you believe it???). While your taxes have pretty much stayed the same for years for example the cost of gas and other "free market" commodities and services like health care has skyrocketed.
You might read the history of monopolies and anti-trust legislation in America.
Unfortunately we are headed back toward the gilded age. And Big Business has lots of little lackeys defending their abuses and voting against their own best interests.
What they have are chumps like Jay who are too lazy or not smart enough to aquire the critical thinking skills that could lift the wool from their eyes.
Anonymous:
The integrity of the roads would also be much lower in a profit-based system. I would expect to see major faults in the road surfaces, low maintenance budgets, and a government-shield from liability for these conditions donated by Congress. Nearly all examples, world-wide, of the privatization of public infrastructure end with the system in disrepair. The profit-based system does not include any inherent incentives to provide for the safety or comfort of consumers.
The rich exist because they worked to become that way.
That is an egregiously assumptuous remark, considering the hegemony, nepotism, and everyday vanilla corporate fraud that gets so many people rich nowadays.
Gary: Thank you for your demonstration of your highly-toned critical thinking skills. I'm sure we're all enlightened by your perceptive logic.
Mac: Would you care to offer some evidence to your claim that Social Security is doing just fine? With an aging population the demands on Social Security will only grow, and this is a problem that must not be ignored.
Jennifer: Yes, the truck owner would likely pay more than the average driver. However, if the hypothetical company charged such an exorbitant fee that the owner could not afford to pay, they wouldn't be in business for long. Markets are based on a very simple principle: people make decisions based on their own interest. If its not in the owners interest to use that road, they don't. However, it's also in the interest of the road company to keep prices at what the market is willing to pay.
The reason why this doesn't take us back to the 1890's is mainly because techology has changed life so profoundly that it would be impossible to go back. The market now demands certain things. For example, I wouldn't work in a job that did not offer health insurance coverage at a reasonable price. That is why companies offer health insurance, not because the government mandates it, but because the market does.
I won't say that all taxation is theft. Even most libertarians agree that there are certain functions of governments like fire service, roads, police, and military that the government should provide under the idea of the social contract. However, the government is also notoriously inefficient and frequently corrupt, which is why it is the best interest of even the bottom 20% to keep a lid on government growth.
Perhaps you can answer me, Jay. How do you propose to decide which services are to be publicly financed?
The other issue is this view of the rich as nepotists who merely won out on life's lottery. Granted, there are some rich people who fit that bill perfectly. However, there's a little thing called the Fallacy of Composition. Just because we hear more about Martha Stewart and Ken Lay does not at all equate to all rich being Martha Stewart and Ken Lay. There are a lot of people who did not grow up wealthy who managed to work hard and earn their money. If one were to take a representative sample of the top income brackets in America you'd very likely find that most of them only recently moved into the upper brackets.
The issue of monopolies is another issue. I'm actually in favor of limited government intervention in extreme cases to preserve market competition.
However, if monopolistic practices were so all-powerful, IBM would still make every computer and AOL/TimeWarner wouldn't be bleeding money. There are benefits to vertical integration, but it can go too far. The larget the company, the harder it falls, and if there's enough demand for a change then someone will fill the void.
Furthermore, government intervention can actually create monopolies. Communications is a prime example of this. You have to pay an incredibly high fee to get a broadcast license in the United States - meaning that only a group with the resources of Clear Channel or others can afford to enter the market. (Even then, satellite radio is beginning to change that market as well - again, if the customers demand choice someone will find a way to offer it.) Regulations don't always create more competition, instead many of them actually supress it.
Jay is clearly a young man who has read WAY too much Ayn Rand. He'll learn.
Oh, and another thing...there are thousands and thousands of private companies in this country whose income derives largely or even exclusively from government contracts.
Less money for the government = less money to recirculate to NON-governmental employers.
These libertarian types are such children. It's astonishing to me that they can get on and off the subway by themselves.
epist: The short answer: use the Constitution. The federal government has a legitimate interest in managing interstate commerce, so interstate highways are in their legitimate domain. They have an interest in granting limited patents, so the Patent Office is fine. Certain others can fall into the commerce power, equal protection, etc.
However, that's only one answer. The longer and vaguer one is to balance out the need for regulation with the consequences of regulation. For example, would the benefits of universal health care outweigh the costs of such a system? When you start looking at things in a balance and accurately and truthfully assessing the costs versus the benefits it quickly becomes obvious that government programs may assuage the guilt of some at the cost of a great burden to many.
There's never been a problem that hasn't been solved by throwing money at it.
The Times? Stand up?
Julia: Actually, I do read Ayn Rand. However, I'm neither objectivist nor libertarian. I will agree that the government can play a constructive, if limited role in helping society. (IE, a libertarian would argue against the existence of Social Security while I would argue that removing it is no longer feasible.)
As for the issue of government contracts, much of that work could also be done more efficiently by leaving the government out of the equation. Again, I'll grant that the government does play a role, and a valuable one, but government spending tends to circulate back into the government bureaucrats rather than into the more critical part of expanding the economy and creating wealth for everyone.
"Usually recessions only last a year or two, and if you can make do for a while you're likely to recoup your investment in time without reducing your benefits in the short term." -- and what does little old lady do in the meanwhile? live in the park and eat out of garbage cans?
Jay,
Do you mean that the courst ought to interpret the constitution here, or the congress?
"Either we decide what public goods are worth paying for with tax money democratically, or it is decided in some other manner. You deride the democratic method as resulting in theft. How do you propose such things be decided?"
I think we should decide democratically. However, as Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, but the only one that works." As a law abiding citizen, I pay taxes. But I'm trying to convince you that liberalism is nothing more than state sponsored theft. You can dress it up as "But they're rich and hence owe society" but that argument makes no sense whatsoever.
I've never met Bill Gates in my entire lifetime and I think it would be greedy of me to demand money from him just because he's wealthier. Society didn't make Bill Gates rich. Bill Gates made Bill Gates rich by producing a product that society wanted to buy from him.
Bill Gates, by being the wealthiest man in America, is also the most generous man in Ammerica even under a flat tax. He would provide more money for roads, for police, for the military, for schools etc than (more than likely) all of us combined.
Not to mention, he contributes billions of dollars in private charity to various organizations. The portrayal of rich people as "evil" by liberals is 99.9 percent of the time, flat out wrong.
epist: The Courts interpret the Constitution, but the Congress has the legal obligation to follow it.
librul: In the meantime, there's always the fraction her Social Security that is not invested in the market as a safety net.
The system works so that the most you'd lose is the fraction you'd invest in, and chances are you'd be unlikely to lose it. Remember, this is long-term investing, and over the long term you're virtually guaranteed some gain.
Also, it's helpful to remember that the same con artists can as easily scam our hypothetical old woman under the current system - the difference being they merely have to do it after the check arrives rather than before.
"The current rich are rich, for the most part, due to inheriting their wealth. See the Bush Crime Family for reference. Others, like George Soros, understand that the invisible infrastructure of society made it possible for them to enjoy their wealth. The trucking firm guy who makes 2.5 million a year after takes makes 2.47 million a year more than I make before taxes. He does so because millions of people like me pay taxes to build the roads that make his 2.5 million a year after taxes possible."
Gary, you ignore the fact that because the truck firm driver is a multi millionaire, he's already paying a much greater quantity of the taxes even under a flat tax than you are. Suppose a flat tax of 10 percent. The 2.5 million dollar truck driver pays 250,000, while you, making 30,000, pay 3000 dollars. He's paying 247,000 more dollars than you are to build the roads. I'm not trying to insult you, but hasn't he paid a greater debt to public goods than you have? Why should he pay even more?
And I know that liberals are best converted by themes such as equality. Well, freer markets do bring greater equality. Higher taxes on business only create bigger conglomerates because small start up businesses are cash strapped by high taxes initially and can never get off the ground. Meanwhile, conglomerates get even bigger as competition fades away. Big business can afford higher taxes since they're already established. Small business can not afford higher taxes or 20 dollar minimum wages because they're more than likely in the red to start off and are merely trying to turn profitable even with low taxes.
That's why most small business owners vote Republican or Libertarian. And don't counter with corporate welfare arguments, because the LP is against that, and REAL Republicans are against it too (Bush is not a REAL Republican).
So you see, freer markets can make EVERYONE wealthier. While some may get more wealthier than others, why does it matter as long as everyone is better off? That's what makes capitalism so great.
Where else besides America do the poorest of the poor own televisions, cars, telephones, cell phones, etc?
>>Where else besides America do the poorest of the poor own televisions, cars, telephones, cell phones, etc?
Y'know, I was just commenting to a friend about how ... unAmerican ... it is to see so many homeless folk here in NYC -- no doubt, among the "poorest of the poor" -- without their own televisions, cars, telephones, cell phones, etc.
Surely, hyperbole is Philly G's forte.
"Where else besides America do the poorest of the poor own televisions, cars, telephones, cell phones"
In every industrial nation in the first world. Most of which have much more progressive tax systems with higher rates, especially on business.
Jay, http://www.cepr.net/Social_Secur....%
20Benefit.htm
Stop believing what people say when they want to scare you. They're telling you lies to sell you something else.
Philly G:I'm actually big for small business and free market and all that. I would be more than thrilled to see taxes slashed for businesses with an annual yearly profit of less than 250k or so, (similar to every other tax, of course). It disapoints me that nobody talks about this, although I understand why, as it brings about talk of slashing it for those above that limit.
Furthermore, I'm all for the Free Market, where it works, and it's actually free. In reality, a truely free market from a consumer standpoint, requires some government intervention. You need laws from both the investor and the consumer end, FOIA-style laws, similar to what the SEC does to make sure that customers have information (as a free market requires full disclousure of information). As well, laws preventing corporations from breaking basic social laws, (enviromental/social policy) are needed, mainly because of the nature of a corp.
Of course, any potential monopoly/cartel behaviour needs to be smacked down and smacked down hard, from regulation, straight through to publicization. Some things are too important to put in public hands.
Capitalism has, as it's natural behavious, a tendency to exert a downward force on social factors. Government must exert an upward force to keep it in check.
Eventually, the result would be a feudal type system that would crash under it's own weight..however that doesn't matter because at that point the game is over and the winners can coast on their power. Government filtering money from the top to the bottom (Through taxes and minimum wages) helps slow this down, as basic level consumption keeps on going.
As well, I think progressive taxation works, as those with more resources have gained more out of society, and as well can afford to pay a larger part of the necessary upkeep of everything. (Some things ARE unnecessary...some necessary things arn't covered as well).
Finally, what do you think would be an acceptable "basement" for a society you would wish to live in? Sweatshop style conditions?
I grew up in an area that years ago had the idea of the "company store". Do a search for that term, if you want to see what we'll be going to by removing the labour and competition protections.
My problem is that eventually, everybody is not better off. Real people get hurt, and everything can fall apart unless you take care of it.
I'm no communist, I like the free market, (I think a lot of companies are against a free market, but I digress) but I have no illusion that it's perfect. Government isn't either..but quite frankly, that's our own damn fault. We get the government we deserve.
Mac: Those figures are, bluntly, wrong. The Social Security Board of Trustees in 2000 projected that the demands of an aging population would place increasing stress on the Social Security system. By 2015, the revenue into the system from payroll taxes will exceed the amount owed to retirees. By the government's own admission, by 2037 there will only be enough to pay 75% of benefits. (There's a good demographic analysis on this at http://www.socialsecurity.org/pu...ssps/ssp21.pdf)
Furthermore, these are Clinton Administration figures that were made before the current economic downturn.
Social Security is in trouble because of an aging society. Unless there is some effort to reform the situation the Social Security program will be in the same crisis as the French system is now.
Philly - Bill Gates is a very bad example of someone whose wealth was accrued solely by their own effort.
The entire computer industry was built upon massive amounts of government R&D. No government, no Bill Gates.
Jay, sir, Social Security is not facing insolvency. Deal with it. It is a lie foisted on us by Republicans who want to privatize (and eventually destroy) our entitlements, and Democrats who want us to vote for them, because they are historically the party that protects seniors.
AARP is wrong. Politicians are wrong. Wall Street is wrong. They all have an agenda and a need to profit from people's fear. What is your agenda, Jay?
Social Security is not going bankrupt.
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/...umn/
040202.html
Oh, and, ha ha ha, Clinton Administration figures made before the economic downturn?
Dean Baker was quite aware of the stock market bubble, and, despite the fact that guys like you were trying to push the privatization of Social Security by pointing to the "endless bubble," Mr. Baker was pointing out the inherent flaw in tying entitlements to a volatile market.
The Social Security surplus cannot be spent. It can only be borrowed against, which only a severely reckless administration and Congress would ever attempt. (Hmmm...) The figures were made using the Trustees own data.
For more: http://www.cepr.net/sstrustees.htm
Jay is, without question, a fuckhead. Not in the class of Tiernan, mind you, but a fuckhead nevertheless.
How can I disagree with so much?
Markets are based on a very simple principle: people make decisions based on their own interest. If its not in the owners interest to use that road, they don't. However, it's also in the interest of the road company to keep prices at what the market is willing to pay.
Corporations are based on a single principle: profit. People make decisions based on their own interest, but corporations make decisions based upon profit. As an example, I would have you turn to the deregulation of the California electricity markets. Also, as homework, I would have you examine the effect of deregulation on former public utilities in every country owned by the IMF & WTO.
The reason why this doesn't take us back to the 1890's is mainly because techology has changed life so profoundly that it would be impossible to go back. The market now demands certain things. For example, I wouldn't work in a job that did not offer health insurance coverage at a reasonable price. That is why companies offer health insurance, not because the government mandates it, but because the market does.
Unfortunately, not all businesses take advantage of these advances in "technology." 40 million Americans are uninsured. Do you think they're all biding their time? Not only are the costs for healthcare skyrocketing (another one of those free hands operating, eh?), but many companies are also taking the current sour market as an excuse to eviscerate current coverage.
Your market example works when it's a buyer's game. But when it's a seller's game, and the corporations hold the reigns, all of those little protections like...living wages, medical insurance, paid vacation, sick-leave, maternity leave...go out the window. Just try getting a job in today's market with all of the perks you might have found in the 90s. The government has the power to insure against downturns in the market through cooperative action.
Philly G: You don't seem to understand. That truck firm owner is deriving a hell of a lot more out of the machine of society than I am. Which is fine. However, I refuse to be asked to pay for his ride on the machine. Let him pay for his own hookers and booze. He gets more out of it, therefore he should pay more for it. That's what progressive taxation is all about.
You get more out of the engine, you pay more into its upkeep and maintenance. It's really a very simple concept. Only greed, a totally obscene sense of entitlement and an entense desire to get something for nothing on the backs of others stands between you and enlightenment...or your turn in the Duck Pit.
However, the government is also notoriously inefficient and frequently corrupt, which is why it is the best interest of even the bottom 20% to keep a lid on government growth.
Large corporations aren't notoriously inefficient? Didn't we bail out the airline industry a couple of years ago? What about Chrysler? Could the defense industry even operate without government welfare checks?
As for the issue of government contracts, much of that work could also be done more efficiently by leaving the government out of the equation.
How, exactly? I mean, how is it that the profit that has to be made on every private enterprise would not sap the "efficiency" of every large project much more than the government does? Are you under the impression that the profit margin one company needs does not enter into the price it charges another?
So how does a private company plan and coordinate large-scale projects and pay for capital-intensive contracts with industries currently supplying the government without also adding the additional cost of another layer of profit-taking to the project?
It's hilarious that you believe government is somehow naturally more corrupt and inefficent than private industry, when government by its very nature has to account to ALL of us for everything it does and private industry only accounts to its little club of stockholders.
Are you under the impression that monopolies and monoliths as huge and lumbering as government would not take over in industries where competition is in fact an INEFFICIENT way to accomplish a task?
Or don't you believe that there are any such tasks? Have you heard of a little thing called overcapacity lately? No? Better read up.
Again, I'll grant that the government does play a role, and a valuable one, but government spending tends to circulate back into the government bureaucrats rather than into the more critical part of expanding the economy and creating wealth for everyone.
Jay, Jay, Jay. Are you under the impression that those "government bureaucrats" live in France? Do you assume that they are not going to spend their salaries in the U.S. of A?
The only kind of government spending that DOESN'T recirculate into the economy, "creating wealth for everyone" is interest payments on the debt held by foreigners. A lot of military spending is often less stimulative than other kinds of government spending, too, because it often consists of huge sunk costs sitting around on runways waiting to be used, or munitions which are made to be blown up, none of it productivity enhancing in the sense that schools and health care are.
Oh, and as long as we're talking about recirculating American money into the American economy, I'm sure you're aware that a considerable part of dividends and capital gains made on American companies are distributed to foreigners as well.
Thus paying government bureaucrats is actually an excellent "recirculative" strategy for an economy stuck in the doldrums of overcapacity.
You're wrong about Social Security, too. You need to read more current information. Avoid, at all costs, the material put out by people with a vested interest in raking it in from an artificially inflated stock market dependent on public money.
If one were to take a representative sample of the top income brackets in America you'd very likely find that most of them only recently moved into the upper brackets.
I'd definitely contest this; however, I couldn't prove the converse. Definitely something worth studying, but I think it's possible that the vast majority of rich Americans inherited their fortunes.
Furthermore, government intervention can actually create monopolies. Communications is a prime example of this. You have to pay an incredibly high fee to get a broadcast license in the United States - meaning that only a group with the resources of Clear Channel or others can afford to enter the market.
Excuse me? Clear Channel devoured the market. This is why broadcast radio is no longer diverse. I'd advise you to look up the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Government deregulation--not intervention--led to this monopoly.
I'd also like to point out that because of the design of our system, the stewardships of corporation and government belong to the rich. I believe this is an unavoidable side-effect of the market economy. As a result, decisions made in the system tend to overwhelmingly favor the rich. The only way to overcome this favoritism is through democracy, free elections, and government regulations.
A lot of conservative positions beg the question, "What functions should a particular arm of government serve?" In America, they have to concede that the government should provide some services, but they refuse to rise to the debate of which functions it should serve. The tax debate needs to be rephrased by liberals similarly: We know the government has to tax its people, but how much and for what purposes? Obviously, the conservatives realize this, because they don't argue for abolishing the income tax, or replacing such a tax with a tariff-based system for services or a flat yearly-fee for citizenship. But they will continue to muddy the waters until we (liberals) do something about it.
The government IS a giant protection racket which steals from everyone. Human nature being what it is, we need protection from each other and from our own base instincts. Hey, it's better than total anarchy -- or paying off Paulie Walnuts every week so he won't break your kneecaps.
Obviously, the conservatives realize this, because they don't argue for abolishing the income tax, or replacing such a tax with ..... a flat yearly-fee for citizenship.
Didn't Maggie Thatcher basically try this approach when she replaced rates with the poll tax?
Jay,if you want to go look at a no tax/low tax place go to a third world country. Maybe you want to live in a third world country but I most certainly don't and BTW I have real world experience living in a third world country. Everytime I hear a maroon talking about privatization and low tax/no tax crap I want to send them over to a thrid world country. No automatic trips to the hosptial. No ambulances. No fire stations. No EPA. No trash pick up. No decent court system. No "911" system to call cops. No social safety net( That means if you work in a machine and chop off your arm you best have money to support yourself or you be out begging on the streets.)
As far as this poor people get rich crap. Puhleeze. Bill Gates - puhleeze. Gates is the son of a wealthy lawyer who was sent to the toniest school in Seattle. I don't begrudge him any of his success but don't tell me he was some working class sob who became rich. It's not easy to go from being dirt poor to wealthy in this country. It's not real hard to go from middle class to wealthy.
And just so that you don't think I'm a pinko commie green I actually think the people who are truly screwed in this country tax wise are working people(couples/singles) in the $75-$250K/yr. Thats the core of the middle/upper middle class who pay through the nose. I couldn't care less about those who make over $350k. These people are not wrking people - they are self employed folks for whom its easier to cheat on taxes and generally can find more legit deductions.
"Y'know, I was just commenting to a friend about how ... unAmerican ... it is to see so many homeless folk here in NYC -- no doubt, among the "poorest of the poor" -- without their own televisions, cars, telephones, cell phones, etc.
Surely, hyperbole is Philly G's forte."
Monica, how much are you willing to bet that 99 percent of those are people who had crack addictions, heroine addictions etc?
At what point do people have to start taking responsibility for their own actions? The government is not constitutionally permitted to fund destructive behavior.
And as I've said before, there are private charities such as homeless shelters that can help these people get back on their feet. I suggest you volunteer with one. My comments were referring to the poor among the working class who live relatively luxurious lives compared to even middle and upper class residents in say...Bulgaria.
"Corporations are based on a single principle: profit. People make decisions based on their own interest, but corporations make decisions based upon profit. As an example, I would have you turn to the deregulation of the California electricity markets. Also, as homework, I would have you examine the effect of deregulation on former public utilities in every country owned by the IMF & WTO."
First things first: Liberals need to stop demonizing the word profit as if its heresy. Profit is what allows companies to hire people who in turn contribute even more to society and hopefully continue the cycle. I think you are confusing the Libertarian philosophy with anarchy. Certainly there needs to be regulations even under a Libertarian society to help enforce contracts and to ensure that the product is legitimate. The issue of energy companies is complex because the energy companies in California are natural monopolies ie, not prone to competition because it isn't feasible to have multiple natural gas companies in one area for instance.
Remember, this crisis was created by a Democrat who seemingly didn't notice the crisis arising and made no effort to account for it. Instead, he tried to cover it up.
"at what the market is willing to pay" or HAS to pay.
"That is why companies offer health insurance, not because the government mandates it, but because the market does". Perhaps but lots of people have lost their insurance. Your story works in an environment where many or most companies offer good health insurance plans. But free market is a double-edged sword, it can go either way. If enough companies take away health insurance than there is less risk in losing people to those that did once offer it. Moreover, the benefit to the corporations are of course money saved that was once paid out for the insurance of its employees.
"However, the government is also notoriously inefficient and frequently corrupt" and answerable to the voters, unlike private corporations. And do you mean to imply that corporations aren't notoriously inefficient and frequently corrupt?
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
(letter to Col. William F. Elkins)
Ref: The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY)
"Remember, this is long-term investing, and over the long term you're virtually guaranteed some gain."
Of which much or all can be lost in a very short period in an economic downturn like the one we have at present. I know.
"are you aware that Big Business often pays NO taxes whatsoever? Enron, for example paid none.
"And don't counter with corporate welfare arguments, because the LP is against that, and REAL Republicans are against it too (Bush is not a REAL Republican)."
Doesn't matter. Business expenses are tax deductible and further business benefit by all kinds of tax payer provided governmental aid. Why not the working poor?
"Where else besides America do the poorest of the poor own televisions, cars, telephones, cell phones, etc?"
You forgot and have to work to or more miserable jobs just to get by and cannot afford to get sick without fear of massive longterm debt.
"Monica, how much are you willing to bet that 99 percent of those are people who had crack addictions, heroine addictions etc?"
And the rich don't? What about Dubya? His daughters? Well they're rich so it's different...
"At what point do people have to start taking responsibility for their own actions? The government is not constitutionally permitted to fund destructive behavior."
Would you include alcoholism in that condemnation. The poor get depressed and turn to drugs and they should PAY for their crimes. The rich get to become President.
"Liberals need to stop demonizing the word profit as if its heresy."
Well of course profit is what turns the economy. But what we are talking about here is profitizing, or I should privatizing basic necessities, not luxuries. Look at the programs that the government administer and you will find they cover basic needs, from police, to schools to libraries to a clean environment. Profitizing these would be just plain wrong.
"Remember, this crisis was created by a Democrat who seemingly didn't notice the crisis arising and made no effort to account for it. Instead, he tried to cover it up."
Uh, no offense but what planet have you been on?
And you guys STILL miss the point. Yes, the owner of the trucking company would be paying more in taxes than YOU are under a flat-tax system -he pays $500K on his $5 mill, and you pay $3K on your $30,000.
And the $3K you pay, combined with the $500K he pays still falls about $3 million short of the damage to our roadways caused by his trucks. The tax you pay, along with the taxes paid by 1,000 other taxpayers, go to subsidize his desire for great wealth.
While under a progressive system of taxation, he makes $5 mill, and pays $2.5 mill in taxes. Which still falls $1 mill short of covering the infrastructure cost of operating the business from which he draws $2.5 mill after taxes. He's still getting a subsidy, without which he wouldn't be making $2.5 mill a year. But he's coming a lot closer to paying the true costs for his business, and he's still able to make a fabulous salary and employ workers. Which was Gary's point about how the wealthy benefit more from the protections and services of government than the rest of us do.
Jennifer,
Perfectly put. I could not have explained the point of progressive taxation better.
The only reason why the Rush Limbaughs of this world ever have anyone believe their pap - is because they offer a dumbed-down, seemingly common sense excuse for their desire to perpetuate the privelege of the upper class.
It is hard for people to understand that paying taxes is the price one pays for being an American. Taxes are not a burden, they are a fair exchange of money for services. SOmetimes the money is wasted on stpud things, sometimes the money is given to crooked companies, but most of the time, the money is well spent.
The idiots that say -"That money is mine!" either think they are no longer Americans, or that they simply have no interest in paying their fair share. In the era of personal responsibility, paying your taxes is just being fair.
Profit is wonderful when it's made by selling a good or service at a fair price. When it's made through profiteering a basic need that one can't afford NOT to have, but at a price that people can't afford either, it becomes a serious drag on society and the economy.
The middle clas are the ones that are screwed over, no doubt about that.
Myself? Taxes don't bother me. For the most part, I see them as being a great value, something that if I were asked to pay my fair share for each and every service, I'm getting a heck of a deal.
Another example that occurs to me this morning of collusion on the part of business to keep the price of goods high so as to not just make a profit but make a KILLING, and in a "free market" no less, is breakfast cereal. In fact the cost of a box of cereal is so high, $4 - $6, compared to the pennies it actually takes to produce it that there have even been congressional hearings on the subject.
May I suggest that henceforth we refer to "privatizing" this or that government program as "profitizing" so that people will immediately understand the true motives behind this movement?
Actually, for the sake of competition, I would even like to see the government get involved in the production of some basic food staples. If, for example, you have the choice of buying a loaf of bread at perhaps 25c or 50c per vs buying it at between $2 - $5 dollars my guess is that you'll choose the cheaper one which would then FORCE the profiteers, if they want the business, to lower theirs as well (to much grumbling I'm sure)since they could not collude with the government to drive up prices.. As they already pay their farmers a pittance vs the mega bucks salaries the fat-cat CEOs get they couldn't cut pay to them so the CEOs would just have to cut their own exorbitant pay a bit.
This could work for other necessities as well such as auto insurance.
Anonymous,
Don't bet on it. Where are most affordable clothes manufactured? Where, increasingly, is tobacco grown?
Until these issues are addressed globally, corporations will always be able to find someplace cheaper, vs cutting into their profits.
dont bet on it.
i have seen the fashion magazine before but one made by bruce gilden. loved it. i did not know alec soth also made one. thinking about ordering a copy now…
Dont' bet on it dude. you will be on trouble.
Good on betting.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
