Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Please give the exact percentage numbers in your ideal equitable tax structure.
Funny, whenever I hear people on the right saying we need to cut taxes I ask the same question. When the government has a surplus and the economy is good, we should cut taxes because its the individuals money and when times are tough and the government is running a debt we should cut taxes to stimulate the economy.
Well I can happily answer. I'm a big supporter of the flat tax, much like some of the former Soviet bloc countries have adopted after Communism. Of course it's arbitrary, but I think 10% across the board for everyone in the country. If you make one dollar a year, you pay 10 cents. Now only about half the country pays income tax. If everyone is taxed, everyone has skin in the game, and woukd be less likely to vote for drunken sailor spending.
I don't particularly think taxation is the biggest problem right now, although it is a Leviathan all its own. The big problem is spending levels and the government doing way more than it is constitutionally allowed to. National defense, roads, and inter-state law enforcement are the basics which the federal government should be confined to,
Ok, cw, while what you describe isn't socialism per se, it is a bit like Progressivism.
Here's an interesting statement. Is Progressivism something bad? Weren't Social Security, the 8-hour workday and other humanitarian measures part of the Progressive package?
The Progressive movement itself (the first wave from roughly 1890-1920) was quite insidious, especially under the first Roosevelt and Wilson. Many progressives pushed eugenics and a general expansion in the powers of government. The guiding belief of the likes of Wilson, was that there should be an administrative state run by only the smartest and most well-educated technocrats, the Constitution be damned.
Things like Social Security are nice in theory. But depend on an expanding young, working class. And was never intended to cover every single person in society. The Constitution stipulated "negative" rights mostly limiting what the government could NOT do. It did not intend for the state to be an arbiter of charity and special priveliges. Constitutional rights don't detract from the rights of others. Your freedom of religion does not hurt me. But imagining and that I have a "right" to healthcare, or a house, or a car, or a TV, provided by the state, DOES cost other people in society. If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count in the support of Paul.
Similarly, the minimum wage sounds nice, but is destructive in practice, and actually has very racist origins. The black youth unemployment rate was 9% in 1948, but today is over 50%. This is because of the high cost to hire youths due to the minimum wage.
Have you read Ayn Rand, Knight? You'd love her writing. She was big on totally unfettered capitalism, no regulation, no social security, worker's rights, no mercy.
Funny that Europe has managed quite well with a strong welfare state, though that's changing. The US managed well, too, until Reaganomics, and repeated tax cuts for the higher income brackets. There used to be a concept of the public good, the common weal. Now it's every man, woman and child for him/herself.
Have you read Ayn Rand, Knight? You'd love her writing. She was big on totally unfettered capitalism, no regulation, no social security, worker's rights, no mercy.
Funny that Europe has managed quite well with a strong welfare state, though that's changing. The US managed well, too, until Reaganomics, and repeated tax cuts for the higher income brackets. There used to be a concept of the public good, the common weal. Now it's every man, woman and child for him/herself.
I read "We the Living" about life in the 1920s Soviet Union. That's all I ever read of her's.
I am a capitalist, and I am a working class man and student. All my experiences with regulation in the painting industry showed a government and regulators that were incompetent and who had no practical business experience. (No walking on roofs, no modern sanders, ladders only allowed at certain angles) and face draconian fees if not followed.
And good, I think society and individuals are much better off when looking out for their own self-interest, rather than relying on the paternal nobeless oblige of the governing class. I think the poor, minorities, or various favored groups are fully capable of achieving success by the efforts of their own toil. In my private life and non-military work, I just want to be left alone by the busybodies of government.
And Europe is facing a harsh reality. Thatcher was not quite right when she said you would eventually run out of other peoples' money in the welfare state. Instead, you run out of people to stick it to for the tab of "progress."
Didn't you say you're going into the military in 2012? So, if heaven forbid, something ghastly should happen to you, you'd rely on the Vet Admin's hospitals. So, what's that, another type of welfare? Don't you have money saved up to pay your own hospital bill?
Yes, there are silly building codes, and other types of regs. But one reason hospital bills are so high now is de-regulation. The airline industry has never really recovered from deregulation. The current economic "recession" we're in was caused by deregulation of the banking industry. There are good regs, that tend to deal with the bigger picture, and not-so-good regs, that micro-manage small industries.
I didn't know Rand had written about life in the USSR, in the 20's. Life there was very grim back then. The country was wrecked by war, and then the revolution happened. Well, I guess life before the revolution wasn't that great, either, depending on who you were. Rand wrote a couple of works of fiction that spell out her philosophy of economics. You'd love them. See Amazon. Enjoy. Happy New Year.
I read through all the comments here and there are some good points. As an outsider looking in on the conversation, may I share my thoughts? Good. It seems that what is being said here is Capitalism IS good. For a TIME. It seems to me that the IDEA and the initial practice of Capitalism at first DOES work, but over time allows too much power to be given to a very small few. (i.e. the wealthy, politicians, etc.) And because of the unequal distribution of power, it becomes an unequal distribution of...well...everything. Wealth, health care, jobs, welfare, taxes, so on and so forth. So, if the question is "Does Capitalism work?" My personal opinion is, Yes. But only for a short time. I think Capitalism is fatally flawed. It's designed to convince people that "Hey, this is great!" And for a while, it is. But once the truth is seen it's too late. People are easily swayed into believing what they are told. Especially by people with much power. (Government tells you to buy duct tape, hey we better buy some duct tape! A homeless man tells you He needs money for food, and we just keep walking figuring the 'drunk needs some booze'.)This mentality allows us to just keep on going, status quo. They Keep telling us "This is great" and even though we are unemployed, hungry, and homeless, we keep saying, "Well, they say it's great. So it must be great!" I don't think that capitalism in America will continue as it is for much longer. And I don't mean that withing the next few days, or years or even generations it will end. But eventually, it will. All great super powers eventually eat themselves. Look at the Roman Empire and the Egyptian Empire. Grease, so on and so forth. I don't know what the ultimate answer is, but maybe someday, someone will find out and implement it.
The way you describe is how it has turned out in the US, LittleMighty. And maybe in the UK with Thatcher, I don't know. But the US is uniquely corporate-driven. Most of Europe isn't like that, so I think we should be careful about drawing generalizations about capitalism based on the US experience. And just because politicians and corporations take control doesn't mean capitalism is inherently flawed, or not in that way. In socialist countries there are entrenched power structures, too, whose members enjoy lives of privilege, even though in theory everyone is supposed to be equal. Does that mean socialism as an economic system is bad? Or does it mean, instead, that the political system around it is dysfunctional? Does socialism necessarily require a repressive political system? I think politics is politics, whether it's in a capitalist or a socialist system. Power corrupts no matter what the economic environment is.
I'm not sure where that leaves us. I think some kind of blend of the two is best. What about Canada? What about Sweden?
Please give the exact percentage numbers in your ideal equitable tax structure.
Pre-Reagan, surprisingly enough, the top individual tax rate was 92%. That would be for the Bill Gateses, the Rockefellers, and those types. I only found this out fairly recently. I'd always heard it was Scandinavia that had such high taxes. This is what created a prosperous society with much opportunity for upward mobility, via plentiful college scholarships, among other things. I don't think we need to return to such high rates. Maybe around 70-75% for the highest earners, eliminating loopholes, would be more fair, and would still do much to pull us out of the economic hole we're in. We need money to repair failing infrastructure (a good project that would create jobs), at the very least. We don't even have the money to repair collapsing bridges and antiquated sewer and water delivery systems.
There's a reason we have taxes. There's no other way to pay for fire departments, libraries, and police forces. Would you have everyone hiring their own armed guards, rather than supporting a public police force? How would highways be paid for? There are public benefits that need to be paid for and maintained with public money. Public schools and universities are another example. Did you go to public school as a child? Your education was paid for with taxpayer money.
This discussion is starting to sound awfully familiar. Didn't we just go through this a couple of months ago? But that was before Bekenze and Knight, I guess. I can't help noticing that the membership tends to fall into a rut when certain topics come up. That includes me, too. Oh well. :-/
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Here's an episode of This Week With Christiane Amanpour that aired a few weeks ago. Its a debate between the general approach of the left vs the right. On the left are Barney Frank and Robert Reich on the right are Paul Ryan and George Will. Largely civil and very helpful in clarifying the differences in approach.
Yes, because it was created by humans. So by definition, it's flawed. Next question?
I do not like arguing semantics. Of course it is "flawed," but you know what I meant. ... Let me rephrase the original post: Is (American) capitalism such a flawed system that it should be drastically changed or even done away with for a better system?
Didn't you say you're going into the military in 2012? So, if heaven forbid, something ghastly should happen to you, you'd rely on the Vet Admin's hospitals. So, what's that, another type of welfare? Don't you have money saved up to pay your own hospital bill?
The military does provide free medical... and housing.. and food. You also have to keep in mind that junior members are not making minimum wage, and are working under conditions that would be considered illegal in the private sector. It's a different animal.
Ha--expected a much stronger response to this, but this will do. It's still paid for by tax-payers. The OP has now modified the question, so let's address that.
Is (American) capitalism such a flawed system that it should be drastically changed or even done away with for a better system?
Most systems are flawed, except maybe the barter system, and most societies are too complex for that. Socialism as we've seen it in action was fatally flawed, as the Chinese recognized, so they switched to market capitalism. With some help from an economist who defected from Taiwan to the PRC, according to an article I read. Anyway, Socialism doesn't work in part because centrally planned economies don't work. Capitalism doesn't work if everyone doesn't pay their share in taxes, and if there aren't safety nets. Before FDR there weren't any.
We can debate endlessly what taxes should or shouldn't be used for, but the bigger picture is that both Capitalism and Socialism/Communism trash the environment. They need cheap resources in order to expand, and they create a lot of waste. So some new system needs to be devised. OP, if you're interested, read the book "Small Is Beautiful". It's about community-based businesses, rather than huge conglomerates, and how that would work much better.
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
The modern capitalist system emerged during the expansion and growth of the US. I wonder how much of the current thinking on economics was shaped by people living in a country where resources and land were abundant and cheap. Money was easily made by exploiting resources and destruction of the land wasn't much of an issue because there was always more. The current model seems to be based on unending growth and expansion. This maybe worked better when there was room and resources to continually grow and expand.
Just a thought that occured. Not sure how accurate it is.
The modern capitalist system emerged during the expansion and growth of the US. I wonder how much of the current thinking on economics was shaped by people living in a country where resources and land were abundant and cheap. Money was easily made by exploiting resources and destruction of the land wasn't much of an issue because there was always more. The current model seems to be based on unending growth and expansion. This maybe worked better when there was room and resources to continually grow and expand.
Just a thought that occured. Not sure how accurate it is.
Perhaps. But I'm not so sure that the resources seemed so cheap at the time.
I do agree that back then environmental concerns were nearly nil.
There isn't, because no one has tried to create one. One suggestion that's been made is to factor in to cost estimates the cost of cleaning up pollution, and other economic costs of doing business. I think humanity is intelligent and creative enough to come up with a system.
@person The capitalist system existed well before the settlement of the 13 colonies. It was capitalists who funded the establishment of some of those early settlements, and they required a return on their investment. The colonists were required to turn a profit for those who underwrote the voyage.
On the topic of big government: Do you think there should be a law that raw meat at the supermarket needs to be bagged in a plastic bag? There is one in my state, but my question is whether you think it is neccessary?
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@person The capitalist system existed well before the settlement of the 13 colonies. It was capitalists who funded the establishment of some of those early settlements, and they required a return on their investment. The colonists were required to turn a profit for those who underwrote the voyage.
Good point, though I was trying to talk about the modern capitalist system and the way that its practiced today. Maybe it would have been better to say evolved instead of emerged.
Good point, though I was trying to talk about the modern capitalist system and the way that its practiced today. Maybe it would have been better to say evolved instead of emerged.
Right. I was wondering if that's what you meant. Capitalism in North America (I don't know about Europe--pretty crowded by the time the colonies were founded, not a lot of cheap natural resources. Oh, but they had other overseas colonies, Africa, South America, etc.) did grow at a time when there were plentiful resources, but also there was no regulation on much of commerce, like the railroads. Resources had to be shipped out by train, and that's how people made their fortune--the railroad robber barrons. Also land speculation, as the border of the new nation moved West, inexorably.
@Jeffrey Do you know the reason behind the law? Can you still use butcher paper or are we talking about the bagging at the register? It still amazes me how the govt dictates how we live.
On the topic of big government: Do you think there should be a law that raw meat at the supermarket needs to be bagged in a plastic bag? There is one in my state, but my question is whether you think it is neccessary?
I've never heard of this. What's the rationale? maybe this should go on a separate thread, it seems off-topic. Maybe there can be a thread on government micro-managing. Is this a state reg, Jeffrey?
@Telly, bagging at the register of say chicken. The chicken I buy has a styrofoam bottom, an absorbant pad and then it is wrapped in plastic.
I am talking about the checkout bagging. The checkout women/men are required by law to use a plastic bag. (in addition to the factory packing)
It seems pretty trivial but I was interested in how absolute the position of big government should be. Should it be absolute ie no regulations such as the plastic which may save a few lives? Should the buyer beware?
@Dakini, I posted because I wondered how absolute 'avoiding big government' should be. I think the chicken thing can be argued either way. The question I am examining is how extreme 'no big government' should be. Is it flexible and siutuational or is it an ideology?
How is wrapping YOUR chicken in a plastic bag going to save lives? All it does is save any chicken drippings from spilling in your car, so your car won't reek of chicken the rest of its life. Whole Foods doesn't allow their cashiers to use plastic bags. If the customer requests, they put the chicken in a separate paper bag. Should the buyer beware of what? Chickens rising from the dead and leaping out of their plastic container to assault customers? Chicken grease spilling onto the customer's shirt? Which lives are at stake here? :scratch:
@Dakini, salmonella if the juices drip onto your vegetables. Do you cook Dakini?
I've never had those chickens drip. So I guess the concern is that the store would be liable if some chicken drippings got on your vegetables in the store's bag, so they're protecting themselves from a potential lawsuit by requiring the chickens to be plastic-bagged? What state is this in? Some states or cities (San Francisco) don't allow plastic bags. Whole Foods doesn't have them in the store, they're not worried about zombie chicken dribblings. :zombie: idk. Do we care? Are we against plastic bags?
I cut the chicken in its little container, I don't put it on a cutting board. Raw chicken, yes, but then I wash the board. What is it exactly we're supposed to be getting worked up about here? What's the issue? Plastic bags are bad, but required? Plastic bags are your friend? Government meddling in your grocery bag is bad? Only Capitalism meddles in your grocery bag, Socialism lets you die of salmonella?
Maybe we should get back to Economics and Capitalism.
"I've never had those chickens drip. So I guess the concern is that the store would be liable if some chicken drippings got on your vegetables in the store's bag, so they're protecting themselves from a potential lawsuit by requiring the chickens to be plastic-bagged?"
Yeah it's a regulation, I'm not even sure if it is state or federal. Not sure if it's a question of lawsuits from consumers or if the government can fine for not following the regulation. Probably both. Michigan.
Ok maybe it's not a good discussion topic I just had been thinking about it as a good thing to have regulations to prevent loss of life. It's a regulation that I like because it saves a life,,, so do we say that's bad because it's big government.
I hadn't realized all the angles including the zombie dynamic
I get you now, Jeffrey. Your example was an illustration of how gov't micro-managing businesses isn't always a bad thing. Right, there are safety regulations that are good. Take building codes. Most localities have building codes to prevent the builder or homeowner from electrocuting him/herself or others. Or from falling off a roof, as someone posted earlier. I know people, though, who say, "I want to build my house MY way. If I want to risk electrocuting myself, that's MY business. :hrm: " So, idk. Go figure. But for now, I think in most states, grocery stores are allowed to put us at risk of accidental salmonella contamination via the shopping bags.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I know people, though, who say, "I want to build my house MY way. If I want to risk electrocuting myself, that's MY business. :hrm: "
I've run across these people too. The thing is though if their house catches fire that endangers the neighbors. Once they don't live there anymore new occupants have no idea whats going on behind the walls.
Capitalism in America is coming full circle back to where it was in the days of the robber barons. The disparity between the top and the bottom has become, once again, obscene. CEOs and other top managers are making amounts of money that are utterly beyond all reason or common sense - at the expense of everyone else in society. It's completely unsustainable, and is totally based on greed/avarice. There is no such thing as "enough" to these people.
The problem is, nobody in government cares. Someone said to me recently that Congress is completely bought off. I can't help noticing the Presidency isn't far behind. :eek: Did I say that out loud?
That's such a depressing thought, though. I think the solution to all the problems facing the US is to put in place a realistic tax structure, but nobody's interested. Why did the Dems bother to get one of their own into the Presidency, and take over Congress, if they weren't going to fix anything? Why line all their ducks up in a row if they weren't planning to shoot? :scratch:
I believe that Capitalism has provided great benefits to society. It started as a way to expand trade. For example, If I built houses and my neighbor caught fish, I could build him a house in exchange for food. When I need more food and he already has his house, I could build someone else a house, get paid for it and buy more fish. Financial gain was tied to satisfying the needs of society and began to provide incentive to get things done that would make people's lives better.
Once economics became a science and began to utilize equations to describe the science, people started to manipulate the equations in ways where the profits did not necessarily reflect what was best for society. The expression "we need to create a demand for our product" is indicative of how the need for profit is out of sync with the needs of people.
Unfortunately I do not have a real answer but I would like to see a society where the currency is kindness and where it's not how much you have that makes you rich but how much you give.
Comments
So whats the correct tax rate?
I don't particularly think taxation is the biggest problem right now, although it is a Leviathan all its own. The big problem is spending levels and the government doing way more than it is constitutionally allowed to. National defense, roads, and inter-state law enforcement are the basics which the federal government should be confined to,
Things like Social Security are nice in theory. But depend on an expanding young, working class. And was never intended to cover every single person in society. The Constitution stipulated "negative" rights mostly limiting what the government could NOT do. It did not intend for the state to be an arbiter of charity and special priveliges. Constitutional rights don't detract from the rights of others. Your freedom of religion does not hurt me. But imagining and that I have a "right" to healthcare, or a house, or a car, or a TV, provided by the state, DOES cost other people in society. If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count in the support of Paul.
Similarly, the minimum wage sounds nice, but is destructive in practice, and actually has very racist origins. The black youth unemployment rate was 9% in 1948, but today is over 50%. This is because of the high cost to hire youths due to the minimum wage.
Funny that Europe has managed quite well with a strong welfare state, though that's changing. The US managed well, too, until Reaganomics, and repeated tax cuts for the higher income brackets. There used to be a concept of the public good, the common weal. Now it's every man, woman and child for him/herself.
I am a capitalist, and I am a working class man and student. All my experiences with regulation in the painting industry showed a government and regulators that were incompetent and who had no practical business experience. (No walking on roofs, no modern sanders, ladders only allowed at certain angles) and face draconian fees if not followed.
And good, I think society and individuals are much better off when looking out for their own self-interest, rather than relying on the paternal nobeless oblige of the governing class. I think the poor, minorities, or various favored groups are fully capable of achieving success by the efforts of their own toil. In my private life and non-military work, I just want to be left alone by the busybodies of government.
And Europe is facing a harsh reality. Thatcher was not quite right when she said you would eventually run out of other peoples' money in the welfare state. Instead, you run out of people to stick it to for the tab of "progress."
Yes, there are silly building codes, and other types of regs. But one reason hospital bills are so high now is de-regulation. The airline industry has never really recovered from deregulation. The current economic "recession" we're in was caused by deregulation of the banking industry. There are good regs, that tend to deal with the bigger picture, and not-so-good regs, that micro-manage small industries.
I didn't know Rand had written about life in the USSR, in the 20's. Life there was very grim back then. The country was wrecked by war, and then the revolution happened. Well, I guess life before the revolution wasn't that great, either, depending on who you were. Rand wrote a couple of works of fiction that spell out her philosophy of economics. You'd love them. See Amazon. Enjoy. Happy New Year.
I'm not sure where that leaves us. I think some kind of blend of the two is best. What about Canada? What about Sweden?
There's a reason we have taxes. There's no other way to pay for fire departments, libraries, and police forces. Would you have everyone hiring their own armed guards, rather than supporting a public police force? How would highways be paid for? There are public benefits that need to be paid for and maintained with public money. Public schools and universities are another example. Did you go to public school as a child? Your education was paid for with taxpayer money.
This discussion is starting to sound awfully familiar. Didn't we just go through this a couple of months ago? But that was before Bekenze and Knight, I guess. I can't help noticing that the membership tends to fall into a rut when certain topics come up. That includes me, too. Oh well. :-/
http://abcnews.go.com/watch/this-week/SH559082/VD55158848/this-week-1218--the-great-debate
More specific now?
The OP has now modified the question, so let's address that. Most systems are flawed, except maybe the barter system, and most societies are too complex for that. Socialism as we've seen it in action was fatally flawed, as the Chinese recognized, so they switched to market capitalism. With some help from an economist who defected from Taiwan to the PRC, according to an article I read. Anyway, Socialism doesn't work in part because centrally planned economies don't work. Capitalism doesn't work if everyone doesn't pay their share in taxes, and if there aren't safety nets. Before FDR there weren't any.
We can debate endlessly what taxes should or shouldn't be used for, but the bigger picture is that both Capitalism and Socialism/Communism trash the environment. They need cheap resources in order to expand, and they create a lot of waste. So some new system needs to be devised. OP, if you're interested, read the book "Small Is Beautiful". It's about community-based businesses, rather than huge conglomerates, and how that would work much better.
Just a thought that occured. Not sure how accurate it is.
I do agree that back then environmental concerns were nearly nil.
@person The capitalist system existed well before the settlement of the 13 colonies. It was capitalists who funded the establishment of some of those early settlements, and they required a return on their investment. The colonists were required to turn a profit for those who underwrote the voyage.
I am talking about the checkout bagging. The checkout women/men are required by law to use a plastic bag. (in addition to the factory packing)
It seems pretty trivial but I was interested in how absolute the position of big government should be. Should it be absolute ie no regulations such as the plastic which may save a few lives? Should the buyer beware?
@Dakini, I posted because I wondered how absolute 'avoiding big government' should be. I think the chicken thing can be argued either way. The question I am examining is how extreme 'no big government' should be. Is it flexible and siutuational or is it an ideology?
I cut the chicken in its little container, I don't put it on a cutting board. Raw chicken, yes, but then I wash the board. What is it exactly we're supposed to be getting worked up about here? What's the issue? Plastic bags are bad, but required? Plastic bags are your friend? Government meddling in your grocery bag is bad? Only Capitalism meddles in your grocery bag, Socialism lets you die of salmonella?
Maybe we should get back to Economics and Capitalism.
Yeah it's a regulation, I'm not even sure if it is state or federal. Not sure if it's a question of lawsuits from consumers or if the government can fine for not following the regulation. Probably both. Michigan.
Ok maybe it's not a good discussion topic I just had been thinking about it as a good thing to have regulations to prevent loss of life. It's a regulation that I like because it saves a life,,, so do we say that's bad because it's big government.
I hadn't realized all the angles including the zombie dynamic
That's such a depressing thought, though. I think the solution to all the problems facing the US is to put in place a realistic tax structure, but nobody's interested. Why did the Dems bother to get one of their own into the Presidency, and take over Congress, if they weren't going to fix anything? Why line all their ducks up in a row if they weren't planning to shoot? :scratch:
Once economics became a science and began to utilize equations to describe the science, people started to manipulate the equations in ways where the profits did not necessarily reflect what was best for society. The expression "we need to create a demand for our product" is indicative of how the need for profit is out of sync with the needs of people.
Unfortunately I do not have a real answer but I would like to see a society where the currency is kindness and where it's not how much you have that makes you rich but how much you give.