What's with this big anti-tax movement?

gareman

gareman

CAGiversary!
Feedback
2 (100%)
With the popularity of Ron Paul, flat taxes, and a general disgust for any kind of higher tax no matter what the cause, it seems a larger than normal size of people really despises when the government takes away "their money".


What I never got is when people about most of these view points was how every time someone is complaining about higher taxes, paying taxes on wages good services, and income how come one never brings up the fact that "your money" taxes or not is completely arbitrary.

Your income/wages is dictated by both; private and public, state and national groups and individuals, and demand and skill of that job.

So "your" money is only your money because someone (government and company--jointly) decided that the amount you receive every month is what your job is worth. People get upset at higher income taxes for such things as defense, city upkeep, health (no so much), education, entertainment, protection, waste removal, firefighters, etc. But why is that people never get upset at the fact that the government dictates the min. amount one has to receive at a job, or how many hours one can work? No one gets upset about how a board of people they have never meant decides their work is worth X amount of money, or that you're not doing a good enough job so you get Y amount rather than X amount.

I guess my point is lots of people get upset for having a % of their income taken away from an income that was decided by a company and the government that is completely arbitrary anyway.

Sorry if this hard to understand, but I think the idea of my argument is somewhat there.
 
Government = force & violence

No private company can point a gun to your head and confiscate your earnings. Only government has that power.
Your employer can certainly determine how much money you take home...but they don't do so with the threat of violence behind them. They can't legally enslave you 4-5 months of the year the way government does with our tax system.

In the private industry, you make a VOLUNTARY agreement to work for a certain wage. If you don't like the agreement, you are free to seek alternatives..to find a job elsewhere or to start your own business. There is no alternative to government. No matter how unjust the tax system is or how terribly wasteful they are with your money, you pay or you lose your freedom. It is natural (and good) for people to resist this sort of tyranny when it gets out of control.
 
I see your point.

"Confiscate" is a bit of a slanted word, nor will the government put a "gun to your head". Confiscate implies ownership, and if one views a tax as a fee, for lack of a better term, for other services that come with living in a town, city, state, or country--clean-up, police, roads, library, phone books, mail, etc, then the government is not taking "your money". Also my point was the amount was only "yours" because someone else decided that is what your work is worth. Why can someone (private and the government) dictate how much one makes but not how much one gets taken out for commerce?

Also, and I don't mean this is a "if you don't like get out" kind of way, but one can also leave the country if they do not believe in income taxes. That may seem harsh, but living in the USA is still a choice thus voluntary. It may seem nearly impossible, as well, but just as impossible as a 45 year old man leaving a job he has worked at for 25 years.
 
Theres no secret group of people who get together and decide how much money you make. The market determines the value of your work.

I don't want the government to take more of my money because I don't trust the government to use it properly. They shouldn't get a dime more than they need for essential services that only the government can provide.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Theres no secret group of people who get together and decide how much money you make. The market determines the value of your work.

I don't want the government to take more of my money because I don't trust the government to use it properly. They shouldn't get a dime more than they need for essential services that only the government can provide.[/QUOTE]

I am not saying "secret group" but someone other than the person making the money. No the market does not determine the value of your work....CEO deserve 300% more than average workers of their company due to the market...that I doubt.
 
big movement? We just kicked a ton more of those guys out of the government.

I think a lot of it is that people dont realize how the world actually works.

Tax cuts are strongly connected with preceding a recession, while tax increases (on the high end) are connected with economic growth and general prosperity for everyone.

People do forget that taxes actually DO THINGS, at least when the people running the show dont believe that the show is the problem.

Hopefully the death of supply-side economics is near.
 
I wouldn't mind raised taxes if I could trust they wouldn't piss it away. But they piss away tax money. A lot of it. So I won't protest it when they raise my taxes, but I'll sure be pissed because I know they're going to blow it on hookers and booze.
 
gareman, your salary is not pulled out of thin air by some old rich fatcats conspiring against you. It is decided based on supply and demand like everything else in the economy. The market determines the price of everything, including labor.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']gareman, your salary is not pulled out of thin air by some old rich fatcats conspiring against you. It is decided based on supply and demand like everything else in the economy. The market determines the price of everything, including labor.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but no.

There are entire books written on the differences between working peoples income in the past and how low salaries tend to be now and the enormous wealth disparity which has so much wealth concentrated at the top.

Read one.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']gareman, your salary is not pulled out of thin air by some old rich fatcats conspiring against you. It is decided based on supply and demand like everything else in the economy. The market determines the price of everything, including labor.[/quote]

It's not pulled out of thin air.

But unless you're a hotshot CEO, old rich fatcats are conspiring with each other against you. A good example is the business CEOs trade to certain members of their Board of Directors in return for higher executive pay - this is not merit-based pay, it is a bribe. The executive class are completely self-interested, and they are working to take as much money from pockets of investors or workers as they can, concepts like 'fair compensation' or 'paying a living wage' be damned.

Don't be so naive.
 
I can understand when people are pissed that money isn't spent properly, but I think that the thought that it's always spent improperly or that it would automatically be spent better if it was given to an private company instead is pretty naive.

Though the thought that the government always spends money properly is just as naive as thinking that the free market is fair and money is distributed according to supply and demand. It's just that there are things the government is better able to do, and it's not free, so you pay taxes. I don't have a problem with people who want money to be better spent, only those who don't want to ever pay any taxes.
 
[quote name='gareman']"Confiscate" is a bit of a slanted word, nor will the government put a "gun to your head". [/quote]

The government won't put a gun to your head.

They will take all of your property and garnish your wages until you "pay what you owe". If you don't "pay what you owe" in a timely fashion, the government will add interest and penalties. Don't "pay what you owe" bad enough and you will go to prison.

But, you're right, the government won't put a gun to your head.

...

Now, the government does provide some services. Eight lane highways to allow urban sprawl and excess fuel consumption, free substandard housing and food to allow generations to live in squalor and bailouts to failing businesses so an executive doesn't have to get by on a just a few million this year are just a few of the services our government provides.

People aren't against taxes in comparison to against obvious waste.
 
[quote name='camoor']It's not pulled out of thin air.

But unless you're a hotshot CEO, old rich fatcats are conspiring with each other against you. A good example is the business CEOs trade to certain members of their Board of Directors in return for higher executive pay - this is not merit-based pay, it is a bribe. The executive class are completely self-interested, and they are working to take as much money from pockets of investors or workers as they can, concepts like 'fair compensation' or 'paying a living wage' be damned.

Don't be so naive.[/quote]

Excuse me...but EVERYONE is working in their self interest..not just the rich. If you think employers are taking risks in starting a business to help others before helping themselves, you are the naive one. It is their business and their property, and therefore their prerogative to decide how much you are paid. If you don't like it, improve your skills and seek alternatives. If an employer is paying below the market rate for a given job, they will start losing their best workers and will soon realize it is in their self interest to pay higher wages to retain talent. You don't need a law telling them to do so. The market always reaches an equilibrium over time.

[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The government won't put a gun to your head.

They will take all of your property and garnish your wages until you "pay what you owe". If you don't "pay what you owe" in a timely fashion, the government will add interest and penalties. Don't "pay what you owe" bad enough and you will go to prison.[/quote]Actually...since the government will also confiscate your house/car, etc if you don't pay up, should you refuse to surrender it and try to physically defend your property, you will likely be killed by government agents. They will certainly point a gun to your head if you take the issue to it's natural conclusion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The government won't put a gun to your head.

They will take all of your property and garnish your wages until you "pay what you owe". If you don't "pay what you owe" in a timely fashion, the government will add interest and penalties. Don't "pay what you owe" bad enough and you will go to prison.[/quote]

Actually...since the government will also confiscate your house/car, etc if you don't pay up, should you refuse to surrender it and try to physically defend your property, you will likely be killed by government agents. They will certainly point a gun to your head if you take the issue to it's natural conclusion.
 
Personal income taxes are particularly insidious. They are "out of sight, out of mind" so to speak for income earners. If taxes were instead billed on a regular basis and people actually saw how much is taken they'd be up in arms.

Then you've got rich people taxes and corporate income taxes. Increase the taxes of rich people/corporations and they are going to hire less employees, give out less raises/bonuses, and pass the extra tax fees onto their customers.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']Excuse me...but EVERYONE is working in their self interest..not just the rich. If you think employers are taking risks in starting a business to help others before helping themselves, you are the naive one. It is their business and their property, and therefore their prerogative to decide how much you are paid. If you don't like it, improve your skills and seek alternatives. If an employer is paying below the market rate for a given job, they will start losing their best workers and will soon realize it is in their self interest to pay higher wages to retain talent. You don't need a law telling them to do so. The market always reaches an equilibrium over time.[/QUOTE]


Not everyone is looking out for only their self interest. Maybe basic needs, but beyond that I would rather be taxed in order to help the community which will, in the end, help me. Just because the tax usage is in bad shape doesn't mean we should just do away with it altogether.

You know what else is in even worse shape? The free market.
 
[quote name='NTolerance']Increase the taxes of rich people/corporations and they are going to hire less employees, give out less raises/bonuses, and pass the extra tax fees onto their customers.[/quote]

If a company is making a profit and the increase in taxes does not make it so that the company is in debt instead, then I don't see how that makes any sense. If a company has a profit then any less employees they hire, raises they give, or fees they pass on to consumers is entirely arbitrary.

If you make the argument that taxes on corporations necessarily hurt employees and consumers then are you saying that corporations should never pay any taxes?
 
[quote name='SpazX']If a company is making a profit and the increase in taxes does not make it so that the company is in debt instead, then I don't see how that makes any sense. If a company has a profit then any less employees they hire, raises they give, or fees they pass on to consumers is entirely arbitrary.

If you make the argument that taxes on corporations necessarily hurt employees and consumers then are you saying that corporations should never pay any taxes?[/QUOTE]

Companies need "money in the bank" just like individuals do and for a lot of the same reasons. Any company only concerned with making a profit and not concerned about exactly how much profit isn't going to last very long. If operating costs (taxes) go up, prices will go up. You can bank on that, pun intended.

I never said that businesses should not pay any tax. I'm commenting on all the talking points that constantly go around about tax policy and offloading the tax burden onto rich people and business. There are consequences for that and it will come down the chain and hurt the people it was intended to help.

In the end it's a huge, huge bureaucracy that's mind-bogglingly complex. You have an entire industry (H&R Block anyone?) built around the complexity of the current tax code.
 
[quote name='NTolerance']Companies need "money in the bank" just like individuals do and for a lot of the same reasons. Any company only concerned with making a profit and not concerned about exactly how much profit isn't going to last very long. If operating costs (taxes) go up, prices will go up. You can bank on that, pun intended.[/quote]

Is that not arbitrary? Could the same companies not decide that at this moment they want more profits and so they lower pay, or the opposite that they want to give their employees more of their profits? Adding in taxes that don't put a company in the red doesn't change anything, it's entirely up to the company to decide the amount of profit that they want.

[quote name='NTolerance']I never said that businesses should not pay any tax. I'm commenting on all the talking points that constantly go around about tax policy and offloading the tax burden onto rich people and business. There are consequences for that and it will come down the chain and hurt the people it was intended to help.[/quote]

Does it not work the other way? If more taxes necessarily hurt employees and consumers, less don't necessarily help them?
 
[quote name='NTolerance']Increase the taxes of rich people/corporations and they are going to hire less employees, give out less raises/bonuses, and pass the extra tax fees onto their customers.[/quote]
This is completely false. Investment in business is done for one and only one reason, as a response to demand.

If I run a factory, and you put more money in my pocket, I'm not going to create jobs or invest in inventory/capacity. I'm going to horde it. Its a gift. I would be foolish to invest it assuming I'm already catering to the demand as it exists (That is to say, big business vs small business). The way you stimulate an economy is by increasing demand. On the business side of it, you are taxed more on profits, but your profits are so much more that you welcome it, as Warren Buffet does.

Consumers are also the very last to be hurt by the higher price of doing business. If you pass a higher cost to the consumer right off the bat, then you are losing to competitors that cut dividends, salaries and bonuses first.

When the demand goes up, even with the profits taxed at a higher rate, you are going to invest in more jobs. If not, your competitors will.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NTolerance, look at the salaries of any CEO and you will clearly see they are not hiring employees with the extra money they are saving.

On top of that, because of loop-holes republicans don't care to close, they are paying next to zero for taxes as it is.
 
Mario, taxes are a cost of doing business. Companies factor taxes into EVERYTHING they do...from the salaries they pay to the prices they charge. They are passed on to everyone related to the company in some way or another. You know the "FICA" tax section of your paycheck? That is your social security tax. You pay 7.5% of your paycheck to FICA, and your employer generously "matches" another 7.5%, bringing the total to around 15%. Very nice of them isn't it! :) Not really. The 7.5% they "contribute" on your behalf comes directly out of your paycheck..even though you don't see it. You are the invisible victim of that particular corporate tax. It was factored into your salary on day one. The company took it into account before they even hired you, and the amount you make per hour is 7.5% lower that it would have been in the absence of the tax. This is the way all taxes work in the private sector. You will NEVER SEE THEM being directly passed on from business to employee or business to consumer...but it is certainly done. Money that goes to taxes is also money that can't be used for research & development, or to opening a side business, or to investing in stock equity to bolster prices (which helps millions of shareholders with mutual funds), etc.

Wealth redistribution poliices always have hundreds of visible beneficiaries but millions of invisible victims. Lefties always like to point to the person benefiting from some government program or another and saying "See, It works!!" ...while ignoring the countless invisible masses who are poorer because of those policies.

The bottom line People and businesses always spend their money on what they believe will benefit them the most...and this in turn helps those who are PROVIDING the goods and services that are the most beneficial to society. So if you want to help as many people as possible succeed, you should favor a reduction in government taxation and intervention across the board. Leave the wealth in the hands of those who created and it will circulate through the economy 10X more efficiently than if it is wasted on some bureaucratic dream.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mario, taxes are a cost of doing business. Companies factor taxes into EVERYTHING they do...from the salaries they pay to the prices they charge. They are passed on to everyone related to the company in some way or another. You know the "FICA" tax section of your paycheck? That is your social security tax. You pay 7.5% of your paycheck to FICA, and your employer generously "matches" another 7.5%, bringing the total to around 15%. Very nice of them isn't it! :) Not really. The 7.5% they "contribute" on your behalf comes directly out of your paycheck..even though you don't see it. You are the invisible victim of that particular corporate tax. It was factored into your salary on day one. The company took it into account before they even hired you, and the amount you make per hour is 7.5% lower that it would have been in the absence of the tax. This is the way all taxes work in the private sector. You will NEVER SEE THEM being directly passed on from business to employee or business to consumer...but it is certainly done. Money that goes to taxes is also money that can't be used for research & development, or to opening a side business, or to investing in stock equity to bolster prices (which helps millions of shareholders with mutual funds), etc.

Wealth redistribution poliices always have hundreds of visible beneficiaries but millions of invisible victims. Lefties always like to point to the person benefiting from some government program or another and saying "See, It works!!" ...while ignoring the countless invisible masses who are poorer because of those policies.

The bottom line People and businesses always spend their money on what they believe will benefit them the most...and this in turn helps those who are PROVIDING the goods and services that are the most beneficial to society. So if you want to help as many people as possible succeed, you should favor a reduction in government taxation and intervention across the board. Leave the wealth in the hands of those who created and it will circulate through the economy 10X more efficiently than if it is wasted on some bureaucratic dream.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']Leave the wealth in the hands of those who created and it will circulate through the economy 10X more efficiently than if it is wasted on some bureaucratic dream.[/quote]
There is absolutely no basis in reality for this. The last 30 years of supply side economics gutting the middle class and transferring their wealth (which was largely stored in their homes) to the top shouldve made that evident.

Wealth in the hands of the wealthy stays there, it doesnt trickle down. We currently lead the world in wealth disparity. The top 1% currently owns 90% of the wealth (not income).

If we put the right people in, the government can be a hell of a lot more effective than the private sector at many things. The private sector necessarily needs to profit. The government bureaucrats get their 50k a year and pension or whatever it is. In any case, not anywhere near the multiple millions to the various people at the top. No investor dividends, though you could argue that government bond interest takes that load. Isnt overhead for medicare like 3% or something obscenely low?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='level1online']http://www.endthefed.us/why.php

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

http://www.endthefed.us/why.php[/QUOTE]

I find it funny that they use a George Orwell quote from his political language essay, when people like Barr and Paul are the worst when it comes to political discourse from an orwellian perspective

edit: income is defined as a gain or raise in profit from corporate activity. So a wage that is gaining or raising money through partaking in corporate activity is somehow not income? Then what is the definition was income then.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mario, the government is due to bring in roughly $3 trillion in revenue this year...an all time record, yet they are also estimated to have a deficit of $600 billion+

With a $10.5 trillion debt, it is laughable to say they are good at managing money. Every penny politicians get makes them greedy for more..and what they do get is largely wasted on ineffective programs. Tax money is like heroin to these bureaucrats. It's time to cut off their supply and put them in rehab. We need to cut spending, cut taxes, and cut spending some more. Don't feed the parasites in government.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']There is absolutely no basis in reality for this. The last 30 years of supply side economics gutting the middle class and transferring their wealth (which was largely stored in their homes) to the top shouldve made that evident.

Wealth in the hands of the wealthy stays there, it doesnt trickle down. We currently lead the world in wealth disparity. The top 1% currently owns 90% of the wealth (not income).
[/QUOTE]

But who builds the homes for the rich? Who builds the cars for the rich, who sells the cars, homes, boats, jewelry, for the rich? Who cleans their homes, works for their companies, takes their investment capital, deposits their money, cuts their lawn, fixes their roof, remodels their home, flies them to Paris, puts new tires on their cars, installs their home theater, catches their lobsters, carries their golf clubs, works in their countryclub, manages their favorite restaurants, takes their college tuition money, builds hospital wings and libraries with their money ?

Rich people don't live in a vacuum the way you like to believe and profess. And believe it or not, some rich people actually have worked hard and been ingenious enough to earn their wealth. They are not the undeserving Jaba-the-Hutt-mythical creatures you pretend are sucking wealth from society. You give them your money willingly every time you go see a movie, watch a TV show on your new flatscreen, eat out on Saturday night, drink a bottle of whisky, buy a Snickers, play a new videogame, drive your car 500 miles to go to DisneyWorld, stay in a hotel, get your car fixed, buy a home, install a new stereo system, get a haircut, use the telephone, drink a soda, get a Slurpee, go to a car wash, eat a pizza, go to a Baseball game, wipe your ass in the morning. Oh yeah, AND they already pay for ALL those government programs.

Rich people helped build all the amenities and services you use on a daily basis and their entrepreneurship made your life of comfort possible. Why do you hate them so much?
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']If we put the right people in, the government can be a hell of a lot more effective than the private sector at many things.[/QUOTE]

This is signature-worthy. Name one thing the government does more effectively than the private sector.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']This is signature-worthy. Name one thing the government does more effectively than the private sector.[/quote]

Shipping first class letters.

Printing money with no intrinsic value.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']This is signature-worthy. Name one thing the government does more effectively than the private sector.[/QUOTE]

Healthcare.
 
This is no simple matter, but I'd like to ask: how can conservatives still claim the wealth trickles down after the past decade? How can there be a stronger argument against it than "we tried it, it doesn't work"?
 
[quote name='Koggit']This is no simple matter, but I'd like to ask: how can conservatives still claim the wealth trickles down after the past decade? How can there be a stronger argument against it than "we tried it, it doesn't work"?[/quote]

We haven't tried free market economics...EVER. Government is larger and more intrusive today than it has ever been. If you want to blame economic inequality on something, blame it on the government policies that stifle competition and throw huge barriers in the way of anyone trying to get ahead in life...to the endless regulations and red tape people must jump through to start a small business. Blame it on the confiscatory tax rates that kick in for small business owners that succeed...tax rates that make it hard for them ever to become more than a small business.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']We haven't tried free market economics...EVER.[/QUOTE]

I am pretty sure we called it the Stone Age.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Shipping first class letters.

Printing money with no intrinsic value.[/QUOTE]

or

Railroads

Japan saved itself from destruction

Most college education

large amounts of scientific advancement

Public roads

the internet
 
[quote name='bmulligan']But who builds the homes for the rich? [/quote]

Not-rich people. Watch one of those "Flip This House" shows on A&E. It's always white doods ordering around minorities and then making a hefty profit on top of that.

Granted, those workers are getting paid. But the house will end up being sold for 50K in profit over the course of two weeks based entirely on the work of those guys who just got paid 10 bucks an hour. The money men at the top end up with a nice profit, and almost every time they are all annoying shitheads. One of them was in Houston and literally - literally - washed his Hummer the entire time you saw his contractors (who were in tattered dirty clothes) toil away. Then he'd go into the house, bitch for a bit, say "fuck this I need a drink" and come back the next day. Pretty disgusting.

Who builds the cars for the rich, who sells the cars, homes, boats, jewelry, for the rich?
Click to expand...

Toss in a few more luxury items versus ultra-luxury items in there.

Who cleans their homes, works for their companies, takes their investment capital, deposits their money, cuts their lawn, fixes their roof, remodels their home, flies them to Paris, puts new tires on their cars, installs their home theater, catches their lobsters, carries their golf clubs, works in their countryclub, manages their favorite restaurants, takes their college tuition money, builds hospital wings and libraries with their money ?
Click to expand...

You're getting your columns B, C, D, and Z up ins your rich column A.

Rich people don't live in a vacuum the way you like to believe and profess.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I mean I bought a yacht just last week, got tired of it, sold it to another rich guy, bought another one, and filled it with topless bitches.

I've always hypothesized that if you could somehow just build a big fuckin' thing and label it extremely expensive, you'll find buyers. Doesn't matter what it is. Lewis Black has a big joke about all those CEOs that drove businesses into the ground (Worldcom, Tyco, Enron, etc) would buy umbrella stands for 16 large. That's worth more than my car, which Black thinks "What could it be made out of? Martha Stewart's vagina? I know you're shocked - you didn't know she had one."

This is why an economy crash doesn't bother the rich. They'll still buy expensive shit and live their lives in the way they are accustomed. Yachts will still sell, expensive concert tickets will still sell out (just so they can go and not listen to the music anyway), high end restaurants will charge two hundred a steak but never go out of business if they've got established clientele, etc.

Even if it bothered local rich doods, foreign ones will still truck over to buy shit. Meanwhile people are stretching to buy food, gas, warmth, and make rent.

And believe it or not, some rich people actually have worked hard and been ingenious enough to earn their wealth.
Click to expand...

Not disputing this, but will point out that a portion of the rich are just living on what their relatives did for them. It's just turn key at this point for people like, say, Paris Hilton. And since that's the popular image of the rich, some of us get to denigrate it.

watch a TV show on your new flatscreen,
Click to expand...

Roffles, this is DMK you are talking to.

eat out on Saturday night, drink a bottle of whisky, buy a Snickers, play a new videogame, drive your car 500 miles to go to DisneyWorld, stay in a hotel, get your car fixed, buy a home, install a new stereo system, get a haircut, use the telephone, drink a soda, get a Slurpee, go to a car wash, eat a pizza, go to a Baseball game, wipe your ass in the morning.
Click to expand...

Once again there's a mishmash of things with little to no correlation.

Oh yeah, AND they already pay for ALL those government programs.
Click to expand...

I'll have to take your word on this, in the form of proof outside of "they just do." I'm of the opinion that the rich have a bunch of lawyers at their disposal to help them hide their cash in order to retain the great majority of it. And since I hear about CEOs with hundreds of millions being embezzled, I have to think I'm partially correct.

Rich people helped build all the amenities and services you use on a daily basis and their entrepreneurship made your life of comfort possible. Why do you hate them so much?
Click to expand...

Because they are the first ones to bitch and complain about taxes, so they hire lobbyists to get their foot in the door to skew politics in their favor. They have all this money they are making based on the work of all their underlings, and almost none of them actually built their infrastructures. It's like saying "I didn't climb to the top of the food chain to eat a salad." fuck you - you didn't climb shit asshole.

Same with some of these guys. I can't dispute ones like, say, J.K. Rowling, or Bill Gates (well Gates isn't a great example).

I'll be open to the idea that I'm just a naive conspiracy theorist. I can live with that. What I can't live is the idea that if I were big and bad enough and employed a bunch of people and THEN I fuck it up, I can go tell the government to bail me out simply because my nuts are being held up by thousands - if not millions - of workers who have supported me being a total fuck up.

For the record, I don't think the government is any better and managing money. I think that's overwhelmingly clear. I think what happens is that you've got greedy bastards everywhere and they are all throwing so much dust into the air that no one can figure out what is actually going on, and thus the money disappears with little more than an "oops."
 
[quote name='gareman']or

Railroads

Japan saved itself from destruction

Most college education

large amounts of scientific advancement

Public roads

the internet[/QUOTE]

Railroads = privately built and dominated in the 1800s, a failure under government administration in the present (do you know how much money Amtrak loses each year?)

Japan = you'll have to be more specific. Their government almost destroyed their country and culminated with two cities destroyed by atomic bombs, so you'll have to have something pretty convincing.

College = the best schools are private

Scientific advancement = what you say is baloney

roads = not better (the private sector has built them more efficiently and faster), but perhaps more appropriate. Besides, who do you think actually builds the roads, the government or all the private-sector contractors who they pay to build them? It's necessary to have government involved to get rights of way and sometimes eminent domain power, but there is no crack crew of government builders who go out and build highways and bridges.

Internet = I'm sure what you value on the Internet are things like CAG, Google, FaceBook, MySpace, and other privately created sites. I guarantee these sorts of sites are better and created for less money than government sites.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']This is signature-worthy. Name one thing the government does more effectively than the private sector.[/QUOTE]

Bingo for the most part. I don't think government can do it cheaper. I think for basic services where you don't have to consistently invest in R&D that not for profit Corporations or businesses are the ideal however. You truly get the lowest rate there.
You see with a business, even though you have competition and they may get the labor at rock bottom prices the bottom line will be padded until it's the same price as the government equivalent, just with less oversight and spending. Case in point, I think it was Brazil or it was another South American country where handling the ground water went to the private sector. The water ended up dirtier in the end. Also the citizens couldn't collect the groundwater by law. I guess this falls through technically because there's no competition and never will be. I mean once they get that contract it's a couple years till it's looked at and reviewed or turned down. In an active market there's active competition which is absent here hence why it should just be a not for profit corporation or business running things.
The truth on some things in general to bmulligan. Most rich people do live in a vacuum, especially the ultra-rich. The latter are some of the most selfish people because they try to stifle sharing anything truly whenever. As for the former I respect rich people who pull themselves up by the bootstraps but it is to be noted some spoil their kids so much they don't know the value of money.
I might also note some are Rentiers who've most likely never truly worked a day in their life.
This all goes back to the central cycle if you will. Society starts up as clean as possible or very clean. People in high positions make a nice wage, then get a taste of the good life to corrupt the system(the Fed). Soon enough they make money hand over fist with their original benefactor making an even tidier sum which consolidates their power in this system and thereby their stranglehold. People get fed up enough with living in squaller and the cycle repeats. The issue now is with technology allowing people to have history be what they make it they can cement and very much create an absolute hold over society, making it a living hell. See 1984.
The selfishness just amazes me. What makes it even worse is they've seen the best way to keep their power and it's by suffering. Suffering is the greatest form of distraction because people care. Look at 9/11, tons of people murdered because of selfishness.
Because if they don't distract people with sufficient problems they will look for one's and find the true problems. I believe humanity by nature are perfectionists, wishing to try and create a Utopia, refining and refining as the years go on.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Railroads = privately built and dominated in the 1800s, a failure under government administration in the present (do you know how much money Amtrak loses each year?)

Japan = you'll have to be more specific. Their government almost destroyed their country and culminated with two cities destroyed by atomic bombs, so you'll have to have something pretty convincing.

College = the best schools are private

Scientific advancement = what you say is baloney

roads = not better (the private sector has built them more efficiently and faster), but perhaps more appropriate. Besides, who do you think actually builds the roads, the government or all the private-sector contractors who they pay to build them? It's necessary to have government involved to get rights of way and sometimes eminent domain power, but there is no crack crew of government builders who go out and build highways and bridges.

Internet = I'm sure what you value on the Internet are things like CAG, Google, FaceBook, MySpace, and other privately created sites. I guarantee these sorts of sites are better and created for less money than government sites.[/QUOTE]


Railroads are failing now, but that says nothing about the boom it created when it was pushed into and funded by the government.

Japan one word.... Mitsubishi

Research has shown that private schools and college attendants fair no better in the job market, testing, and getting accepted into grad programs.

Scientific advancement funded by the government is baloney?

Yes road are built by private sector but they are funded by TAXES/government

The privately created site would not even exist if it weren't for the government.

I am sorry...your first few posts had decent points, then I get this garbage consisting of(to paraphrase) "not true" Baloney" "I assume the private does it better" and "its not done by the government its just funded by the government".
 
Looking at the World Health Organization's rankings of the world's health care systems, I'm going to say that the government does a better job of providing health care over private providers whose employees gets bonuses whenever they deny you coverage.

I also say the military does a better job, cheaper than Blackwater.

The last few election cycles have also shown us that the government is better than the private sector at counting your votes as cast.

By definition, the government does a better job in every situation because they are trying to look out for everyone and not do great for the very few at the expense of the many. I'll take a B job for all over an A+ for the very top and an F for everyone else. More importantly because when the bottom starts collapsing from exploitation from the top, everyone suffers. The fundamental problem of markets is that they cannot self regulate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='gareman']Railroads are failing now, but that says nothing about the boom it created when it was pushed into and funded by the government.

Japan one word.... Mitsubishi

Research has shown that private schools and college attendants fair no better in the job market, testing, and getting accepted into grad programs.

Scientific advancement funded by the government is baloney?

Yes road are built by private sector but they are funded by TAXES/government

The privately created site would not even exist if it weren't for the government.

I am sorry...your first few posts had decent points, then I get this garbage consisting of(to paraphrase) "not true" Baloney" "I assume the private does it better" and "its not done by the government its just funded by the government".[/QUOTE]

Again, 1800s = privately funded railroads were dominant in transportation, modern era = government-run railroads hemorrhaging money.

I'm not that familiar with the history of Mistubishi, so again you'll have to be more specific.

You said "much of scientific advancement" has been funded by government. That's baloney, yes.

You ignored my points on roads.

DOD created the Internet, that's true. But I doubt you'd be saying it's such a great thing for society if it weren't developed into something usable by the public by the private sector.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']By definition, the government does a better job in every situation because they are trying to look out for everyone and not do great for the very few at the expense of the many. I'll take a B job for all over an A+ for the very top and an F for everyone else. More importantly because when the bottom starts collapsing from exploitation from the top, everyone suffers. The fundamental problem of markets is that they cannot self regulate.[/QUOTE]

Care to tell us why the economies of places like the Soviet Union and Cuba weren't/aren't smashing successes then? After all, if the government does a better job in every situation and in those countries the government controlled/controls the entire economy, it should be much better than the inefficient market-based Western model, right? Or maybe you'd like to explain how much better economically China did before it moved to a market-based, non-collectivized system?
 
Prices for everything, including labor, are determined by supply and demand, not government. Certainly, government can create artificial demand with inflation, which is why bubbles happen to the extent that they do. But in the global marketplace, everything is an auction where prices are determined by what people are willing to pay for.

Taxes are a cost to employers that reduces their bidding power in this auction across the board. The lower taxes and inflation are, the higher your wages are going to be in nominal and purchasing power terms.

My local fast-food restaurant hires well above the enforced minimum (minimum wage is a form of price fixing). This is just simple proof that wages are bid up between thousands of competing businesses. Labor and capital expenditure are both finite products. Labor wants capital, capital wants labor. It doesn't matter that your employer wishes he could pay you less, he needs labor to produce a product or provide a service, and he can't get it unless he wins the bidding auction against a competitor who will gladly outbid his suppressed bid as long as there's money to be made on that cost.

Greed in a system like this works in your favor, believe it or not. When the federal government is tiny and doing only what it's supposed to do (protect rights, offer courts), people are free to transact with one another in mutually agreeable ways. If the only way to get what you want is to get the other party what they want, and visa versa, then both parties benefit. It didn't matter that they were only out for themselves, the EFFECT of such a trade is that both parties benefit because neither party will accept the other's product without agreeing to the trade.

Government, on the other hand, is beholden to no one but the clueless majority. That no one really know how much of their money is going to what and where is a huge source of concern. The idealist in us believe that it is all being efficiently spent by someone who never worked for it to our benefit better than we could do so ourselves. Which is just nonsense. They can't easily go bankrupt from bad decisions because they're financed with forcibly relinquished rather than voluntarily relinquished capital. Historically, societies collapse when people are enabled the power to democratically vote away each other's property based on majority votes. Our forefathers failed to prevent that. Look at the infighting and distractions we've created for ourselves, look how idealist and socialist we've become since 1913. We price fix interest rates, we federally insure deposits, we federally insure mortgages, we declare lending standards discriminatory via the community investment act and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we subsidize farmers not to grow food, we block nuclear energy for thirty years, we ban competing currencies, we force citizens into government managed retirement scheme that would make Ponzi proud, we we have social engineering with an income tax based on income, children, marriage status, the type of marriage, investment choices, home ownership, etc.

Our government is actively, actively involved in trying to engineer society and redistribute wealth based on majority votes. That is not their job. It is not their job to determine which life decisions should be rewarded over others for the betterment of society. The income, death, and SS taxes should be phased out IMMEDIATELY and should have never existed in the first place.

By definition, the government does a better job in every situation because they are trying to look out for everyone and not do great for the very few at the expense of the many
Click to expand...
That is absolute nonsense, government is an institution in which rich lawyers spend millions of their own money to get in a low-paying position of controlling other people's money which has been appropriated by force. That type of system begets extreme amounts of collusion and theft. Do you know ANYTHING about politics? Look at what the republicrats are doing now: bailing out failed companies and financial firms, entrenching failed management that would otherwise be purged. How many favors, how many millions of dollars traded hands between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (government sponsored enterprises) and political interests? Who regulated the regulators through all of that? You? The voter? The soccer moms of the world? Like hell you can. Get rid of these powers, they are idealist and beget all the problems we have today.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Care to tell us why the economies of places like the Soviet Union and Cuba weren't/aren't smashing successes then? After all, if the government does a better job in every situation and in those countries the government controlled/controls the entire economy, it should be much better than the inefficient market-based Western model, right? Or maybe you'd like to explain how much better economically China did before it moved to a market-based, non-collectivized system?[/QUOTE]

Comparing totalitarian states to discredit socialist ideals is just whack.

There's no empirical evidence for either side of the argument, that core structure ultimately doesn't play a large role, and no country is purely capitalist nor is any purely socialist.

When debating capitalism v. socialism it's all about an idealized model.
 
[quote name='Koggit']Comparing totalitarian states to discredit socialist ideals is just whack.

There's no empirical evidence for either side of the argument, that core structure ultimately doesn't play a large role, and no country is purely capitalist nor is any purely socialist.

When debating capitalism v. socialism it's all about an idealized model.[/QUOTE]

The post I quoted said the government does a better job "in every situation" (i.e. always) than the private sector. If that isn't communism, what is?
 
[quote name='FitzRoy']Prices for everything, including labor, are determined by supply and demand, not government. Certainly, government can create artificial demand with inflation, which is why bubbles happen to the extent that they do. But in the global marketplace, everything is an auction where prices are determined by what people are willing to pay for.

Taxes are a cost to employers that reduces their bidding power in this auction across the board. The lower taxes and inflation are, the higher your wages are going to be in nominal and purchasing power terms.

My local fast-food restaurant hires well above the enforced minimum (minimum wage is a form of price fixing). This is just simple proof that wages are bid up between thousands of competing businesses. Labor and capital expenditure are both finite products. Labor wants capital, capital wants labor. It doesn't matter that your employer wishes he could pay you less, he needs labor to produce a product or provide a service, and he can't get it unless he wins the bidding auction against a competitor who will gladly outbid his suppressed bid as long as there's money to be made on that cost.

Greed in a system like this works in your favor, believe it or not. When the federal government is tiny and doing only what it's supposed to do (protect rights, offer courts), people are free to transact with one another in mutually agreeable ways. If the only way to get what you want is to get the other party what they want, and visa versa, then both parties benefit. It didn't matter that they were only out for themselves, the EFFECT of such a trade is that both parties benefit because neither party will accept the other's product without agreeing to the trade.

Government, on the other hand, is beholden to no one but the clueless majority. That no one really know how much of their money is going to what and where is a huge source of concern. The idealist in us believe that it is all being efficiently spent by someone who never worked for it to our benefit better than we could do so ourselves. Which is just nonsense. They can't easily go bankrupt from bad decisions because they're financed with forcibly relinquished rather than voluntarily relinquished capital. Historically, societies collapse when people are enabled the power to democratically vote away each other's property based on majority votes. Our forefathers failed to prevent that. Look at the infighting and distractions we've created for ourselves, look how idealist and socialist we've become since 1913. We price fix interest rates, we federally insure deposits, we federally insure mortgages, we declare lending standards discriminatory via the community investment act and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we subsidize farmers not to grow food, we block nuclear energy for thirty years, we ban competing currencies, we force citizens into government managed retirement scheme that would make Ponzi proud, we we have social engineering with an income tax based on income, children, marriage status, the type of marriage, investment choices, home ownership, etc.

Our government is actively, actively involved in trying to engineer society and redistribute wealth based on majority votes. That is not their job. It is not their job to determine which life decisions should be rewarded over others for the betterment of society. The income, death, and SS taxes should be phased out IMMEDIATELY and should have never existed in the first place.

That is absolute nonsense, government is an institution in which rich lawyers spend millions of their own money to get in a low-paying position of controlling other people's money which has been appropriated by force. That type of system begets extreme amounts of collusion and theft. Do you know ANYTHING about politics? Look at what the republicrats are doing now: bailing out failed companies and financial firms, entrenching failed management that would otherwise be purged. How many favors, how many millions of dollars traded hands between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (government sponsored enterprises) and political interests? Who regulated the regulators through all of that? You? The voter? The soccer moms of the world? Like hell you can. Get rid of these powers, they are idealist and beget all the problems we have today.[/quote]

emot-worship.gif
 
[quote name='FitzRoy']Prices for everything, including labor, are determined by supply and demand, not government. Certainly, government can create artificial demand with inflation, which is why bubbles happen to the extent that they do. But in the global marketplace, everything is an auction where prices are determined by what people are willing to pay for.[/quote]
So was it over regulation or under regulation that caused the past.. (how long has this been going now?) ... issue we're going through?

Taxes are a cost to employers that reduces their bidding power in this auction across the board. The lower taxes and inflation are, the higher your wages are going to be in nominal and purchasing power terms.
Click to expand...
The answer to every question is less taxes.

My local fast-food restaurant hires well above the enforced minimum (minimum wage is a form of price fixing). This is just simple proof that wages are bid up between thousands of competing businesses. Labor and capital expenditure are both finite products. Labor wants capital, capital wants labor. It doesn't matter that your employer wishes he could pay you less, he needs labor to produce a product or provide a service, and he can't get it unless he wins the bidding auction against a competitor who will gladly outbid his suppressed bid as long as there's money to be made on that cost.

Greed in a system like this works in your favor, believe it or not. When the federal government is tiny and doing only what it's supposed to do (protect rights, offer courts), people are free to transact with one another in mutually agreeable ways. If the only way to get what you want is to get the other party what they want, and visa versa, then both parties benefit. It didn't matter that they were only out for themselves, the EFFECT of such a trade is that both parties benefit because neither party will accept the other's product without agreeing to the trade.
Click to expand...
The logical fallacy lies in the very heart of libertarianism. If there was a system capable of working under their vision, it is ours. Somewhere they know that it will never get better than it did the past 8 years as far as politicians sucking up to them. And they got ...

nothing. No where. Not even close.

But just give them more power and they'll come through. They promise.
Government, on the other hand, is beholden to no one but the clueless majority. That no one really know how much of their money is going to what and where is a huge source of concern. The idealist in us believe that it is all being efficiently spent by someone who never worked for it to our benefit better than we could do so ourselves. Which is just nonsense. They can't easily go bankrupt from bad decisions because they're financed with forcibly relinquished rather than voluntarily relinquished capital. Historically, societies collapse when people are enabled the power to democratically vote away each other's property based on majority votes. Our forefathers failed to prevent that. Look at the infighting and distractions we've created for ourselves, look how idealist and socialist we've become since 1913. We price fix interest rates, we federally insure deposits, we federally insure mortgages, we declare lending standards discriminatory via the community investment act and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we subsidize farmers not to grow food, we block nuclear energy for thirty years, we ban competing currencies, we force citizens into government managed retirement scheme that would make Ponzi proud, we we have social engineering with an income tax based on income, children, marriage status, the type of marriage, investment choices, home ownership, etc.
Click to expand...
1913? I'd say Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase really started it and we were what, 3 presidents in?

When I see these things, it makes me wonder why a corporation is allowed to have the same rights as a human being constitutionally. I question the value of an at-all-costs-don't-pierce-the-veil approach to the company stakeholder. So, let me get this right: if I sell you a piece of my business and I crater, you're not liable for *ANYTHING*? If you sink your money into the nastiest business on the planet you sign a contract proffered by the company (?!?) that releases you from all liability, you're fine... Um, what?

How does the free market correct that again? That's right, they don't.

And I love that little side note nugget about type of marriage. Stuff like that is always a good, solid ways down your priority list isn't it?
Our government is actively, actively involved in trying to engineer society and redistribute wealth based on majority votes. That is not their job. It is not their job to determine which life decisions should be rewarded over others for the betterment of society. The income, death, and SS taxes should be phased out IMMEDIATELY and should have never existed in the first place.
Click to expand...
This is not the first time socialists have taken over. How well did they succeed last time? The creation of the modern libertarian resulted from the rise of the middle class last go round. They complain about their rise from lower middle class. It's the strangest thing, isn't it?

Oh, and the answer is always cutting taxes.

That is absolute nonsense, government is an institution in which rich lawyers spend millions of their own money to get in a low-paying position of controlling other people's money which has been appropriated by force. That type of system begets extreme amounts of collusion and theft. Do you know ANYTHING about politics? Look at what the republicrats are doing now: bailing out failed companies and financial firms, entrenching failed management that would otherwise be purged. How many favors, how many millions of dollars traded hands between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (government sponsored enterprises) and political interests? Who regulated the regulators through all of that? You? The voter? The soccer moms of the world? Like hell you can. Get rid of these powers, they are idealist and beget all the problems we have today.
Click to expand...
Libertarians: we promise not to bail you out under any circumstances. Cause we love you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top