Left vs. Right

[rgraham666]

Some questions.

Would the scheme outlined above not cause cost of living to rise as well?

And what would happen to the federal debt with that loss of tax revenue?

Why is the basic assumption if you're an employee (at the lower end of the scale) is that you are lazy, stupid, dishonest and not worth the money?

Why is the opposite assumption held for those at the top of the pay scale?

 

[Alex756]

Some questions.

Would the scheme outlined above not cause cost of living to rise as well?

And what would happen to the federal debt with that loss of tax revenue?

Why is the basic assumption if you're an employee (at the lower end of the scale) is that you are lazy, stupid, dishonest and not worth the money?

Why is the opposite assumption held for those at the top of the pay scale?

since it wouldn't increase salary expenses to emplyers, it should either not raise cost of living or do so minimally.

Very little tax revenue comes from the people working at the bottom of the payscale in income taxes, most tax collected from those segments comes from taxes on goods.

What assumption that anyone made here?

Ditto on the opposite assumption.

-Alex

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Huh!?!

This doesn't make sense.

a) Company figured WorkerA paycheck -- $200
b) Goverment takes 20% -- Debit $40
c) Government says 'You poor... you get a credit of 50%' Credit $20
d) Worker receives check for $180.
f) 52 weeks in the year..
Worker made -- 10400
Tax bracket says he was taxed -- $2080
Immedite 'poor' break cut the withholding to -- $1040
g) At tax return time, the government cuts him a check for $2080 -- even though in actuality he only paid $1040?

-- That's how your plan reads to me... which would mean 'Welfare'.

Sincerely,
ElSol

I believe the term for it is an earned income credit. At least, that's the term my friend used when I was eligible for it. In two semesters while working full time and being a full time student, I collected more on my returns than I had paid in.

It isn't unpreceented (unless my friend was just an exceptional accountant or doing something illegal) for some earners to get back more than they paid in. Why wait to the end of the year to give them that credit? Why not give them that credit from check to check? If you knew in advance they would be eligible for an earned income credit based on making 5.15 an hour?

If they got a pay raise during the period, you would still be holding enough witholding to cover a prorated return if that raise changed their tax bracket or earned income credit status.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Some questions.

Would the scheme outlined above not cause cost of living to rise as well?

And what would happen to the federal debt with that loss of tax revenue?

Why is the basic assumption if you're an employee (at the lower end of the scale) is that you are lazy, stupid, dishonest and not worth the money?

Why is the opposite assumption held for those at the top of the pay scale?

Why would it raise the cost of living Rob? Bussiness wouldn't be incuring any extra cost. It wouldn't change the cost of raw materials either.

The fed would loose some tax revenu. So what? It isn't like they don't waste what they get nor. Nor is it like they restrict themselves to spending what they take in. If you are goiung to blow through it like congress does, why not spend some of it to help people who are working hard to help themselves? If it does keep people in the workforce and does move towards providing them a living wage, they won't have to avial themselves of public relief programs. That will, in some measure offset the expenditure and loss of revenue. From my own experience, if you are working a min wage job, the government isn't getting much if anything out of you in taxes anyway as most min wage earners get a significant portion of what they pay in back when they file their returns anyway.

 

[amicus]

I suppose one could intellectually create a society, an economy and a tax scheme in which everything was equal.

That is to say, everyone was paid the same amount and taxed the same amount, gave and received in absolute equality at both ends.

There is both a philosophical and a sociological dimension to much of what has been posted on this thread and I suggest it needs to be considered.

Some people are smarter than others, anyone disagree?

Some people are very smart, some are very dumb.

Intelligence and ability naturally gives an advantage to some.

Knowing this, rational thinkers attempt to fashion a society that is 'just' and 'equal' under the 'law', the guidelines of that society.

I rather suspect there will always be, in any form of social gathering, those who are more successful than others.

In other words the less able, the less capable, the 'poor', will always be a part of any society.

The underlying question about minimum wage, welfare and all the services provided those at the bottom of society, the basic question is what system, what means of help is most efficient and effective at providing for them.

The assumed avenue in almost every post is redistribution of wealth through taxation in an attempt to bring about equality.

Every hairbrained altruist who feels charitable towards the poor, decides that the wealthy, the more fortunate in society have an obligation and should 'share the wealth.'

Since one of the tenets of a civilized and just society is that one may not use 'force' to attain ones desired ends, then forcefully confiscating wealth from one group to another, is not, repeat not, an acceptable course of action.

It is a moral and an ethical question to which a legitimate society can offer but one solution.

Individual human freedom to act without restriction in one's own best self interest.

The assumption, here and elsewhere seems to be several things: 1. the poor are created because the rich have too much and are greedy and stingy. 2. There is not enough wealth to go around. 3. Life is unfair. 4. Mutual respect, cooperation, sharing, kindness, concern and charitable giving will solve all problems.

There is more of course. Much more.

I do not imagine for a second that there is any one 'perfect' system to solve all the difficulties in life.

I do offer, with absolute certainty, that individual human freedom, enumerated rights and protection of those rights, and a society free of oppression, is the only honorable course of action a rational person can advocate.

A large society is a complex one with many difficulties. Some children are born less than whole in many ways and will need extended total care for most of their entire lives, far beyond the ability of a single family to handle.

Society must find a way to help. That help should not come in the manner of using force, mandatory taxation to provide long term care. How can it be done otherwise?

Quite the same with the insane and the criminal element. It takes great amounts of funding and skill to provide mental institutions, jails and prisons. Can this be done without taxing the rich?

We have a form of government in which that government is under control, retrained and restricted from acting in ways that would violate the rights of the individual citizen. Can those freedoms be guaranteed and protected and still safeguard the 'welfare' of the people?

I think so. And I think that the free market place and capitalism is the only just and rational method to achieve those goals.

And before you even say it, free people do not express a 'dog eat dog' philosophy, it is not 'social darwinism' the strong survive, the weak perish.

You might consider that America existed without income taxation until 1916, the entire industrial revolution and rise to power in world affairs took place without 'public schools' and the host of government projects that we have now.

When I often refer to those who hate mankind, it is to those who do not trust the human spirit that I speak. I think you do not realize the part played by family and extended family; by associations, churchs, fraternal, business and labor groups.

Not just Americans, but humans, people everywhere, will take care of their own if we can just get the goddamned government off out backs.

Leave us alone!

amicus...

 

[Pure]

long speech, trite end

IF somehow all taxes, even approved per the constitution, are bad, and

ANY tax that is 'graduated' is particularly bad,

ANY expediture of tax for the needs of the middle or the lowest on the economic scale, is incredibly bad, evil, and pernicious. AND

The 'poor' are to be 'helped' in a way that costs money,

THEN, the 19th century liberal position of amicus, Adam Smith, Rand, etc is to let the churches and private charities have soup kitchens for the starving, etc; charity hospitals and mental institutions.

This is the way still followed in a number of poor countries, like Jamaica.

The US, Canada, England, France, and Germany, Holland, Norway, Sweden, through democratic processes--legislation-- decided to do it another way. Sometimes it's been done wastefully or clumsily or with the unintended effect of increased dependence. But no major political party in any of the above countries, including conservative parties, has proposed to turn back the clock. IOW, all major 'pro capitalist' parties favor things like UI, and all the major capitalists, except a few Texan dinosaurs.

It greases the wheels of the capitalist state and keeps the poor from stealing the hubcaps from the rich's Mercedes.

Like the Islamic fundamentalists' view of the woman's ankle as incitement to evil, amicus' view of wrongful taxation is fortunately shared by only a small number of well off zealots. It is 'pure' and rigorous: you might say Amicus is the Ayatollah of 19th century liberalism.

 

[cantdog]

Amicus aside, Pure's practical point should not be lost on the corps. It costs a good deal more to raise, train, and hire vast security forces to defend the rich from an aroused, angry mass of poor people than it does to treat them fairly in the first place.

And it is axiomatic in security work that no amount of security can absolutely protect anyone. It can virtually assure that the perpetrator is in turn killed, under most conditions, but that's all. Good careful planning can defeat it, especially if the perpetrator doesn't mind being exposed to retaliation.

Why put yourself through it, when a sane regard for the well being of the lower classes will defuse their anger?

 

[rgraham666]

Why put yourself through it, when a sane regard for the well being of the lower classes will defuse their anger?

Because they're human beings and thus generally not that smart?

 

[rgraham666]

The best book I ever read on how to run a business was Up the Organization - How to stop the corporation from Stifling People and Strangling Profits by Robert Townsend.

Before our friend denounces the man as a liberal because I like him, he was President of Avis back when they were #2 and tried harder. He took a company that had only made a profit once in fifteen years and made it very profitable.

He also has a wonderful self depreciating sense of humour. For example he admitted only about one third of the decisions he made at Avis were good and was fortunate to have a good staff that corrected him. He also said he wasn't worth the $250,000 a year they tried to pay them. He settled for $60,000. He said he was over paid compared to the important people, at the rental desks.

Mr. Townsend made it very clear that the best way to make a company profitable is to treat your employees very, very well. He introduced a profit sharing plan based on accomplishment. He made it clear that they are people, and should be treated so.

The book was such a relief from the usual crap on running a business. Highly recommended if you can find a copy.

He also said under no circumstances should you hire an MBA.

Maybe the cost of living increasing isn't automatically a bad thing if wages can keep ahead of it.

 

[cantdog]

Nobody has admitted to the cost of living increasing for better than two decades. It is not good PR to admit to any inflation occurring on your watch.

But it has. And especially in the business press, you see tacit acknowledgement: "Adjusting for 1980 dollars" and similar phrases. The business press has often had to admit the real economic picture in many ways the politicized pop press does not, because businesses need real information. It makes them interesting reading occasionally.

 

[siderophile]

PLEASE!

IS THERE AN ECONOMIST IN THE ROOM?

Because we sure as hell need one!

I tought this was Right vs Left. This has been like chasing a dough-nut around a merry-go-round. There isn't any end!

Thanks! I needed that!

Sid

 

[Colleen Thomas]

PLEASE!

IS THERE AN ECONOMIST IN THE ROOM?

Because we sure as hell need one!

I tought this was Right vs Left. This has been like chasing a dough-nut around a merry-go-round. There isn't any end!

Thanks! I needed that!

Sid

It is titled left vs. right. But it wasn't set up to be a war zone. It was an attempt at furthering a dialogue between proponents of the left and right, in the hope of finding a less adversarial way of approaching things. Apparently, you missed the memo.

Minimum wage is one issue, one of many that divide us. The left, pushes for raising it at the drop of a hat. The right fights raising it for any reason.

I am not an actuary. I am not an economist, nor even an accountant, but I put forward an idea for discussion of an alternate way of addressing the problem of low income workers making ends meet.

I outlined the problems I see in raising minimum wage. I accept the right's contention that raising it, simply raises the cost of goods and services for everyone. I also looked at it from the other side and accept something needs to be done.

My proposed solution, while not the only one possible, is a compromise position.

Bussiness won't lobby against it, as it increases the amount of income consumers have without raising the cost of doing bussiness.

The working man, who already thinks he is over taxed, will appreciate the extra money in his check.

The moderate left should be able to get behind it because it is addressing the issue at hand, raising the amount of spendable income of the working poor.

The moderate right should be able to get behind it, because it addresses the issue without raising taxes, stifeling bussines or creating new federal agencies.

Government should be able to get behind it, because it will lower revenue slightly and increse expenditure somewhat, but it should move many people from public assistance to making a living wage.

The far left will hate it, because it dosen't address their goal of an eglatarian society, a la communism.

The far right won't like it as it is federal tax dollars going towards the poor and won't do anything to eliminate the welfare state.

It wasn't postulated for the extremes, but as a proposition for discussion among those on either side of the divide with a wish to look for answers that aren't based on complete victory. It might not work. It might not even be based on a practiceable idea. It is, however a starting point for further discussion and brain storming that dosen't have to be a slugfest and can lead to dialogue wehre each side can drop the most extreme positions and look for common ground and compromise.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I'm not an economist, but it seems to me that as long as (a) you have majority rule, and (b) there are fewer rich people than not-rich, then (z) the rich are going to be taxed.

If you get rid of (a) then you have a tyrrany, and if you get rid of (b) then you have communism.

So what am I missing here?

Edited to add: Corollary: There are 2 ways under such a system you can reduce the taxes on the wealthy:

(c) You can cut taxes on the wealthy and misrepresent it as a tax cut for the less-wealthy, that is, tax relief by obfuscation, or

(d) You can try to convince the less-wealthy that it's in their best interest to let the rich get richer, which is the argument Amicus makes.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm not an economist, but it seems to me that as long as (a) you have majority rule, and (b) there are fewer rich people than not-rich, then (z) the rich are going to be taxed.

If you get rid of (a) then you have a tyrrany, and if you get rid of (b) then you have communism.

So what am I missing here?

Edited to add: Corollary: There are 2 ways under such a system you can reduce the taxes on the wealthy:

(c) You can cut taxes on the wealthy and misrepresent it as a tax cut for the less-wealthy, that is, tax relief by obfuscation, or

(d) You can try to convince the less-wealthy that it's in their best interest to let the rich get richer, which is the argument Amicus makes.

Or, you can present other issues as more important than who is carrying the lion's share of the tax burden. People vote in their own percieved self-intrest. If there are issues that are more imporant to them than who is getting taxed, you can win a majority in both houses of congress and do as you please. So long as you are percieved to be doing hat you promised them, the voters will not raise too much hue and cry.

Or, you have a country like this one, in which the middle class have always carried the lion's share of the tax burden. Taxing the poor only is self defeating, they don't produce much revenue. Taxing the very rich only produces realatively little because as you noted, they are a small fraction of the population. Taxig the middle heavily gives you a huge return, in boh terms of numbers and what you get per person taxed.

People do not generally like to be taxed. Even those who recognize they recieve benefits from being taxed still don't like it. Most everyone, no matter what their income circumstances feel they are carrying too much of the tax burden. that is one reason a tax cut, even one that is imperfect was such a hit. If you are doing something that popular, you can sneak in a few sops to your rich buddies and the average joe isn't likely to notice or care, so long as he gets his money back.

 

[rgraham666]

Colleen, this assumes that only individuals are taxed.

There are many other entities with money that can be taxed.

In fact, to my mind, one of the reasons that taxes are so high is that these entities are not taxed much.

For example, in the late '50s, early '60s, the jointly held stock companies carried between thirty and forty per cent of the tax burden, depending on where they were located in the West.

A decade ago, they carried between ten and fifteen per cent.

As the writer that pointed that out notes, "We're not in a debt crisis, we're in a taxation crisis."

One of the more interesting conundrums of our society is that corporations are considered individuals before the law with all the rights and privileges of an individual.

But somewhere along the line the obligations of the individual have been dropped.

 

[amicus]

Someone said, "A rising tide lifts all ships in the harbour..."

Democrats screamed at the Reagan tax cuts and again at the Bush tax cuts. Strangely enough, more jobs were created as all income levels had more to spend, the economy recovered from the tax increases by the Democrats and lo and behold, tax revenues went up!

There is something not being said about wages and prices, supply and demand, that I can't quite put into the proper words to gain understanding.

I think as long as many people reject the concept of a free market place, wherein wages and prices vary according to supply and demand, then we can never reach agreement.

Aside from my political philosophy of not wanting government to use taxes for anything outside that constitutionally provided for, I really don't think a 'free' people needed guidance in the market place.

Another unanswered aspect concerned the unspoken assumption by many, that the poor are created by the rich, that there is just not enough goods and services to go around.

My fundamental assumption is that in a free society, all who want work can find it and be compensated according to their desire and ability.

It would not be an 'equal' income for all, as some would still desire to have the best of everything, some just want to keep up with the Jones's and some would just get by with minimum effort.

High taxation restrains investment and curtails jobs.

Again, to me the essential questions about an economy are not the nuts and bolts, the dry details, rather the philosophical and sociological imperatives of individual freedom, self esteem, honor and value in the market place between mutually agreeable participants.

amicus

(Thanks Colleen)

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colleen, this assumes that only individuals are taxed.

There are many other entities with money that can be taxed.

In fact, to my mind, one of the reasons that taxes are so high is that these entities are not taxed much.

For example, in the late '50s, early '60s, the jointly held stock companies carried between thirty and forty per cent of the tax burden, depending on where they were located in the West.

A decade ago, they carried between ten and fifteen per cent.

As the writer that pointed that out notes, "We're not in a debt crisis, we're in a taxation crisis."

One of the more interesting conundrums of our society is that corporations are considered individuals before the law with all the rights and privileges of an individual.

But somewhere along the line the obligations of the individual have been dropped.

To be honest Rob, it would seem to me the problem with Taxation is not who is geting taxed or how much, it's with the Bozo's who allocate how it is spent.

Two and a half million to B'ham Alabama to refurbish the statue of Vulcan? Since when was that a federal priority? If congres were spending money only on legitimate Federal needs, it would seem the taxes collected would more than suffice, but when every spending bill is loaded with pork barell projects it becomes unsustainable no matter how much you collect. Add to it lack of oversight in how federal agencies spend their bugeted money and you get a system run amok. 875$ for a toilet seat?

If we put the kibosh on that kind of crap and made the congressmen spend only what they take in and only on federal government, we might find everyone was being taxed too much, individual and corporation. We might find the money neded to make the asses return all the loot they pillaged from Social security. We might evenbe able to pay down our debt. All without raising taxes or sutting federal spending programs.

A tax crisis? Perhaps, but to my mind a crisis in how they are spent, not how they are raised.

 

[rgraham666]

To be honest Rob, it would seem to me the problem with Taxation is not who is geting taxed or how much, it's with the Bozo's who allocate how it is spent.

Two and a half million to B'ham Alabama to refurbish the statue of Vulcan? Since when was that a federal priority? If congres were spending money only on legitimate Federal needs, it would seem the taxes collected would more than suffice, but when every spending bill is loaded with pork barell projects it becomes unsustainable no matter how much you collect. Add to it lack of oversight in how federal agencies spend their bugeted money and you get a system run amok. 875$ for a toilet seat?

If we put the kibosh on that kind of crap and made the congressmen spend only what they take in and only on federal government, we might find everyone was being taxed too much, individual and corporation. We might find the money neded to make the asses return all the loot they pillaged from Social security. We might evenbe able to pay down our debt. All without raising taxes or sutting federal spending programs.

A tax crisis? Perhaps, but to my mind a crisis in how they are spent, not how they are raised.

I won't argue with that one Colleen.

I'm now remembering hearing about the coffee machines they installed on the Orion.

It cost $10, 000, was 'mil spec', and could take something like 2,500Gs.

Which meant if the plane crashed, there would be hot coffee waiting for the people who came to pick up the pieces.

Back to the original point. I'm now thinking that maybe a real important thing to do would be campaign finance reform.

A lot of those pork barrel projects you mentioned are actually payoffs to big contributers.

I'm thinking of only voters can contribute, the ceiling is $5,000 dollars, the money goes only to parties and PACS and contributions to PACS counts against the limit.

Sigh, it'll never happen though.

 

[amicus]

Rgraham....


Someone once asked a bank robber why he robbed banks; "Because that's where the money is!" Was the answer.

Soak the rich dates back to biblical times, if not before.

There is always envy and jealousy towards those who are more successful than others, I suppose that is human nature.

But an open question, if I may, why do you hate success?

I for one would love to market a hula hoop or a pet rock and make a zillion dollars and I would not feel a bit guilty living in my mansion and driving my Ferrari.

No one seems to hat P.Diddy, Madonna or Shaquille O'Neal for being filthy rich, but let a man like Bill Gates go from a garage enterprise to a global business, supply you with Windows XP, which you are most likely using at this moment, and you hate his guts.

Why?

And your whining about corporations. Supposing I am CEO of an incorporated business, supposed my company employs a thousand people, or 10 thousand and their wages and salaries support 10,000 families and provide them with health insurance and retirement plans and yearly vacations and perq's and such.

Never mind that I had to finance the Corporation with borrowed money on which I pay interest. Never mind that I have to pay property tax for every inch of space. Never mind that I pay a business tax and a license tax and a city tax and a county tax and a state tax and a federal tax and more.

Never mind that I must with this corporation I must produce goods and services in stiff competition with competing companies and my goods and services must be well made, easy to use and priced in order to compete.

Never mind that the construction labor when I built the plant was required to be 'Union' labor; when I could have hired skilled labor at 12-15 dollars an hour, because it was Union, I was forced to pay 35-50 dollars an hour.

Never mind the costs for government inspections of electricity, gas, water, sewage every needed service and added fee.

In addition to those I employ, I also must provide a return to those investors who hold stock in my company, I am hit from every direction for donations and contributions from every charitable organization in existence.

I wonder why anyone, knowing this, ever decides to go into business, when the better you succeed, the more you are hated and taxed for your efficiency.

You and those like you are most likely satisfied with the work you do 'for someone else', as I doubt anyone on this forum has invested and managed a private business on their own.

...end of vent...


amicus...

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Well, forgive me for not seeking out points of agreement to contribute to a mutual circle-jerk of banality.

If "everyone agrees that not all points can be said to have worth", and "everyone can't be right", why is it wrong to look for flaws in other's points? And how can one find flaws without listening to the others' argument? Maybe you think I'm being a jerk for pointing this out, but you aren't making logical sense here.

The issue doesn't seem to be in not listening, it's in not wishing to acknowledge fallacies in others' (or one's own) posts.

The point is in this last part. "Or one's own..." I can take what you're saying, listen to it, looking for flaws, and tear it down. But that solves nothing, and it never will. Ever. Period. If you listen to their point, regardless of flaws, then consider the overall idea, then propose your own take on the situation; now we're working toward solving a problem.

"Discuss" or "argue" or "debate"; you seem to draw distinctions between these terms, and perhaps there are assumed degrees of civility associated with each. However, it seems to me that the perceived civility depends on one's point of view to begin with. I mean, I haven't called anyone a name or insulted anyone in this post or the last, yet you say I'm a "good example of the type of attitude that has led to the problem." How so?

It isn't civility, necessarily, but then, perhaps it can be looked at that way.

To discuss is to share ideas. Discussion can be unhindered by judgment. To argue is more an attempt to show that you're right. It's a dispute. A debate is pretty much a contest between two people. The value of the points involved are less important than the abilities of the debater.

In civil discussion, meaning people talking in order to reach a conclusion on a matter, the flaws are much less important than the overall point, their issues that can be fixed, not issues to be used as weapons to disprove the other side.

Commence circle-jerk.

Q_C

 

[Guest]

Commence circle-jerk.

Q_C

In the spirit of civil discussion, wouldn't group sex be a bit more enjoyable?

 

[Quiet_Cool]

K. Give me satisfactory, commonly accepted terms for:

* A person whose primary goal is the liberty of the individual.
* A person whose primary goal is the preservation of the status quo.

Then I'll stop bitching.

Okay,

I'll choose the name Mother Goose for the first, and Little Boy Blue for the second. Don't expect to hear much about them; they are, in modern politics, pretty much fairy tales. We'll be talking much more about Mr. Jones, whose primary goal is getting rich and taking advantage of the public, all while doing so from public office.

Sorry it took so long. I had a few days to catch up on, and many posts (some of which I didn't bother to read... )

Q_C

 

[Quiet_Cool]

In the spirit of civil discussion, wouldn't group sex be a bit more enjoyable?

Huckleman's idea of a circle jerk is much more appropriate, given the lower rate of distraction and the possibility of having to accept "mmmph, mmmph" as answers from mouths otherwise occupied.

Q_C

 

[Guest]

Huckleman's idea of a circle jerk is much more appropriate, given the lower rate of distraction and the possibility of having to accept "mmmph, mmmph" as answers from mouths otherwise occupied.

Q_C

 

[Pure]

I see

Amicus said,

My fundamental assumption is that in a free society, all who want work can find it and be compensated according to their desire and ability.

Let's get this straight:
In a free society,
Of those who want to work:
1) all will have jobs (including full time if they want?)
2) all will be paid appropriately.

Your other errors are explained, since your first assumption is obviously false.
(Or, if you're just playing with words, there never has been a 'free society', so its benefits have not come up for assessment. But of course we know of societies where the gov. does not interfere with or impede businesses in any way; if that's 'free' then this claim--there never has been a free society-- is also false.

As a number of posters have made clear, the possibilities of argument are limited; it's as if someone says, "I know there's a paradise where everything is fine, but it's beyond the human senses." No known or knowable facts bear upon the issue.

Within the Amicus paradise, all is well.