Originally posted by normbenignYou seem to equate taxing the rich to taxing businesses. This is folly, when I say "tax the rich" I mean "tax the income of rich employees". If wealthy individuals would invest or donate the money they don't need, there would be no issue. The problem is that they primarily spend it on luxury goods - it's their right, sure, but it doesn't increase the overall wealth of anyone, or at least only by a very limited amount. So therefore tax is a necessary evil to protect society against the incentive of the wealthy to waste their resources, even if it is not spent as efficiently as it should be by government. (to solve that problem, I suggest fixing your electoral system)
"The prevailing sentiment seems to be that people who advocate taxing the rich more heavily are jealous. It has nothing to do with jealousy"
Sorry this is a strawman argument. I am comfortable, but hardly rich, and I am not jealous of the rich. I don't know too many people that are. Almost everyone wants more, and if someone promises they can have mo ...[text shortened]... ou looked at government recently? Greed and crooks, is synonymous with government.
Originally posted by no1marauderI am a proponent of small government. I would certainly be on board with bringing the troops home. We have to finish what we started in Iraq, unfortunately, but we also have 70000 troops stationed in Germany. Not to mention the rest of the world. I would also eliminate the war on drugs and release all prisoners convicted of drug crimes. End the illegality of gambling and the legislation of other vices. I don't have the slightest idea what to do about the welfare, medicaid, and social security messes. Eventually, social security will collapse. I would also switch the taxation system from an income tax to a sales tax, which is much easier to collect and would require fewer government employees. I would also think very hard about ending all foreign aid programs. Just a few thoughts.
I'd like to hear an exponent of smaller government make specific proposals on what parts of government spending he'd slash and/or eliminate. I'd save about $500 billion a year or more by ending involvement in forgein military adventures and cutting the US military to a reasonable level to provide defense for this country and not the interests of the elite overseas. Are you on board with that?[/b]
There are a few things that will lead to the collapse. One thing is, people who started contributing in the 60's were putting in a lot less money then it will take for them to live now. My grandma receives 400 a month from social security. I doubt there was ever a time when she contributed that much. Secondly, the burden on social security is made worse as more people lose their jobs. Not as much coming in because not as many folks are working. I imagine that FDR knew that social security was a program that required the young to support the old. If the young aren't working, what happens to the program?
Originally posted by dryhumpSo where is the collapse? A simple raise in taxes would fix the problem (and would raise employment).
There are a few things that will lead to the collapse. One thing is, people who started contributing in the 60's were putting in a lot less money then it will take for them to live now. My grandma receives 400 a month from social security. I doubt there was ever a time when she contributed that much. Secondly, the burden on social security is made worse ...[text shortened]... uired the young to support the old. If the young aren't working, what happens to the program?
Sad that the elderly have such a crappy pension. The US can easily afford doubling that 400 dollar figure. I guess Americans don't really respect the work they have done during their lifetime.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe US can't afford anything right now. We are so mired in debt that we will be paying for it for generations to come. Where is the money for more taxes supposed to come from with unemployment on the rise? Also, many elderly folks get a pension from a job. Some folks even saved money during their lives so they wouldn't have to depend on the government pension. Imagine, people used to save money.
So where is the collapse? A simple raise in taxes would fix the problem (and would raise employment).
Sad that the elderly have such a crappy pension. The US can easily afford doubling that 400 dollar figure. I guess Americans don't really respect the work they have done during their lifetime.
Originally posted by dryhumpTens of millions of jobs can be created by expanding health care, education, social security and infrastructure. Employment is not a problem unless you want it to be.
The US can't afford anything right now. We are so mired in debt that we will be paying for it for generations to come. Where is the money for more taxes supposed to come from with unemployment on the rise? Also, many elderly folks get a pension from a job. Some folks even saved money during their lives so they wouldn't have to depend on the government pension. Imagine, people used to save money.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWho is going to do the expanding? If you are suggesting that the government will pay for the expansion, then I have to ask you how? Eventually, debt must be payed back. Billions of dollars of government expansion can't be supported in the present climate. Millions of folks have lost jobs, where is the tax revenue coming from to create these expansions? The government does not create wealth, neither do any of the progams you advocate.
Tens of millions of jobs can be created by expanding health care, education, social security and infrastructure. Employment is not a problem unless you want it to be.
Originally posted by dryhumpThrough raising taxes, of course. It works in Europe, I don't see why it wouldn't work in the USA.
Who is going to do the expanding? If you are suggesting that the government will pay for the expansion, then I have to ask you how? Eventually, debt must be payed back. Billions of dollars of government expansion can't be supported in the present climate. Millions of folks have lost jobs, where is the tax revenue coming from to create these expansions? The government does not create wealth, neither do any of the progams you advocate.
The government does not create wealth, neither do any of the progams you advocate.
Education, health care, infrastructure and social security do not create wealth?! Do you even know what wealth means?
I advocate now that which Theodore Roosevelt did in 1910. He said then that the people of the United States suffered needlessly from periodic financial panics. He thought it vital to investigate and revise the US financial system to prevent such panics.
TR advocated fair play under the established rules of the game, but wanted those rules changed so as to work for a more substantial equality of opportunity and of reward for equally good service. He did not mean that we should collectively support the man who remains poor because he has not got the energy to work for himself.
TR was the first to argue that government, National and State, must be freed from what he termed “the sinister influence or control of special interests.”
He said that while every special interest was entitled to justice, not one was entitled to a vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench, or to representation in any public office. The Constitution guarantees protection to property, and we must make that promise good, TR said; “but it does not give the right of suffrage to any corporation.”
“The true friend of property, the true conservative,” TR said, “is he who insists that property shall be the servant and not the master of the commonwealth.” So he insisted that the public was entitled to know whether corporations obey the law and whether their management entitles them to the confidence of the public. He thought it necessary to pass law to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes, and even more necessary to enforce such laws thoroughly. TR blamed corporate expenditures for political purposes, and especially such expenditures by public-service corporations, as one of the principal sources of corruption in US political affairs.
TR wanted government supervision of the capitalization of all corporations doing an interstate business. He insisted on thoroughgoing and effective regulation of corporations, especially of combinations that control necessities, such as food, and fuel. He said officers, and, especially, the directors, of corporations should be held personally responsible when any corporation breaks the law. He said we should be as sure of the proper conduct of corporations in interstate commerce as we should be sure of the conduct and management of the national banks..
TR pointed at what he saw as the absence of “effective State, and, especially, national, restraint upon unfair money-getting” which he said created “a small class of enormously wealthy and economically powerful men, whose chief object is to hold and increase their power.”
TR’s priority was to change the conditions which enabled these men to accumulate power “which it is not for the general welfare that they should hold or exercise.”
TR had no objection to a man accumulating a fortune representing his own power and sagacity, with the proviso that it be exercised with “entire regard to the welfare of his fellows.”
He said we should grudge no man a fortune in civil life “if it is honorably obtained and well used.” But he thought it is “not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community.”
He knew this would lead to far more active governmental interference with social and economic conditions that the country had yet seen, but he thought such an increase in governmental control necessary.
TR identified where to draw the line and what the standard regarding “greed" was. He said that the “really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means.” This was the source of his belief in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes.
If those multi-millionaire Wall St wizards, bankers, mortgage brokers and rating agencies who got us into this mess retained liability for the failure of the bogus assets they traded in commerce, they never would have exposed themselves to such risk. But because they had no fear of being held accountable or liable, they went ahead, passing on the phony assets and collecting huge profits, fees and bonuses.
No one is going after a guy with a 4-bedroom house, a couple of cars, and a couple of million bucks he spent 35 years in the workforce earning.
But the people making in excess of $25 million a year and then receiving double or triple that in bonus money, while their company shows enormous losses -- what about them? They take TARP money to bail themselves out while awarding themselves these bonuses. Well, some may not know how to distinguish such people from the guy in the 4-bedroom house, but as an experienced Federal regulatory attorney, I do know the people I want to grab by the collar and shake until every ill-gotten coin is recovered.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIn order to create these programs the government must take wealth from the people who produce it. Education does not produce anything that has intrinsic value. In fact, given the state of public education in this country, I would say public education is a negative. I really don't understand how you could argue that social security creates wealth, but I am interested to hear it.
Through raising taxes, of course. It works in Europe, I don't see why it wouldn't work in the USA.
[b]The government does not create wealth, neither do any of the progams you advocate.
Education, health care, infrastructure and social security do not create wealth?! Do you even know what wealth means?[/b]
Originally posted by dryhumpEducation creates wealth because it increases the productivity of the labour force (provided the education is any good, of course). Education also improves democracy through more informed choices at the ballot. Social security creates wealth because people like to feel secure and because it lowers crime. The state of public education is indeed horrendous in the US. Might that be because of inadequate funding?
In order to create these programs the government must take wealth from the people who produce it. Education does not produce anything that has intrinsic value. In fact, given the state of public education in this country, I would say public education is a negative. I really don't understand how you could argue that social security creates wealth, but I am interested to hear it.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIn general, there's adequate overall funding for education in the US. Unfortunately, there are vast inequities in the funding because most of it is provided by local property tax revenues and these vary widely based on the relative prosperity of the individual school districts.
Education creates wealth because it increases the productivity of the labour force (provided the education is any good, of course). Education also improves democracy through more informed choices at the ballot. Social security creates wealth because people like to feel secure and because it lowers crime. The state of public education is indeed horrendous in the US. Might that be because of inadequate funding?
In addition, the recent "reforms" which rely almost completely on standardized testing even at very low grade levels are fundamentally flawed.
