about Taxes

[neurosport]

if everybody had to take 90% of their income and burn that cash - there would be no real impact on the economy. the prices internally would simply reset dropping by a factor of 10 and everything would go back to normal.

on the other hand if 90% of income was taxed and given to the government the economy would collapse. everybody would leave their jobs in the private sector and go to work for the bureaucracy where the money is. production would stop and people would starve to death.

therefore it is not money being taken away from the people that is killing the economy - it is money given to the government. unfortunately the government can always give money to itself by printing it. it doesn't need taxes.

moral of the story - taxes don't matter, government spending does.

the tax rate that you are thinking of is FICTIONAL. its just a number on paper. the REAL tax rate is higher. the real tax rate includes the fictional tax rate plus inflation plus government debt. the real tax rate can very well exceed 100% ! ! ! of course this can only go on for so long before the house of cards collapses ...

 

[edthecynic]

if everybody had to take 90% of their income and burn that cash - there would be no real impact on the economy. the prices internally would simply reset dropping by a factor of 10 and everything would go back to normal.

on the other hand if 90% of income was taxed and given to the government the economy would collapse. everybody would leave their jobs in the private sector and go to work for the bureaucracy where the money is. production would stop and people would starve to death.

therefore it is not money being taken away from the people that is killing the economy - it is money given to the government. unfortunately the government can always give money to itself by printing it. it doesn't need taxes.

moral of the story - taxes don't matter, government spending does.

That does not compute! Production won't stop!!!
Business will produce what government SPENDS its taxed or printed money on.

Spend wisely, grasshopper.

 

[neurosport]

if everybody had to take 90% of their income and burn that cash - there would be no real impact on the economy. the prices internally would simply reset dropping by a factor of 10 and everything would go back to normal.

on the other hand if 90% of income was taxed and given to the government the economy would collapse. everybody would leave their jobs in the private sector and go to work for the bureaucracy where the money is. production would stop and people would starve to death.

therefore it is not money being taken away from the people that is killing the economy - it is money given to the government. unfortunately the government can always give money to itself by printing it. it doesn't need taxes.

moral of the story - taxes don't matter, government spending does.

That does not compute! Production won't stop!!!
Business will produce what government SPENDS its taxed or printed money on.

Spend wisely, grasshopper.

no. what the government spends will end up in the pockets of those who paid it off - unions, pharma etc. plus their own ( government ) employees. it won't go to independent businesses who produce everything of value.

 

[Agnapostate]

Independent businesses have no such role, given the unfortunate realities of market concentration. Just another form of inefficiency promoted under capitalism.

 

[neurosport]

Independent businesses have no such role, given the unfortunate realities of market concentration. Just another form of inefficiency promoted under capitalism.

Elaborate ?

 

[Amanda]

Independent businesses have no such role, given the unfortunate realities of market concentration. Just another form of inefficiency promoted under capitalism.

Elaborate ?

Oh now you've done it....

 

[Agnapostate]

Elaborate ?

Economic efficiency is best brought about by the establishment of worker-owned and managed enterprises and labor cooperatives. However, the effective market concentration guaranteed by a capitalist economic structure generates negative externalities that have an adverse impact on any such democratic or worker-owned firms attempting to enter into the competitive market. Larger and less efficient firms are thus able to eliminate smaller and more efficient firms in a process that John Stuart Mill termed "the tyranny of capital" simply as a result of their access to a greater reserve of capital and productive resources rather than any greater skill in utilizing that reserve efficiently.

Oh now you've done it....

Shush, you.

 

[hipeter924]

Independent businesses have no such role, given the unfortunate realities of market concentration. Just another form of inefficiency promoted under capitalism.

Capitalism is not inefficient...its the most efficient system we have...it promotes individualism while both socialism and communism desire to take that away.

 

[Agnapostate]

Capitalism is not inefficient...its the most efficient system we have...it promotes individualism while both socialism and communism desire to take that away.

The precise nature of the inefficiency promoted under capitalism has just been described: a propensity toward market concentration that ultimately undercuts competitive enterprise, and affirms Jaroslav Vanek's remark that "[t]he capitalist economy is not a true market economy because in western capitalism, as in Soviet state capitalism, there is a tendency towards monopoly. Economic democracy tends toward a competitive market." This conflicts with the superior efficiency provided by a socialist economy consisting of small-scale enterprise by worker-owned and managed enterprises and labor cooperatives.

Moreover, without further elaboration on your part, I'm willing to stake plenty that you describe previously and currently existing forms of state capitalism as "socialism" or "communism"; I don't believe I've yet encountered a single anti-socialist who's used the term accurately.

 

[hipeter924]

Capitalism is not inefficient...its the most efficient system we have...it promotes individualism while both socialism and communism desire to take that away.

The precise nature of the inefficiency promoted under capitalism has just been described: a propensity toward market concentration that ultimately undercuts competitive enterprise, and affirms Jaroslav Vanek's remark that "[t]he capitalist economy is not a true market economy because in western capitalism, as in Soviet state capitalism, there is a tendency towards monopoly. Economic democracy tends toward a competitive market." This conflicts with the superior efficiency provided by a socialist economy consisting of small-scale enterprise by worker-owned and managed enterprises and labor cooperatives.

Moreover, without further elaboration on your part, I'm willing to stake plenty that you describe previously and currently existing forms of state capitalism as "socialism" or "communism"; I don't believe I've yet encountered a single anti-socialist who's used the term accurately.

I said capitalism as a whole meaning every type of capitalism.

By the way Soviet state capitalism, there was no such thing. I doubt you can find many people of note (on any side) to back up your theory. The Soviet Union was a Communist state. What idiot said otherwise?

"propensity toward market concentration that ultimately undercuts competitive enterprise"

What a load of rubbish. A free market economy is ultimate goal of capitalism, but just like its counterparts of communism and socialism the economy never ended up reaching its ultimate goal. But unlike Communism and Socialism it is thriving and can reach the ultimate goal of a free market economy.

The Capitalist free market is happening...free trade deals aren't for nothing mate. Its the opening up of a new competitive environment...so your idea that free market capitalism stops competition sounds like its straight from a bit of soviet propaganda...its a nice story but not the true one.

 

[Agnapostate]

I said capitalism as a whole meaning every type of capitalism.

Rabid anti-socialists are often unable to rationally distinguish between different varieties of capitalism, inaccurately defining liberal and social democratic capitalism as "socialism," and ironically serving as the allies of progressive socialists, since Anglo-Saxon capitalism is doomed to increased inefficiency and social ills.

By the way Soviet state capitalism, there was no such thing. I doubt you can find many people of note (on any side) to back up your theory. The Soviet Union was a Communist state. What idiot said otherwise?

Incorrect. As for those who claimed that the Soviet Union was not a "communist state," you might want to consider the leaders and supporters of the Soviet Union, for one thing, who adopted a Marxist-Leninist conception of transition to stateless communism through a socialist "workers' state" of the Soviet variety. None would have been so absurd as to claim that communism has been established in the Soviet Union. Regardless, there are several grounds for rejecting the myth of the Soviet Union as socialist, the chief reason being that socialism necessitates the collective ownership of the means of production. A socialist conception of property rights is typically related in some manner to use-value, which implies that any legitimate form of socialist ownership must necessarily include managerial control in some capacity. Hence, since a party elite and bureaucracy managed the affairs of the Soviet Union rather than any collective body, it therefore did not satisfy the necessary criteria of socialism.

What a load of rubbish. A free market economy is ultimate goal of capitalism, but just like its counterparts of communism and socialism the economy never ended up reaching its ultimate goal. But unlike Communism and Socialism it is thriving and can reach the ultimate goal of a free market economy.

A free market economy is a utopian fantasy with no application whatsoever out of the textbook, and is as effectively as preposterous as the neoclassical conception of perfect competition. Communism has rarely been established and only on a primarily agrarian setting when it has, but it is incorrect to claim that socialism has not been established, since libertarian and democratic forms of socialism have previously enjoyed the benefits of successful existence (at least for a time, in some cases), whilst we can determine what the successes of market socialism theoretically could be by extrapolating empirical data regarding the superior efficiency of worker-owned and managed enterprises and labor cooperatives.

The Capitalist free market is happening...free trade deals aren't for nothing mate. Its the opening up of a new competitive environment...so your idea that free market capitalism stops competition sounds like its straight from a bit of soviet propaganda...its a nice story but not the true one.

Trade liberalization often has similarly adverse impacts and consequences, which accounts for the U.S.'s historical reliance on protectionism rather than adopting the neoliberal formula that the Washington Consensus now prescribes for others. The most obvious example of the benefits brought about by "fair trade" is the protected development of infant industries, which thereby maximizes dynamic comparative advantage in the long run.

 

[Iriemon]

if everybody had to take 90% of their income and burn that cash - there would be no real impact on the economy. the prices internally would simply reset dropping by a factor of 10 and everything would go back to normal.

on the other hand if 90% of income was taxed and given to the government the economy would collapse. everybody would leave their jobs in the private sector and go to work for the bureaucracy where the money is. production would stop and people would starve to death.

therefore it is not money being taken away from the people that is killing the economy - it is money given to the government. unfortunately the government can always give money to itself by printing it. it doesn't need taxes.

moral of the story - taxes don't matter, government spending does.

the tax rate that you are thinking of is FICTIONAL. its just a number on paper. the REAL tax rate is higher. the real tax rate includes the fictional tax rate plus inflation plus government debt. the real tax rate can very well exceed 100% ! ! ! of course this can only go on for so long before the house of cards collapses ...

And this thesis from the guy who regularly tells us what idiots everyone else is.

 

[midcan5]

if everybody had to take 90% of their income and burn that cash - there would be no real impact on the economy. the prices internally would simply reset dropping by a factor of 10 and everything would go back to normal.

on the other hand if 90% of income was taxed and given to the government the economy would collapse. everybody would leave their jobs in the private sector and go to work for the bureaucracy where the money is. production would stop and people would starve to death.

Jeez, at first that confused the heck out of me, but then it dawned on me, you are trying to claim the prize for 'the dumbest post of the month.' I gotta hand it to you, you are definitely in the running.

Taxes are theft

"Opponents of taxation under democracy are therefore challenged to find an improvement on democracy."

 

[neurosport]

"Opponents of taxation under democracy are therefore challenged to find an improvement on democracy."

it has already been found. its called the constitution.

constitution should have never allowed for amendments. that was a mistake.

you start out with a document that outlines some ideas that are NOT to be challenged. the rest your stupid ass can vote on.

some things are too important to be left up to idiots like you to get democratic about.

 

[neurosport]

And this thesis from the guy who regularly tells us what idiots everyone else is.

what is your problem with my post son ?

 

[Iriemon]

And this thesis from the guy who regularly tells us what idiots everyone else is.

what is your problem with my post son ?

1) You first paragraph is both wrong (it would have a major effect) not even close to realistic as an example, and irrelevant.

2) Your second paragraph is probably wrong, not even close to realistic as an example, and irrelevant.

3) Your third paragraph makes an illogical inference from the illogical example you gave in paragraph 2. Not only is paragraph 2 not established, the inference that a 90% tax would be harmful therefore any tax is harmful is both an illogical inference, and emprically incorrect.

4) Your assertion in paragraph 3 that the Govt could just print money and doesn't need taxes show a fundamental misunderstanding of macro economics and the effect of money creation as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of how that money system operates. The Govt doesn't create money, the Fed does. And even if the Govt did create money, the creation of $2.5 trillion to fund expenditures would lead to hyperinflation and collapse of the US economy in very short order.

5) You 4th paragraph neither follows from your prior incorrect statements, nor is it correct itself. Again it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of economics to say "taxes don't matter".

6) Your final paragraph further continues making inaccurate assertions and conclusions. Your assertion that the tax rate is fictional strongly suggests you've never earned money and had to pay taxes. The suggestion that inflation and govt debt is the same as a tax is ridiculous.

Other than that, your post is fine.

 

[Iriemon]

"Opponents of taxation under democracy are therefore challenged to find an improvement on democracy."

it has already been found. its called the constitution.

constitution should have never allowed for amendments. that was a mistake.

you start out with a document that outlines some ideas that are NOT to be challenged. the rest your stupid ass can vote on.

some things are too important to be left up to idiots like you to get democratic about.

Let me guess, because the amendments allowed the Jews to take over via the fed, and start WWI and WWII, right?

 

[neurosport]

Iriemon you're a miserable pathological prick.

This is my writing style. I am not writing a textbook here where i have to make sure it doesn't confuse any brain dead student who has to memorize the text word by word before an exam.

consider my writing poetry. you have to learn how to extract the message from it. It's not going to be spelled out for you.

if you require help understanding you can ask questions. but when you are pointing out to me what my own writing style is as if i don't know you're just making yourself look like an idiot.

 

[neurosport]

Let me guess, because the amendments allowed the Jews to take over via the fed, and start WWI and WWII, right?

something like that.

the people are not smart enough to understand economics - or for that matter anything else. but politicians cannot be trusted to make any important decisions either. for the longest time i used to see this as a conflict until one day i was reading a paper on the AustrianEnginomics website and Russell Randall pointed out that in fact it is not.

because there is a third option - constitution. and I WAS A FUCKING IDIOT not to have thought about it myself because this is THE ANSWER.

every important question has to be decided in the constitution JUST ONCE and never questioned again. people and politicians are both nothing but USELESS GARBAGE - they get to decide on trivial matters. 90% of all power should be with the constitution.

what if the constitution is wrong you say ? what then ? VERY SIMPLE ! the society with a "wrong" constitution will collapse and one with "right" one will succeed. eventually by means of natural selection a society with perfect constitution will emerge and people and politicians, despite their best efforts, will not be able to fuck it up.

in fact there should be a MANDATORY death penalty for anybody attempting to amend the constitution - even a single syllable.

i would go so far as making an exception to freedom of speech when it comes to challenging the constitution - death penalty for even TALKING about changing the constitution ! ! ! questioning it should be COMPLETELY off limits.

 

[Agnapostate]

Decided to ignore my "elaboration," did you?