[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[Uncensored2008]

Remember that no (non-natural) monopoly or trust can exist without the support and collusion of business and government.

Business is irrelevant. There are dozens of competing businesses who will instantly move against a monopoly if they have the opportunity.

Take Standard Oil. It wasn't that only Rockefeller had the insight to drill for oil, and thus established a monopoly, it's that Rockefeller had the backing of federal troops who murdered his competitors to ensure exclusivity to the market.

Without Standard Oil, another looter could take the place in a monopoly. Without the state providing violence to eliminate competition, no monopoly could exist. The business is irrelevant and interchangeable in a monopoly - it is the implied and actual violence of the state that is a unique element required to maintain a monopoly.

In a free market, a monopoly cannot exist.

Remember that capitalism is functional only when competition tames make more money regardless of the cost to others. There is nothing less efficient than a non-competive capitalist market.

This is like saying that there is nothing less satisfying than non-wet water.

Free markets are competitive. Competition is subverted through coercion - which means involvement or approval of the state.

 

[PMZ]

Where's the poll entry for, "We should pay to government in proportion to what we receive from government" ?

Or, we should receive for our work, value in proportion to that which we create.

In both cases the obstacle is in determining that.

 

[PMZ]

Remember that no (non-natural) monopoly or trust can exist without the support and collusion of business and government.

Business is irrelevant. There are dozens of competing businesses who will instantly move against a monopoly if they have the opportunity.

Take Standard Oil. It wasn't that only Rockefeller had the insight to drill for oil, and thus established a monopoly, it's that Rockefeller had the backing of federal troops who murdered his competitors to ensure exclusivity to the market.

Without Standard Oil, another looter could take the place in a monopoly. Without the state providing violence to eliminate competition, no monopoly could exist. The business is irrelevant and interchangeable in a monopoly - it is the implied and actual violence of the state that is a unique element required to maintain a monopoly.

In a free market, a monopoly cannot exist.

Remember that capitalism is functional only when competition tames make more money regardless of the cost to others. There is nothing less efficient than a non-competive capitalist market.

This is like saying that there is nothing less satisfying than non-wet water.

Free markets are competitive. Competition is subverted through coercion - which means involvement or approval of the state.

Describe for us what competition would look like in the military market.

Competitive armies like the warlords of Afghanistan?

Soldiers, payed a bounty for enemy deaths, less friendly fire deaths, caused?

Soldiers rewarded for not raping their comrade?

Also, "Competition is subverted through coercion" and advertising.

 

[ilia25]

The real problem is low paying jobs. This economy simply does not create too many middle class positions. Instead it creates very few star jobs earning 6 figure salaries, and a lot of very low paying jobs. And this is not about China, it's about computers and robots taking over the people. The income inequality will only get worse as computers become ever smarter. That is why we will have to do something about it sooner or later.

People who have low wage jobs do so because they lack the skills so that they may find a higher paying job.

It's like saying that in USSR people were poor because they lacked skills to become members of Politburo.

It's a simple concept: the way the free-market economy distributes incomes is changing over time. 40 years ago the income was distributed more equally because many people with high-school diploma could get a middle-class paying job in manufacturing. Not anymore -- those jobs are lost to automation. Those who had left manufacturing have to work low-paying jobs in service sector.

And it is going to get worse. As computers get smarter, the free market sends an ever bigger share of new wealth to the top 1%. We will end up with a few thousands super-rich families surrounded by millions stuck with less real incomes than their parents were making. Unless we the people do something about it.

 

[ilia25]

Business is irrelevant. There are dozens of competing businesses who will instantly move against a monopoly if they have the opportunity.

And the monopoly would not give them the opportunity. A monopoly could afford to sell its product below the cost for a while in order to drive the smaller competitors out of business. A monopoly might also have a real competitive advantage over smaller competitors because of the economies of scale.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Describe for us what competition would look like in the military market.

Competitive armies like the warlords of Afghanistan?

Soldiers, payed a bounty for enemy deaths, less friendly fire deaths, caused?

Soldiers rewarded for not raping their comrade?

Also, "Competition is subverted through coercion" and advertising.

Straw man, huh?

I accept your surrender.

 

[RKMBrown]

Actually America has neither of those problems. You do.

You mean Amerika don't you?

No I mean the country that you love to hate.

I live in TX we are mostly free here. I only hate the portions of this country that is voting to redistribute my income at my families expense.

 

[ilia25]

I live in TX we are mostly free here. I only hate the portions of this country that is voting to redistribute my income at my families expense.

Then why don't you move to an inhabitant island? You'd be absolutely free and nobody would dream redistributing your income -- which, I'm sure, will be quite high. With nobody standing in your way, i'm sure you will be making tons of money.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I live in TX we are mostly free here. I only hate the portions of this country that is voting to redistribute my income at my families expense.

Then why don't you move to an inhabitant island? You'd be absolutely free and nobody would dream redistributing your income -- which, I'm sure, will be quite high. With nobody standing in your way, i'm sure you will be making tons of money.

He may love Texas, want to stay there, and try to change the laws so anti American liberals can't steal his money to waste on failed and ever growing liberal welfare programs.

 

[RKMBrown]

I live in TX we are mostly free here. I only hate the portions of this country that is voting to redistribute my income at my families expense.

Then why don't you move to an inhabitant island? You'd be absolutely free and nobody would dream redistributing your income -- which, I'm sure, will be quite high. With nobody standing in your way, i'm sure you will be making tons of money.

He may love Texas, want to stay there, and try to change the laws so anti American liberals can't steal his money to waste on failed and ever growing liberal welfare programs.

Bingo. These welfare programs are worse than waste they are promoting poverty, they are promoting a permanent state of dependence they are destroying this country one dependent family at a time. 40+million Americans on welfare. There can be no denying that our welfare system is good at only one thing, creating poverty.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Then why don't you move to an inhabitant island? You'd be absolutely free and nobody would dream redistributing your income -- which, I'm sure, will be quite high. With nobody standing in your way, i'm sure you will be making tons of money.

He may love Texas, want to stay there, and try to change the laws so anti American liberals can't steal his money to waste on failed and ever growing liberal welfare programs.

Bingo. These welfare programs are worse than waste they are promoting poverty, they are promoting a permanent state of dependence they are destroying this country one dependent family at a time. 40+million Americans on welfare. There can be no denying that our welfare system is good at only one thing, creating poverty.

yes Clinton and Newt eliminated "welfare as we know it" by simply changing it to workfare. 40% of recipients decided they didn't need it badly enough to work for it.

Yet this lesson is lost on today's liberals. They simply lack the IQ to understand it.

 

[ilia25]

Then why don't you move to an inhabitant island? You'd be absolutely free and nobody would dream redistributing your income -- which, I'm sure, will be quite high. With nobody standing in your way, i'm sure you will be making tons of money.

He may love Texas, want to stay there, and try to change the laws so anti American liberals can't steal his money to waste on failed and ever growing liberal welfare programs.

Bingo. These welfare programs are worse than waste they are promoting poverty, they are promoting a permanent state of dependence they are destroying this country one dependent family at a time.

I'm sorry you feel that way. But since you do, moving to an inhabited island might be your only choice. Americans won't accept that while they all work hard to create new wealth, most of it goes to the top 1%.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

He may love Texas, want to stay there, and try to change the laws so anti American liberals can't steal his money to waste on failed and ever growing liberal welfare programs.

Bingo. These welfare programs are worse than waste they are promoting poverty, they are promoting a permanent state of dependence they are destroying this country one dependent family at a time.

I'm sorry you feel that way. But since you do, moving to an inhabited island might be your only choice. Americans won't accept that while they all work hard to create new wealth, most of it goes to the top 1%.

dear, if they don't want Gates and Jobs to have so much wealth they would not buy their products!! You want them to buy from Gates and Jobs and then steal the money back??

Why then can't Jobs and Gates sell you the product and then steal it back so they have more for charity??

 

[thereisnospoon]

By reducing welfare payments gradually with each earned dollar (and I think that is the case already).

We can go one step further by reducing or eliminating taxes for low income earners (payroll taxes in particular). The government could even start a matching a portion of each earned dollar.

In any case, the formula should allow the poor to keep most of their additional income after all taxes and reductions in benefits are accounted for. We use a similar formula for taxes -- people don't see their after-tax income dropping when they move to the higher tax bracket. Nothing prevents us from designing welfare payments this way (again, if that is not the case already).



Look, I think you blow this thing out of proportions. I'm pretty sure those 40 millions on welfare either work low paying jobs, or they are disabled or elderly.

The real problem is low paying jobs. This economy simply does not create too many middle class positions. Instead it creates very few star jobs earning 6 figure salaries, and a lot of very low paying jobs. And this is not about China, it's about computers and robots taking over the people. The income inequality will only get worse as computers become ever smarter. That is why we will have to do something about it sooner or later.

People who have low wage jobs do so because they lack the skills so that they may find a higher paying job.
The wages paid by most businesses are appropriate. They must be. If not, any business that pays lower than market rate would find itself with high employee turnover.
Who is "we"? And what is that "something" we must do sooner or later?
And please, do not mention of government perks to give people magic raises or tax increases to fund same. You've already pointed out that you think government should be the great provider. Try another tactic.

Of course your thinking only applies to times of full employment. There's a reason why businesses are in no hurry to return there.

Yeah. Obamacare.
Full time employees are a bad business model..In some industries. That's a fact of life in the business world.

 

[thereisnospoon]

547 posts and not one lib has answered the question "what is a "fair share" of the tax burden..."....Amazing but not in the least unexpected.

I answered many posts ago. Capitalism is well understood to distribute wealth up. In the absence of regulation and progressive taxation it leads always to unstable societies which hurt everyone. Those that benefit from capitalism love the benefit but hope that the cost, unstable society, won't happen until after they're dead.

So, the degree of progressiveness on taxes is whatever it takes to stabilize society. As we are now at nearly the most unequal distribution of wealth in the world, we know that continuing what we're doing will lead to disasterous results.

But, wealthy people, like all businesses march to one drummer. Make more money regardless of the cost to others. That is unsustainable without the compensation of regulation and progressive taxation.

The part you conveniently leave out is there already IS plenty of government regulation.

 

[thereisnospoon]

547 posts and not one lib has answered the question "what is a "fair share" of the tax burden..."....Amazing but not in the least unexpected.

I answered many posts ago. Capitalism is well understood to distribute wealth up. In the absence of regulation and progressive taxation it leads always to unstable societies which hurt everyone. Those that benefit from capitalism love the benefit but hope that the cost, unstable society, won't happen until after they're dead.

So, the degree of progressiveness on taxes is whatever it takes to stabilize society. As we are now at nearly the most unequal distribution of wealth in the world, we know that continuing what we're doing will lead to disasterous results.

But, wealthy people, like all businesses march to one drummer. Make more money regardless of the cost to others. That is unsustainable without the compensation of regulation and progressive taxation.

So what's your fair share number?

 

[thereisnospoon]

If that is really the case, this situation has to be fixed. But I very much doubt it is. See, if somebody on the right was really concerned about it, they would propose changes that would encourage the poor to earn more income.

Instead, the right want simply to cut the welfare programs. That does not look like a honest approach.

Ok, how do you propose we encourage the poor to quit there job of collecting welfare? Why would they quit collecting 40-90k a year for doing absolutely nothing for a minimum wage earning 20k a year? Why we the poor be so stupid so as to volunteer themselves to work for a living when others are willing to pay them to vote for their welfare every 24months?

40Million Americans on welfare. The only way to get them off welfare will be to fire them from the job of collecting welfare. These folks are used to living in free apartment, having a free cell phone, free food, free utilities... really why would anyone have an incentive to quit that?

The solution is a bitter pill. Take it away. You want food, work for it. You want shelter and a cell phone.. work for it.

It's really not that complex.

What you really have to ask is why are the Democrats, who used to be the KKK by the way, using a process of keeping the poor poor by forcing them to no work while accepting welfare? Ask yourself what party benefits from a population of poor welfare recipients. It's really not that complex.

Read Rules for Radicals. They are not even hiding what they are doing. The press are complicit in this vile act of subjugation of an entire class of society. Slave voters for the purpose of... making democrat fat cats rich.

I guess business should have been more careful about giving away millions of jobs to cheap foreign labor recruited here or sent there. Perhaps investing in American productivity would have been better. Of course if Bush and co hadn't created the Great Recession, that would have been better too.

Bad things happen when the country is being led by the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

The problem you have is the "millions" of jobs you claim have gone overseas is false.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Here's your problem. You recite Rush Limbaugh like he's a source of any relevant knowledge, then tell me that I don't know supply side economics, and imply that you do.

See the credibility problem there?

Which statement or idea came from Limbaugh?

Hmmm?

Ah, that is just one of the "mewling points" you have from DailyKOS - you threw it to see if it would stick.

Carry on.

I fully plan to carry on with or without your permission. That's what independent thinkers do. You would not understand that at all.

Keep your trunk around the elephant tail in front of you. That's your whole job. Focus. Don't ever let go. Ever!

Independent thought? From you? HA!! You are a lemming to the cause of liberalism.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The real problem is low paying jobs. This economy simply does not create too many middle class positions. Instead it creates very few star jobs earning 6 figure salaries, and a lot of very low paying jobs. And this is not about China, it's about computers and robots taking over the people. The income inequality will only get worse as computers become ever smarter. That is why we will have to do something about it sooner or later.

People who have low wage jobs do so because they lack the skills so that they may find a higher paying job.

It's like saying that in USSR people were poor because they lacked skills to become members of Politburo.

It's a simple concept: the way the free-market economy distributes incomes is changing over time. 40 years ago the income was distributed more equally because many people with high-school diploma could get a middle-class paying job in manufacturing. Not anymore -- those jobs are lost to automation. Those who had left manufacturing have to work low-paying jobs in service sector.

And it is going to get worse. As computers get smarter, the free market sends an ever bigger share of new wealth to the top 1%. We will end up with a few thousands super-rich families surrounded by millions stuck with less real incomes than their parents were making. Unless we the people do something about it.

WHAT?!! Those people had no freedoms. Their destiny was determined by the central planers from birth.
The greatness of this country is that we have the right to freely pursue our goals to the best of our ability. No one determines where we go but ourselves.
There is no such thing as income distribution.
The fact that manufacturing no longer has the manpower requirements is just the normal progression of modernization.
The crucial point is that had the manufacturing business model stayed as it was, most companies would have gone out of business. A business must keep with the times in order to succeed.
I asked you earlier in this thread "who is we?" and what is that "something" we must do about it?
You've evaded answering those questions.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I live in TX we are mostly free here. I only hate the portions of this country that is voting to redistribute my income at my families expense.

Then why don't you move to an inhabitant island? You'd be absolutely free and nobody would dream redistributing your income -- which, I'm sure, will be quite high. With nobody standing in your way, i'm sure you will be making tons of money.

You just admitted you believe in taxation for redistribution. Which is the same thing as using taxation as a means to punish.
Nice.