toldailytopic: Is increasing taxes on the wealthy a wise economic plan for this natio

[WizardofOz]

Private property is theft

:AMR: Stealing from whom?

 

[eameece]

He was speaking of false entitlement, referring to those who think themselves entitled to something for which they have not paid.

Yes, but the only problem is that such things do not exist. So the reference is pointless.

 

[eameece]

"Private property is theft"? That's like saying "war is peace"!

The public sector is unproductive and only benefits the public by chance (but even in those rare moments, the net gain from government expenditures are negative--this is most apparent when you consider wars waged by the state and the massive diversion of resources away from where they could be used in peaceful, voluntary market production and transaction). Only profit-motivated entrepreneurs respond to the will of consumers.

Not very often. Mostly they offer what is convenient for them to offer. I guess you don't consider highways and airports productive, but I disagree.

And I think consumers are smart enough and courts of law are sufficient enough to consider and punish any negative environmental impacts. Wealth concentration is a myth.

You live in your own world. That's fine, but those who are reality oriented know about the wealth disparity in this country, and it has been posted here.

Courts work fine if they have laws to enforce. Consumers don't necessarily consider the ecological impacts of what they buy.

What would you suppose the government would collect with a 100% marginal tax rate?

What I know is that the economy operates best at a different point further up the curve than Laffer thought.

What incentive to bureaucrats have to "carry out the mandate of the people"?

Same as anyone who is assigned a job and needs to do it in order to get paid.

The same way car parts belong to chop shops.

The chop shops own the parts, yes; and the government is owed taxes.

Which brings me to the difference in committing a crime and conspiring to commit a crime.

People vote individually by secret ballot. That is not a conspiracy.

Right, because theft is ok if done in moderation.

Taxes are moral and beneficial if done in moderation, yes. Moderation is a moral virtue called Temperance. Look it up.

That's a big if. Where's the accountability? Where's the incentive structure? Where are the voluntary transactions?

Yikes. There's another debate. Who decides which wishes of the public are "correct"?

The peoples "correct" wishes are expressed in elections, at town halls and by people expressing their opinions. Evidently politicians are concerned about elections; they spend most of their time running for office, because of the crazy election financing system that you conservatives impose upon us.

I'm not a fan. Leave your presuppositions at the door.

OH? You think freedom is free enterprise. You are hooked on Reagan, that is evident by what you say. I don't need to presuppose anything.

It's time to ditch your trickle-down, free-market, libertarian economics scam once and for all. We've been shackled by it for 32 years.

 

[PureX]

... countless other goods and services are provided through markets without the need of an entire rent-seeking bureaucracy.

Contrary to the popular myth, the government actually can provide services to the public more efficiently and less expensively than private businesses would or could in many instances. And the reason is that in our purely capitalist economic system, the only goal of private business enterprise is to gain maximize returns on capital investment, while the goal of public enterprise is to satisfy or increase the well-being of the public.

Private enterprise works for truly free markets, where buyers can refuse to buy if the cost or value of goods or services are unsatisfactory. But in our increasingly complex and interconnected societies, more and more goods and services are become necessities, that were once luxuries. And that means more and more markets are become "captive markets", in which the buyers must buy the products or services from someone. And thus are subject to exploitation in a free market system. Especially a free market system that has profits as it one and only goal and purpose for commercial activity.

And that's why, and when, public sector enterprise can step in and provide those essential products or services without the capitalist mandate to maximize returns on the capital invested. And the result is almost always greater quality and lesser cost. Because the goal of all profit-driven commerce is lesser quality (minimum investment) at greater cost (maximum profit).

Successful entrepreneurs earn profits for doing just that: providing something desirable at lower costs than others (viability).

That's true, but only in free markets. It's not true, however, of captive markets. In the capitalist system, success is based solely on the maximization of profits. And the way to maximize profits is to provide the least, for the most. The oil companies, for example would much prefer to sell one gallon of gasoline for $10, than to sell 10 gallons of gasoline for $1 each. But if we can refuse to buy their gasoline for $10 a gallon, then they have to lower their cost to stay in business at all. But once they know that we HAVE to buy gasoline, they have no reason to keep their prices low, anymore, because they all have the same goal (selling $10 gallons of gasoline). So instead of inching prices down to stay in business and gain greater market share, they inch their prices up to the maximum bearable cost, because they don't want to sell more gasoline as much as they want to make more money per gallon of gasoline, sold.

No business in a capitalist system wants to increase quality and decrease price. They only do so when they have to, to sell their goods or services. Once they know we have to buy what they're selling, they no longer have to increase quality and decrease price to survive. And they can then compete for what they really want: maximum profits. The true goal of capitalism is exploitation for profit, not increased quality or lower prices. And this is why the public sector can do better than the private sector in providing essential goods or services (i.e.: to captive markets).

Who made you in charge of deciding what people ought to have?

We are all 'in charge", via the representatives we elect to public office.

And, if the cost of producing something is too high, then that something stops being offered in markets (i.e., the firm stops producing it or goes out of business)!

You are ignoring the fact that not all markets are free markets, in which the buyer can refuse to buy when the cost is too high. And these days, more and more markets are becoming captive markets, while fewer and fewer remain free markets. Because we are not taking this into account, and changing the ways we govern our commerce, we are being exploited to the breaking point on many market fronts: energy, health care, and housing, for example.

I never said profits are "gods". They are merely a part of a good incentive structure and provide valuable information for whether or not some product or service is valued by consumers more than what it costs to produce it.

I'm not implying profits are evil, either. Profits are a good incentive for commerce. But in a capitalist system, they are the ONLY incentive. EVERYTHING in the capitalist commercial enterprise is about maximizing the returns on the capital invested. And as a result, the well-being of the PEOPLE involved in the enterprise, or the society in which the enterprise is engaged, is not even being considered. In fact, the needs of the people and the community are considered impediments to profits, if they are considered at all. And the inevitable result of such fundamentally exploitive commercial activity that it's harmful everyone involved in it except the capital investors. And the evidence of this fact is all around us.

Explain to me how we can delegate rights that we don't have in the first place. I can't take money out of your wallet, but I can elect somebody to do it for me?

Yes, because the money in both our wallets is the product of a SOCIAL AGREEMENT. Everything you think you "own", you can only "own" because everyone else in your society agrees to the same concept of ownership as you do.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that "ownership" is some sort of law of nature. But it's not. Concepts like ownership, and value, and rights, are human concepts that only stand so long as the humans involved agree that they should stand, and are willing to abide by the "laws" that enable and protect them.

The idea that any one individual, "earned everything he has" is just mythical nonsense. It may be true of some mountain man living alone in the wilderness, but that isn't any of us. Everything we get in life, we have because everyone else is doing what they're doing, and agreeing to uphold the same ideals and concepts as we are. So they have every right to alter or change those agreements as they see fit. And that includes the concept of taxation. You and I are only one among many. Everything we have, we have AS A MEMBER OF THE MANY. And it's as a member of the many that the many can choose to take some of it back. Whether we like it or agree with it or not.

People cooperate in markets via voluntary transactions just fine.

Sure, when the transaction ARE voluntary. But when you have to buy gasoline to get to your job, or by medicines to keep your child alive, you are not really doing so voluntarily. And the people selling these things know it. Which is why these things are costing you far more than they cost to produce. And why the oil industry, and the pharmaceutical industries are posting record profits while the American people are struggling to get buy. The only conditions governing price in these 'captive markets' is our ability to pay, not what we are WILLING to pay.

Then why must these funds be forcibly taken?

Because some grown ups are still just toddlers in terms of intellectual maturity; who have not developed the concept that they are just one person among a whole society of people, and who's own well being is intrinsically tied to the well being of the others. And who also does not understand that they don't really "own" their wealth. They are merely being afforded the responsibility of participation in their society's social-economic system.

I think the welfare of the whole group is maximized when folks come together and peaceably trade goods, services, and monies for the mutual benefit of both parties involved. When this propagates, economies grow.

I completely agree with you. This is the very definition of proper commerce. But we are now living in a very complex society, where the mechanizations and abstractions of monetary exchange are enabling harmful greed and exploitation that masquerades as mutually beneficial trade (proper commercial interaction). And this is becoming increasingly so because our society is becoming more and more interdependent, which is creating more and more captive markets. And sadly, then, also creating more and more opportunities for commercial exploitation.

The result of all this commercial exploitation is that the nation's wealth is very quickly piling up under the control of the exploiters, who are of course using it to buy government policies that help them exploit us even further. It's a runaway course of behavior that can only lead to economic disaster. And we all know it (all except those infantile adults who still imagine themselves to be lone entities and "self-made" men, and all that).

Sharing and caring is good. Stealing is bad.

Pretending we are nations unto ourselves, and that anything that comes to us by way of the greater society then magically belongs to us, alone, could be seen as a form of stealing.

Personal "wealth" is an illusion. There are only societies of people, trying to live and work together for the safety, security, and increased well-being of each.

 

[bybee]

Contrary to the popular myth, the government actually can provide services to the public more efficiently and less expensively than private businesses would or could in many instances. And the reason is that in our purely capitalist economic system, the only goal of private business enterprise is to gain maximize returns on capital investment, while the goal of public enterprise is to satisfy or increase the well-being of the public.

Private enterprise works for truly free markets, where buyers can refuse to buy if the cost or value of goods or services are unsatisfactory. But in our increasingly complex and interconnected societies, more and more goods and services are become necessities, that were once luxuries. And that means more and more markets are become "captive markets", in which the buyers must buy the products or services from someone. And thus are subject to exploitation in a free market system. Especially a free market system that has profits as it one and only goal and purpose for commercial activity.

And that's why, and when, public sector enterprise can step in and provide those essential products or services without the capitalist mandate to maximize returns on the capital invested. And the result is almost always greater quality and lesser cost. Because the goal of all profit-driven commerce is lesser quality (minimum investment) at greater cost (maximum profit).
That's true, but only in free markets. It's not true, however, of captive markets. In the capitalist system, success is based solely on the maximization of profits. And the way to maximize profits is to provide the least, for the most. The oil companies, for example would much prefer to sell one gallon of gasoline for $10, than to sell 10 gallons of gasoline for $1 each. But if we can refuse to buy their gasoline for $10 a gallon, then they have to lower their cost to stay in business at all. But once they know that we HAVE to buy gasoline, they have no reason to keep their prices low, anymore, because they all have the same goal (selling $10 gallons of gasoline). So instead of inching prices down to stay in business and gain greater market share, they inch their prices up to the maximum bearable cost, because they don't want to sell more gasoline as much as they want to make more money per gallon of gasoline, sold.

No business in a capitalist system wants to increase quality and decrease price. They only do so when they have to, to sell their goods or services. Once they know we have to buy what they're selling, they no longer have to increase quality and decrease price to survive. And they can then compete for what they really want: maximum profits. The true goal of capitalism is exploitation for profit, not increased quality or lower prices. And this is why the public sector can do better than the private sector in providing essential goods or services (i.e.: to captive markets).
We are all 'in charge", via the representatives we elect to public office.
You are ignoring the fact that not all markets are free markets, in which the buyer can refuse to buy when the cost is too high. And these days, more and more markets are becoming captive markets, while fewer and fewer remain free markets. Because we are not taking this into account, and changing the ways we govern our commerce, we are being exploited to the breaking point on many market fronts: energy, health care, and housing, for example.
I'm not implying profits are evil, either. Profits are a good incentive for commerce. But in a capitalist system, they are the ONLY incentive. EVERYTHING in the capitalist commercial enterprise is about maximizing the returns on the capital invested. And as a result, the well-being of the PEOPLE involved in the enterprise, or the society in which the enterprise is engaged, is not even being considered. In fact, the needs of the people and the community are considered impediments to profits, if they are considered at all. And the inevitable result of such fundamentally exploitive commercial activity that it's harmful everyone involved in it except the capital investors. And the evidence of this fact is all around us.
Yes, because the money in both our wallets is the product of a SOCIAL AGREEMENT. Everything you think you "own", you can only "own" because everyone else in your society agrees to the same concept of ownership as you do.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that "ownership" is some sort of law of nature. But it's not. Concepts like ownership, and value, and rights, are human concepts that only stand so long as the humans involved agree that they should stand, and are willing to abide by the "laws" that enable and protect them.

The idea that any one individual, "earned everything he has" is just mythical nonsense. It may be true of some mountain man living alone in the wilderness, but that isn't any of us. Everything we get in life, we have because everyone else is doing what they're doing, and agreeing to uphold the same ideals and concepts as we are. So they have every right to alter or change those agreements as they see fit. And that includes the concept of taxation. You and I are only one among many. Everything we have, we have AS A MEMBER OF THE MANY. And it's as a member of the many that the many can choose to take some of it back. Whether we like it or agree with it or not.
Sure, when the transaction ARE voluntary. But when you have to buy gasoline to get to your job, or by medicines to keep your child alive, you are not really doing so voluntarily. And the people selling these things know it. Which is why these things are costing you far more than they cost to produce. And why the oil industry, and the pharmaceutical industries are posting record profits while the American people are struggling to get buy. The only conditions governing price in these 'captive markets' is our ability to pay, not what we are WILLING to pay.
Because some grown ups are still just toddlers in terms of intellectual maturity; who have not developed the concept that they are just one person among a whole society of people, and who's own well being is intrinsically tied to the well being of the others. And who also does not understand that they don't really "own" their wealth. They are merely being afforded the responsibility of participation in their society's social-economic system.
I completely agree with you. This is the very definition of proper commerce. But we are now living in a very complex society, where the mechanizations and abstractions of monetary exchange are enabling harmful greed and exploitation that masquerades as mutually beneficial trade (proper commercial interaction). And this is becoming increasingly so because our society is becoming more and more interdependent, which is creating more and more captive markets. And sadly, then, also creating more and more opportunities for commercial exploitation.

The result of all this commercial exploitation is that the nation's wealth is very quickly piling up under the control of the exploiters, who are of course using it to buy government policies that help them exploit us even further. It's a runaway course of behavior that can only lead to economic disaster. And we all know it (all except those infantile adults who still imagine themselves to be lone entities and "self-made" men, and all that).
Pretending we are nations unto ourselves, and that anything that comes to us by way of the greater society then magically belongs to us, alone, could be seen as a form of stealing.

Personal "wealth" is an illusion. There are only societies of people, trying to live and work together for the safety, security, and increased well-being of each.

Not to mention the well-being of many sticky-fingered, long-pocketed politicians!
They have benefits and perks that go beyond those of private enterprise.

 

[PureX]

Not to mention the well-being of many sticky-fingered, long-pocketed politicians!
They have benefits and perks that go beyond those of private enterprise.

The only money a politician gets is his salary and benefits on the job, and the bribes and gifts he takes if he's crooked. Being a politician is not an especially lucrative job compared to being a CEO of a big corporation, or on Wall Street. Those are the guys PAYING the bribe money and buying the gifts. Imagine what they're making if they can afford to bribe all those politicians, and still get back enough of a return to make all that bribery worth it!

Why do republican supporters persistently ignore the people paying the bribes and buying the legislation, and then focus only on the politicians who are taking the bribes and passing the legislation? Why can't they see that the two are at LEAST equally guilty, and that it's the bribe masters that are really robbing us all blind, and raking in the majority of the money? The politicians are just well-paid accomplices.

 

[HisServant]

The only money a politician gets is his salary and benefits on the job, and the bribes and gifts he takes if he's crooked. Being a politician is not an especially lucrative job compared to being a CEO of a big corporation, or on Wall Street. Those are the guys PAYING the bribe money and buying the gifts. Imagine what they're making if they can afford to bribe all those politicians, and still get back enough of a return to make all that bribery worth it!

Why do republican supporters persistently ignore the people paying the bribes and buying the legislation, and then focus only on the politicians who are taking the bribes and passing the legislation? Why can't they see that the two are at LEAST equally guilty, and that it's the bribe masters that are really robbing us all blind, and raking in the majority of the money? The politicians are just well-paid accomplices.

Being that there are way more millionaires in congress that are Democrats.. I always find it disingenuous to think that the republican are the buggy men.

The democrats had a majority in the house and senate and instead of dealing with 'corruption' they dealt the largest tax increase in US history.

 

[ideogenous_mover]

toldailytopic: Is increasing taxes on the wealthy a wise economic plan for this nation?

no they shouldn't worry about paying taxes, I'll just go on being poor and meager and sick, don't worry it's the normal state of things, the rich don't have to read my message I know I'm very small I'll go away now k bye

 

[ideogenous_mover]

Not only shouldn't they pay more taxes, but we should also ban the story of Robin Hood. He was a lousy thief anyway. What moral incompetence. I am so disgusted by that fairy tale, that man was not a Christian. May Robin Hood go where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

[Doormat]

Not to mention the well-being of many sticky-fingered, long-pocketed politicians!
They have benefits and perks that go beyond those of private enterprise.

For example ...

Former President Bill Clinton commanded the largest speaking fees of his career in 2011, earning $13.4 million and exceeding his previous record by 25%.

Clinton's fees were detailed in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's annual financial disclosure report, released Monday. A CNN analysis of those records shows that the former commander-in-chief has earned $89 million from paid speeches since leaving the White House in January 2001.

Some might argue that is "private enterprise," or that private enterprise has the same opportunity. :idunno:

 

[Lighthouse]

That's a disingenuous way of looking at it.

Insurance works pretty much the same way public aid programs work. Everyone pays in a little, so that there is money there to cover those who may need it. Not everyone needs it, however. Yet they pay into it because they want to know it's here if they do need it. Some people need a lot of help before they've paid very much in. But their covered by the money that others pay in and don't need.

Yet you wouldn't consider people who buy insurance foolish, or call them freeloaders when they make a claim, would you? So why do you consider people who pay into and/or use public aid programs when they need help, freeloaders?

I'm talking about those who don't pay into it, moron.

Yes, but the only problem is that such things do not exist. So the reference is pointless.

:AMR:

You're an idiot.

 

[PureX]

I'm talking about those who don't pay into it, moron.

Everybody is paying into it, moron. Some pay less than others, depending on how much they have, and how much they take in, and how much they spend.

 

[PureX]

Being that there are way more millionaires in congress that are Democrats.. I always find it disingenuous to think that the republican are the buggy men.

They're pretty much ALL toadying for the bribe-masters. Political party has little to do with it. And a millionaire is smalltime in that arena.

I notice that you still insist on focussing on the politicians and ignore the corporate criminals that are bribing them and stealing the big money.

Why is that?

 

[Newman]

Not very often. Mostly they offer what is convenient for them to offer. I guess you don't consider highways and airports productive, but I disagree.

What I'm saying is that without market prices and competition, we can't know if something is genuinely making society better off. We need the information that profits and losses give us to be able to say if one thing is beneficial, productive, and viable.

Courts work fine if they have laws to enforce. Consumers don't necessarily consider the ecological impacts of what they buy.

http://betterbusiness.torkusa.com/green-business-survey-tork-bbc/

What I know is that the economy operates best at a different point further up the curve than Laffer thought.

There is no one Laffer curve. It's different for different countries and time periods. The "optimal" tax rate (i.e., the one that generates the most revenue for the gov't) changes and can only be hypothesized.

Same as anyone who is assigned a job and needs to do it in order to get paid.

Except when private businesses make stuff people want at nice prices, they are rewarded with profits. When they make stuff people don't want and/or charge too much, they suffer losses.

This does not happen in the bureaucrat sector. In fact, inefficiency and bloated budgets are rewarded.

The chop shops own the parts, yes; and the government is owed taxes.

Miscommunication here. "Chop shop" as in "we steal cars to discreetly sell parts".

People vote individually by secret ballot. That is not a conspiracy.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/conspiracy.html

Taxes are moral and beneficial if done in moderation, yes. Moderation is a moral virtue called Temperance. Look it up.

Moderation in some things is good--yet bad in others. Certainly you don't think murder is ok in moderation?

The peoples "correct" wishes are expressed in elections, at town halls and by people expressing their opinions. Evidently politicians are concerned about elections; they spend most of their time running for office, because of the crazy election financing system that you conservatives impose upon us.

Once again, leave your presuppositions at the door.

OH? You think freedom is free enterprise. You are hooked on Reagan, that is evident by what you say. I don't need to presuppose anything.

It's time to ditch your trickle-down, free-market, libertarian economics scam once and for all. We've been shackled by it for 32 years.

Reagan was absolutely NOT a libertarian.

It is the pro-government, pro-taxation folks like yourself that are promoting a "trickle-down" system. All good things flow from the top--our dear leaders and their dear friends.

 

[Newman]

Contrary to the popular myth, the government actually can provide services to the public more efficiently and less expensively than private businesses would or could in many instances. And the reason is that in our purely capitalist economic system, the only goal of private business enterprise is to gain maximize returns on capital investment, while the goal of public enterprise is to satisfy or increase the well-being of the public.

Maximizing profits means providing stuff people want at low costs.

Public enterprise (if it can be called that) may have lofty goals (but I doubt even that) but the incentive structure just isn't there for them to provide beneficial things to the public.

Private enterprise works for truly free markets, where buyers can refuse to buy if the cost or value of goods or services are unsatisfactory. But in our increasingly complex and interconnected societies, more and more goods and services are become necessities, that were once luxuries. And that means more and more markets are become "captive markets", in which the buyers must buy the products or services from someone. And thus are subject to exploitation in a free market system. Especially a free market system that has profits as it one and only goal and purpose for commercial activity.

I'm a graduate student in economics and I've never heard of "captive markets". This is hogwash. People always have the choice to buy or not to buy, until the government steps in and says, "You must buy this crappy version of this thing you may not even want."

And that's why, and when, public sector enterprise can step in and provide those essential products or services without the capitalist mandate to maximize returns on the capital invested. And the result is almost always greater quality and lesser cost. Because the goal of all profit-driven commerce is lesser quality (minimum investment) at greater cost (maximum profit).

False. Please compare USPS with FedEx, UPS, etc. UL with any regulatory agency.

That's true, but only in free markets. It's not true, however, of captive markets. In the capitalist system, success is based solely on the maximization of profits. And the way to maximize profits is to provide the least, for the most. The oil companies, for example would much prefer to sell one gallon of gasoline for $10, than to sell 10 gallons of gasoline for $1 each. But if we can refuse to buy their gasoline for $10 a gallon, then they have to lower their cost to stay in business at all. But once they know that we HAVE to buy gasoline, they have no reason to keep their prices low, anymore, because they all have the same goal (selling $10 gallons of gasoline). So instead of inching prices down to stay in business and gain greater market share, they inch their prices up to the maximum bearable cost, because they don't want to sell more gasoline as much as they want to make more money per gallon of gasoline, sold.

No. Just no.

Gas is cheaper (through competitive providers) when government leaves people alone.

http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_gastemperaturemap.aspx

No business in a capitalist system wants to increase quality and decrease price. They only do so when they have to, to sell their goods or services. Once they know we have to buy what they're selling, they no longer have to increase quality and decrease price to survive. And they can then compete for what they really want: maximum profits. The true goal of capitalism is exploitation for profit, not increased quality or lower prices. And this is why the public sector can do better than the private sector in providing essential goods or services (i.e.: to captive markets).

Do you live in the US? Are you really that blind to the inefficiencies of our government?

We are all 'in charge", via the representatives we elect to public office.

I didn't vote for them.

I'm not implying profits are evil, either. Profits are a good incentive for commerce. But in a capitalist system, they are the ONLY incentive. EVERYTHING in the capitalist commercial enterprise is about maximizing the returns on the capital invested. And as a result, the well-being of the PEOPLE involved in the enterprise, or the society in which the enterprise is engaged, is not even being considered. In fact, the needs of the people and the community are considered impediments to profits, if they are considered at all. And the inevitable result of such fundamentally exploitive commercial activity that it's harmful everyone involved in it except the capital investors. And the evidence of this fact is all around us.

Do you not realize that the profits are there because said company provided something people need/want at nice prices?

Yes, because the money in both our wallets is the product of a SOCIAL AGREEMENT. Everything you think you "own", you can only "own" because everyone else in your society agrees to the same concept of ownership as you do.

Well obviously not because you somehow feel entitled to a portion of not just my paycheck but everybody elses. And I do not consent to that.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that "ownership" is some sort of law of nature. But it's not. Concepts like ownership, and value, and rights, are human concepts that only stand so long as the humans involved agree that they should stand, and are willing to abide by the "laws" that enable and protect them.

Rights are inalienable. God-given. Life is life. Liberty is liberty. Property is property. These don't change over time or across cultures. The respect for these rights changes, but the rights themselves do not.

The idea that any one individual, "earned everything he has" is just mythical nonsense. It may be true of some mountain man living alone in the wilderness, but that isn't any of us. Everything we get in life, we have because everyone else is doing what they're doing, and agreeing to uphold the same ideals and concepts as we are. So they have every right to alter or change those agreements as they see fit.

I haven't denied the importance or prevalence of cooperation. I understand that even as I type, somebody somewhere else had to make this keyboard, who got tools and materials and plans from other people, who got paid to make tools and find resources and come up with ideas, and so on and so forth. YOU are the one that is throwing a wrench into this beautiful system of cooperation and mutual benefit by siphoning resources away and redirecting them to people that sit in desks pushing paper around that tells everybody else how to do stuff, when to do it, and how much they should get paid.

A

nd that includes the concept of taxation. You and I are only one among many. Everything we have, we have AS A MEMBER OF THE MANY. And it's as a member of the many that the many can choose to take some of it back. Whether we like it or agree with it or not.

So you admit that taxation is an initiation of force against those that don't consent.

Sure, when the transaction ARE voluntary. But when you have to buy gasoline to get to your job, or by medicines to keep your child alive, you are not really doing so voluntarily.

Sure you are. Even when the consequences are death, you make a choice to act on it and which action to take! Imagine if gasoline providers competed to give you the best gas at the cleanest stations closest to your home at the lowest prices!

And the people selling these things know it. Which is why these things are costing you far more than they cost to produce. And why the oil industry, and the pharmaceutical industries are posting record profits while the American people are struggling to get buy. The only conditions governing price in these 'captive markets' is our ability to pay, not what we are WILLING to pay.

I like how you've picked two industries heavily regulated and sitting in the back pocket of the government as your "market failure" example.

 

[Zeke]

They're pretty much ALL toadying for the bribe-masters. Political party has little to do with it. And a millionaire is smalltime in that arena.

I notice that you still insist on focussing on the politicians and ignore the corporate criminals that are bribing them and stealing the big money.

Why is that?

The politians are just as quilty, and the voters are at fault as well for trusting them, and buying the retoric, and the few who do speak up about what is really going on have term limits applied in one way or the other, and marginalized by the media. Its repugnant to use JFKs words about such secret dealings, and meetings that or the norm today between corperate and globalist elitist who now own the country.

Of coasre that JFK speech, and his warnings were ignored by the media after his murder, and the people where hoodwinked into serfdom, and now its to late to correct it through the system anymore.

Taxes is illegal and immoral if you have to inforce it with gun, seems the founders didn't like that tatic either, but they had spines to so that was a different breed of people than today.

 

[The Barbarian]

False. Please compare USPS with FedEx, UPS, etc. UL with any regulatory agency.

If you believe that UPS can deliver the same service as USPS, for anything like the same price, you've never used them as a small businessman. UPS does a fair job for larger clients, but they are sloppy and incompetent when they do smaller shipments. And customer service is pathetic. One of my shipments arrived with the carton punctured (triangular puncture; tossed against a sharp corner) and the contents damaged. The contact person I talked to had obviously been trained to discourage complaints. First, she demanded that I show UPS had done it, and then said I'd have to travel 25 miles (in a metropolitan area) to get anything done about it.

Fed Ex is the only operation that can equal the postal service for small shippers.

 

[The Barbarian]

The democrats had a majority in the house and senate and instead of dealing with 'corruption' they dealt the largest tax increase in US history.

Wrong. The largest, in inflation-constant dollars per taxpayer was LBJ's one year 10% surtax. Only lasted for a year. Second was Reagan's middle-class tax increase which unfortunately, is largely still with us.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/biggest-tax-increase-in-history/

 

[PureX]

The politians are just as quilty, and the voters are at fault as well for trusting them, and buying the retoric, and the few who do speak up about what is really going on have term limits applied in one way or the other, and marginalized by the media. Its repugnant to use JFKs words about such secret dealings, and meetings that or the norm today between corperate and globalist elitist who now own the country.

Of coasre that JFK speech, and his warnings were ignored by the media after his murder, and the people where hoodwinked into serfdom, and now its to late to correct it through the system anymore.

It's not too late at all. But 'we the people' are going to have to stop squabbling with each other over cultural differences and start focusing our anger at the people who are really running things. Yes, that is the legislature, but more importantly it's the bribe money that's perverting the legislature. And the corporate entities paying the bribes.

And by bribes, I am referring to legalized bribery in the form of big campaign donations, external financial support, and especially the big salaried do-nothing/lobbyist jobs after promissed to legislators and their aids after they leave office.

 

[eameece]

What I'm saying is that without market prices and competition, we can't know if something is genuinely making society better off. We need the information that profits and losses give us to be able to say if one thing is beneficial, productive, and viable.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have a market or market signals, but that's not all we need.

Except when private businesses make stuff people want at nice prices, they are rewarded with profits. When they make stuff people don't want and/or charge too much, they suffer losses.

This does not happen in the bureaucrat sector. In fact, inefficiency and bloated budgets are rewarded.

They are also rewarded by buyouts, outsourcing, price fixing, not paying what they need to pay to do the right things for society, workers, consumers, etc. Bureaucrats are rewarded for doing their job well, as I said, with pay and promotions.

Miscommunication here. "Chop shop" as in "we steal cars to discreetly sell parts".

Again, you are bringing in the slogan that taxes are theft. They are not. The taxes due the government belong to it. Render to Caesar what is Caesar's.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/conspiracy.html

It does not matter. Taxes are not theft, so there is no conspiracy to commit it if people vote for taxes.

Moderation in some things is good--yet bad in others. Certainly you don't think murder is ok in moderation?

No (although there are "degrees" of murder), but moderation in taxes is good.

Once again, leave your presuppositions at the door.

Conservatives are the ones who make and benefit from the claim that taxes are theft. The people who spout that philosophy are also the ones who oppose campaign finance reform on the grounds that money is free speech. Your arguments support their positions.

Reagan was absolutely NOT a libertarian.

It is the pro-government, pro-taxation folks like yourself that are promoting a "trickle-down" system. All good things flow from the top--our dear leaders and their dear friends.

Reagan favored and instituted libertarian economics. Trickle-down economics is the idea that you lower taxes and regulations so that the wealthy will have more money, and that since they are the "job creaters" the benefits will trickle-down to the workers and middle class and poor. It doesn't work; the rich keep the money.

Romney tried to turn the slogan on its head, just as you are doing. Bureaucrats cannot keep even a small amount compared to what CEOs and owners can keep; they get a fixed, moderate, civil-service-determined salary for their work. In fact, government spending DOES work and helps the middle class and the poor, and keeping the power of wealth in check also works the same way. Stimulus works. Lower taxes on the middle class can work too, until they are already so low that it doesn't work anymore; that's where we are now.