Re: {SPAM?} Re: [SLUG-POL] Facist economic model, wealth v. income, Jackson v. Bank all over again, China -- WAS: one-sided political figure jabs?

From: Paul M Foster (paulf@quillandmouse.com)
Date: Thu Sep 09 2004 - 22:27:26 EDT


On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 12:32:35AM -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote:

> Paul M Foster wrote:
> > I'll disagree here. The key to any economy is productivity. The Fed can
> > act as a brake or a stimulus, but producitivity is what drives any
> > economy. The problem in this society is that too much of the wealth
> > vests in the hands of too few _who produce too little_.
>
> Who do you _think_ has the money?

We do.

> The Fed is a _private_ corporation.
> It's interesting to research it.
>
> Otherwise, your statement is typical of a socialist agenda.
> Eat the rich. Blame the rich.
> They don't deserve it, because they don't work for it.
>

That's not what I said. Note the clause "who produce too little".
There's nothing at all wrong with wealth or people who have it, so long
as they produce something valuable in exchange. But buying 100 barrels
of oil on Tuesday at $30 and selling on Wednesday for $35 isn't
producing anything. It's just a drag on the economy.

> Non-sense.
>
> The reality is that raising income taxes only hurts the people who work.
> Flat taxes, with a minimum barrier (e.g., ~$40K) is what is needed.
> The progressive tax has to go, because it only hurts people who are more
> successful the next year than before.
>

Who said anything about raising income taxes? I agree with you-- flat
tax is the way to go. A graduated income tax only serves to penalize
people who earn income. That is, if you produce, we're going to take it
away from you. In fact, a graduated income tax is the essence of a
socialist agenda.

> Because their increases in discretionary income is returned as private
> investments.
>
> So what do we do then? Raise capital gains? Ha! We already have
> double taxation there.
>

Agreed.

> In a nutshell, you can_not_ put a "price" on someone's worth and how
> much you will tax them. That will _always_ be subjective, _not_
> objective. The only thing you can do is have the same rules for all.
>

Agreed.

> Give you an example. If I make $50K/year working 40 hours a week, but
> someone else makes $50K/year working 80 hours a week, why does the
> latter pay the same taxes as me? Where do you start taking that into
> consideration? Not to mention the agency that makes that determination?
>
> Simply the tax code. Reduce the useless agencies and private sector
> organizations that only exist to fulfill it.
>
> Reduce the governments expenses. People bitch and moan about defense
> spending but it is _nothing_ compared to social services. At least in
> the military, you pay most employees _less_ than minimum wage for 80+
> hour/weeks. But when it comes to public servants, they have the
> _ultimate_ in benefits for the _least_ risk.
>

By "public servants", I hope you don't mean military personnel. They
have considerably more risk than you and I. And I don't believe it's
true that the military gets less than minimum wage for the number of
hours worked. First off, you can't consider compensation as only
take-home pay. There is also housing, food, etc. My daughter's in the
military, and I can say with complete confidence she gets way more than
minimum wage.

> And it's not about Democrat "socialist" versus Republican
> "privitization," because the latter is _not_ "privitization" -- it's a
> "facist" model. The government should _not_ take the money in the first
> place for social services, even if it contracts a private entity to do
> it. It should let the private industry handle things itself, on its own
> -- it will, it always has.
>

I agree, though I must say you're going all over the map here. You
should consider sticking to one topic at a time. Social services is a
very divisive debate. If a society wants to have a "nanny state", I say
let them. However, this country's constitution doesn't allow for such a
thing. It is not in the constitution and was not part of the Framers'
intent. I consider a "nanny state" a failure; see France, Germany,
Britain or any other European socialist country. But if people want to
do that, fine. Just not here. _My_ founding documents say that it's not
supposed to fly here. The problem is that politicians can buy a lot of
votes with social services. And that means continued power, which is the
ultimate name of the game for politicians.

> The problem isn't that the government holds you at gunpoint and says,
> "you will pay me $1 which goes to this social service." It's that it
> says, "I need $1.25 to pay for this program -- $0.25 in overhead."
> After a few more years, it becomes $2, and so forth, and the agency
> grows and _never_ cuts. At some point, there is _so_little_ actually
> going towards the effort, it is self-defeating. And that's why
> socialism fails.
>

Government programs are interminable. They never set a definite end
point for them. So they go on and on. It's good for congressmen.

<snip>

Paul



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:56:56 EDT