<![CDATA[Latest posts for the thread "Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?"]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/54.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
petition wrote:Dear Representative [your Rep.'s name],

I'm calling on you to join Rep. Jan Schakowsky in sponsoring the Fairness in Taxation Act, which would create new top tax rates for those of us fortunate enough to earn millions or billions of dollars each year.

Instead of shared sacrifice during these tough economic times, Congress has passed a federal budget that slashes critical programs that serve and uplift poor and Black communities -- even as it preserves tax breaks for the most fortunate among us. In other words, the sacrifice isn't being shared by the wealthiest among us. Millionaires have an effective tax rate of about 16%, the lowest it's been in decades.

Rep. Schakowsky's bill would level the playing field by creating new tax brackets for the richest Americans, starting at a 45% rate for those whose income is $1 million and topping out at a 49% rate for billionaires.

The notion of taxing the wealthy to help meet our fiscal obligations has overwhelming public support -- a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 81% of Americans favor boosting taxes on mllionaires and billionaires as a deficit reduction strategy. The same poll found little support for cutting education funding and health care entitlements.

Asking the most prosperous among us to pay their fair share isn't about punishing the wealthy. It's about honoring the American value of shared sacrifice during tough times and shared prosperity during good times. I urge you to co-sponsor the Fairness in Taxation Act.

Sincerely,

[Your Name]



http://act.colorofchange.org/sign/taxes?akid=1955.473783.0IVF5m&rd=1&t=1]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707105.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707105.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act? http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

Help yourself, I'm sure they could use the money.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707112.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707112.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act? ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707127.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707127.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
What would be "fair" is taking the total tax bill and dividing it equally among the taxpayers. That's fair.

I like the way they call government handouts "critical programs" and equates tax increases to "leveling the playing field". This is clearly drivel and class warfare of the worst kind, the kind that punishes achievement and rewards sloth and lack of diligence. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707142.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707142.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
Pick any year in the last century you would like, in which the US was doing well economically. Compare the tax rates then to now. We are doing worse now, with lower taxes.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707155.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707155.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
The Green Git wrote:Hahahha... "their fair share"... that's amusing.

What would be "fair" is taking the total tax bill and dividing it equally among the taxpayers. That's fair.

I like the way they call government handouts "critical programs" and equates tax increases to "leveling the playing field". This is clearly drivel and class warfare of the worst kind, the kind that punishes achievement and rewards sloth and lack of diligence.

I disagree. I think that a tax that apportioned the tax bill according to income would be "fair." ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707162.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707162.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?


http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707197.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707197.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
The Green Git wrote:Hahahha... "their fair share"... that's amusing.

What would be "fair" is taking the total tax bill and dividing it equally among the taxpayers. That's fair.

I like the way they call government handouts "critical programs" and equates tax increases to "leveling the playing field". This is clearly drivel and class warfare of the worst kind, the kind that punishes achievement and rewards sloth and lack of diligence.


What do you consider would be a fair division of national income?

As a suggestion, you could diivide the country into five classes, and assign each class from top to lowest, a proportion of the national income.

What would be your idea of fair levels?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707211.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707211.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
The Green Git wrote:Hahahha... "their fair share"... that's amusing.

What would be "fair" is taking the total tax bill and dividing it equally among the taxpayers. That's fair.

I like the way they call government handouts "critical programs" and equates tax increases to "leveling the playing field". This is clearly drivel and class warfare of the worst kind, the kind that punishes achievement and rewards sloth and lack of diligence.


Because everyone who's in a lower tax bracket is clearly lazy, and it has nothing to do with an unforgiving system that requires money to make more money. How's the bigotry going these days?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707243.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707243.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
inquisitor_bob wrote:You know, I had a 2 Tax classes in law school. I can't believe that during World War 2, the Federal Income tax was 95% for those who make $1 million or more.
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html

You think that's bad? For quite a while, Great Britain had a maximum tax rate of 99%. There was a running joke about how about how reaching a certain income automatically teleported you to the Isle of Man (they cap income tax at 20%). James Herriot made a joke once about being the only 'celebrity' to actually live in England.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707387.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707387.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Because everyone who's in a lower tax bracket is clearly lazy, and it has nothing to do with an unforgiving system that requires money to make more money. How's the bigotry going these days?


Perhaps in a few years your reading and comprehension skills will be up to snuff. There's always hope for your Senior year in High School, or remedial classes in your higher learning educational institution of choice. Until then let me just point out that I didn't say everyone in a lower tax bracket was lazy. I said the current tax system rewards sloth and lack of diligence. Of course, there will be hard working and ambitious poor people who work their way up into higher tax brackets. I know it happens, because it happened to me, and it didn't "require money to make more money". That's a platitude people throw out to excuse their lack of work ethic and to try and pass off their lack of diligence as poor fortune.

But never mind that. Let's get back to the whole "fairness" issue. According to the Internal Revenue Service 50% of Americans pay 97% of the taxes collected. Please tell me how half the people bearing virtually all of the monetary burden is fair?





]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707448.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707448.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act? @all: As you continue in this thread, please remember that: Personal attacks, even implied ones, are against Dakka's rules.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707455.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707455.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
The system is broken, just no good ideas yet on how to fix it.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707465.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707465.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
Kilkrazy wrote:What do you consider would be a fair division of national income?


First of all, I'd have to reject the whole notion of dividing national income in the first place. The money of the citizens does not belong to the nation; it belongs to each of the individuals that resides in the nation.

That said, it's up to each to go out and earn what they want or need. That's "Fair". I need a new car, I go exchange the talents, skills and abilities at my disposal for money. Once I get enough I can buy the car (or take out a loan).



]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707480.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707480.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
Move to Galt's Gulch. Or Somalia. Stop pretending that your bourgeois exploitation of the poor constitutes the same thing as "earning" money.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707499.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707499.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
TheHammer wrote:Stop pretending that your bourgeois exploitation of the poor constitutes the same thing as "earning" money.



]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707522.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707522.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
The Green Git wrote:
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Because everyone who's in a lower tax bracket is clearly lazy, and it has nothing to do with an unforgiving system that requires money to make more money. How's the bigotry going these days?


Perhaps in a few years your reading and comprehension skills will be up to snuff. There's always hope for your Senior year in High School, or remedial classes in your higher learning educational institution of choice. Until then let me just point out that I didn't say everyone in a lower tax bracket was lazy. I said the current tax system rewards sloth and lack of diligence. Of course, there will be hard working and ambitious poor people who work their way up into higher tax brackets. I know it happens, because it happened to me, and it didn't "require money to make more money". That's a platitude people throw out to excuse their lack of work ethic and to try and pass off their lack of diligence as poor fortune.

But never mind that. Let's get back to the whole "fairness" issue. According to the Internal Revenue Service 50% of Americans pay 97% of the taxes collected. Please tell me how half the people bearing virtually all of the monetary burden is fair?


I don't think the system is good or fair, and I think regardless of class, lazy people are lazy. Everyone thinks their class has the most crap to deal with, and that's just part of classes existing as a social construct. But it certainly does require money to make more money. One has to be able to pay rent, which the vast majority of jobs (minimum wage, part time or inconsistent hours) can either barely provide or can't provide for. On budgets that run paycheck to paycheck for many people, one hiccup can screw the whole thing over. When one or two hiccups pile up, then you start getting charged for it by the government and if you can't pay you eventually end up in serious trouble. It's a little ridic at the bottom of the chain ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707523.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707523.page GMT Re:Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?

Capitalism is awesome!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The factory owner is sure earning money today! You better not think about taxing him, either. He EARNED that money!

These children are just exercising their right to sell their labor!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707541.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707541.page GMT Re:Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
TheHammer wrote:

Capitalism is awesome!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The factory owner is sure earning money today! You better not think about taxing him, either. He EARNED that money!

These children are just exercising their right to sell their labor!


Right, because the new budget would put 8 year olds in the factories. I think everyone needs to calm down here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheHammer wrote:It is hilarious that you disparage those that wage class warfare against the wealthy while waging the most disgusting form of class warfare against the working class and poor.

Move to Galt's Gulch. Or Somalia. Stop pretending that your bourgeois exploitation of the poor constitutes the same thing as "earning" money.


Says the guy posting on a forum most likely using a computer built in china under GREAT conditions.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707810.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707810.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
The Green Git wrote:I said the current tax system rewards sloth and lack of diligence.


It does? Well golly, someone really should notify all the millionaires in the uS that they have no incentive to earn more.

The Green Git wrote:
Of course, there will be hard working and ambitious poor people who work their way up into higher tax brackets. I know it happens, because it happened to me, and it didn't "require money to make more money".


Unless you were the beneficiary of extraordinary philanthropy, yes it did. If nothing else simple math will tell you that you cannot reach 100 without first having 50.

The Green Git wrote:
But never mind that. Let's get back to the whole "fairness" issue. According to the Internal Revenue Service 50% of Americans pay 97% of the taxes collected. Please tell me how half the people bearing virtually all of the monetary burden is fair?


It isn't really an overly difficult concept, you're simply focusing on what is paid rather than what is received; the normal argument being that people in higher tax brackets have a greater stake in the welfare of the state, and receive greater benefits from its prosperity.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707929.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707929.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
The Green Git wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:What do you consider would be a fair division of national income?


First of all, I'd have to reject the whole notion of dividing national income in the first place. The money of the citizens does not belong to the nation; it belongs to each of the individuals that resides in the nation.


No man is an island. That wealth is made within the context of a system of laws and public infrastructure that make it possible. Without the support of the government, public infrastructure, and the labor of other people, that wealth could not be made. If you think otherwise, perhaps you can put your ideas into practice in a place where you won't be shackled by these things. One of the other posters mentioned Somalia.


The Green Git wrote:[That said, it's up to each to go out and earn what they want or need. That's "Fair". I need a new car, I go exchange the talents, skills and abilities at my disposal for money. Once I get enough I can buy the car (or take out a loan).


Where are you going to drive your car? On your privately-owned highways? Who are you going to go to if the loan company rips you off? Your privately-owned court, or perhaps your private police force? ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707961.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2707961.page GMT Re:Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Right, because the new budget would put 8 year olds in the factories. I think everyone needs to calm down here.


I think that was in reaction to Fraz's post, not the budget.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2708972.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2708972.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2709109.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2709109.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
Then debates like this would be moot, you dig me?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2709134.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2709134.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
The Green Git wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:What do you consider would be a fair division of national income?


First of all, I'd have to reject the whole notion of dividing national income in the first place. The money of the citizens does not belong to the nation; it belongs to each of the individuals that resides in the nation.

That said, it's up to each to go out and earn what they want or need. That's "Fair". I need a new car, I go exchange the talents, skills and abilities at my disposal for money. Once I get enough I can buy the car (or take out a loan).





Money is created and issued by the US Treasury, not each of the individuals that resides in the nation.

Otherwise my brother would like to pay his taxes in twit pounds, and keep the US dollars he earns for himself.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2709164.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2709164.page GMT Re:Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
But never mind that. Let's get back to the whole "fairness" issue. According to the Internal Revenue Service 50% of Americans pay 97% of the taxes collected. Please tell me how half the people bearing virtually all of the monetary burden is fair?


Because your numbers are wrong. Probably written by the same guy that thinks planned parenthood does 90% abortions.

It also depends on how you look at the numbers.

The top 5% of the country that owns 72% of the wealth only pays about 20% of the taxes. Leaving the other 80% to be paid mostly by the middle class. This is why the filthy rich have gotten massively richer, while everyone else has stayed the same or got much worse. The Rich are not paying their share. If you own 85% of the machine, you should pay for 85% of the machine.

When GE pays no taxes and even Warren Buffet is saying that he believes that rich are not doing their part it's pretty obvious.

the current tax system rewards sloth and lack of diligence. Of course, there will be hard working and ambitious poor people who work their way up into higher tax brackets. I know it happens, because it happened to me


It didn't happen to you unless you are a multi-millionaire! If you are not in the top 5% then you are being screwed because you are paying for multi-miliionairs share.





It seams logical to me that tax should be a wealth based system based on demographics.

Top 1% owns 43% of the wealth should pay 43% of the cost to run the system that feeds it.
Next 15% should pay 29%
and so on

Here is the chart that shows who actually pays taxes



All you shlubs that think you are the rich being taken advantaged of by the poor. LOOK AT THE GRAPHS. You are really middle class. The really rich are crushing you. They have just brainwashed you into thinking that you are one of them.



]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2709209.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2709209.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2709248.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2709248.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
Kilkrazy wrote:Is now a good moment to mention trickle down economics?


Trickle down economics has been the savior of the US and is responsible for boom of wealth in the lower classes!

#NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2709253.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2709253.page GMT Re:Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Right, because the new budget would put 8 year olds in the factories. I think everyone needs to calm down here.


I think that was in reaction to Fraz's post, not the budget.


So you're saying Communism is NOT a party? Its like everything I've been told is a lie...



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:Is now a good moment to mention trickle down economics?


No. We've had a drought for six months now. No trickling!
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2709807.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2709807.page GMT Re:Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
Andrew1975 wrote:When GE pays no taxes and even Warren Buffet is saying that he believes that rich are not doing their part it's pretty obvious.

Here is the chart that shows who actually pays taxes

You forgot your "#NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement" tag.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2709827.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2709827.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
Ahtman wrote:Perhaps if they changed the title of the bill to"We haven't thought this through we just thought it sounds good and even though it hurts the poor and middle class more we all hope someday we're rich and take advantage of it Bill", or is that to wordy?


The poor and middle class make a million or more a year?

Your jokes don't work as well when you skim the thing you're responding to and get it backwards.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2711274.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2711274.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2711349.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2711349.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2711408.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2711408.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
Mannahnin wrote: Galt's Gulch is a fantasy land which could never work.


Let us also never mind that it turns out as a de facto communist metropolis.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2711441.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2711441.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
I consider myself rather cynical, and I personally dislike democracy. I'd rather have a meritocracy or a benevolent dictatorship, however given as neither of those government types are plausible, I feel that we might as well live with democracy until we can establish one of those forms of government. However, I feel that the job of government should be limited to maintaining the peace, and defense. It may be some kind of inner idealist, but I feel that human beings work better when left to their own devices, rather than try to be controlled. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2711452.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2711452.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act? Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains. - Winston Churchill]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2711468.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2711468.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
I guess I'm heartless then. Ah well. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2711488.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2711488.page GMT Re:Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
biccat wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:When GE pays no taxes and even Warren Buffet is saying that he believes that rich are not doing their part it's pretty obvious.

Here is the chart that shows who actually pays taxes

You forgot your "#NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement" tag.


No, no i didn't! These are facts. You can look them up.

"Well, let’s start with the ultra-rich. Bajillionaire Warren Buffett has argued that he isn’t being asked to pay his share. He went around his office, asking people what share of their income they pay in income taxes. Buffett’s 17.7 percent tax rate compared a bit too favorably with the 30 percent tax rate paid by his secretary.

So it appears that the tax system favors the super-rich over working stiffs.

And Buffett went a step further, putting his money where his mouth is. Last November he issued a challenge to his fellow billionaires:

I’ll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400 who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average of their receptionists.

So far, no-one has taken him up on this bet."

"For those unaccustomed to the loopholes and shelters of the corporate tax code, GE's success at avoiding taxes is nothing short of extraordinary. The company, led by Immelt, earned $14.2 billion in profits in 2010, but it paid not a penny in taxes because the bulk of those profits, some $9 billion, were offshore. In fact, GE got a $3.2 billion tax benefit. "]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2711522.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2711522.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
ChrisWWII wrote:Call me crazy, but I almost believe cooperation comes about as a result of selfishness. We want to do better for ourselves, and we realize that in order to achieve such improvement, it is more efficient to dole out work to those who can do it most efficiently, than to try and do everything ourselves. While it may appear to be selflessness and cooperation...it's still all because human beings are lazy selfish creatures.

I consider myself rather cynical, and I personally dislike democracy. I'd rather have a meritocracy or a benevolent dictatorship, however given as neither of those government types are plausible, I feel that we might as well live with democracy until we can establish one of those forms of government.


I'm actually 100% in agreement with you on most of that, except that "until we can establish..." part. I'm fairly confident that representative democracy is the best possible functional government, and that despite all its flaws, I wouldn't actually want a benevolent dictatorship, even if I was the dictator.

There are certainly fixable flaws and improvements we can make on our system. I think that despite (IMO) the US having the best framework for a government, some other countries seem to outshine us in their practical execution of democracy, and in achieving good outcomes for their people in terms of happiness, prosperity, and health. And I prefer to exercise the humility of recognizing that and wanting to learn from and emulate it when other countries get things right, rather than resting on the US' laurels and pretending like we're #1 at everything. I also try to learn from history. When I look at the past decade of tax incentives and see how our economy's doing, then look back at the tax rates at other times in our history when we were doing better, I see a conflict.


ChrisWWII wrote: However, I feel that the job of government should be limited to maintaining the peace, and defense. It may be some kind of inner idealist, but I feel that human beings work better when left to their own devices, rather than try to be controlled.


Here's the thing, though: That's a false dichotomy. I'd rather not be controlled, but I sure as heck wouldn't want to be left to my own devices in a world as complex as our own. For example, without food and drug regulations, I'd be completely at the mercy of anyone who wants to sell or market a drug, unless I wanted to get a pharmacy or medical degree and buy and staff my own laboratory. Similarly, without regulatory and safety standards, how could I trust a tire for my car, unless I had my own testing facility?

The vast majority of modern human life is interdependent like this. I need government agencies to provide not just a military, but police, fire departments, EMTs, safety and health inspectors, public health disease investigators, judges, public defenders and prosecutors, etc., etc., ad nauseum. If I wanted to live by myself in the hills, hunt, farm, and meditate, I could theoretically live on my own without the support of others. But everything which makes modern civilization as wonderful and comfortable as it is is dependent on cooperation with and dependence on other people. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2711530.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2711530.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
Mannahnin wrote:
There are certainly fixable flaws and improvements we can make on our system. I think that despite (IMO) the US having the best framework for a government, some other countries seem to outshine us in their practical execution of democracy, and in achieving good outcomes for their people in terms of happiness, prosperity, and health. And I prefer to exercise the humility of recognizing that and wanting to learn from and emulate it when other countries get things right, rather than resting on the US' laurels and pretending like we're #1 at everything. I also try to learn from history. When I look at the past decade of tax incentives and see how our economy's doing, then look back at the tax rates at other times in our history when we were doing better, I see a conflict.


I don't have the tax/economic background to argue with you on that point, but I'm definitely not saying that we should go and rest on our laurels chanting USA! USA!. I'm all for admitting whent things aren't working right. However, I see a lot of the problems like inefficiency, slow response time, redtape, corruption, etc. etc. as a direct result of democracy, electing leaders based on popularity more than anything else.

Now, I know a benevolent dictatorship is impossible (aboslute power, corrupts absolutely), and meritocracy is also extremely difficult to fairly emplace (who decides who is able?), which is why I list those as my 'ideal' forms of government. I fully stand by Winston Churchill's statement that democracy is the worst frorm of government, except everything else we've tired so we've got to live with the system, not becausdit's the best, but because it's better than anything else available to humans at this point. If and when a true benevolent dictator arises, a human who does only what is for the best for his people/species, I'll be the first to step up behind him or her. They'll have to prove that they're benevolent first though, which is going to be the hard part.



Here's the thing, though: That's a false dichotomy. I'd rather not be controlled, but I sure as heck wouldn't want to be left to my own devices in a world as complex as our own. For example, without food and drug regulations, I'd be completely at the mercy of anyone who wants to sell or market a drug, unless I wanted to get a pharmacy or medical degree and buy and staff my own laboratory. Similarly, without regulatory and safety standards, how could I trust a tire for my car, unless I had my own testing facility?

The vast majority of modern human life is interdependent like this. I need government agencies to provide not just a military, but police, fire departments, EMTs, safety and health inspectors, public health disease investigators, judges, public defenders and prosecutors, etc., etc., ad nauseum. If I wanted to live by myself in the hills, hunt, farm, and meditate, I could theoretically live on my own without the support of others. But everything which makes modern civilization as wonderful and comfortable as it is is dependent on cooperation with and dependence on other people.


Ah, here is where I think we have our biggest point of disagreement. You think that the government is needed to relegate all these bodies, yes? The medical companies, the food suppliers, the manufacturers, etc. I disagree, I think that they are capable of managing themself with a tool more powerful than any government legislation: money.

See, to my mind, when I see people ask 'who will stop the medical companies from selling us bad drugs?' and 'who will stop the food companies from selling diseased food?' and my answer is 'We will. With our wallets." In all honesty, I know this is pure idealism, as silly as the idea of utopian communism, but it's what I believe.

If the food companies sell us bad food, we just stop buying their product, and find someone else who WON'T sell us bad food. The others will have to match their quality to compete. The same holds true with drug companies and any other service industry. Company trying to screw over the common man, or sell dangerous goods? GO to their competitors who seel quality products, they'll be forced to compete. In my little capitalist utopia, their is still a plce for the government, and that place is keeping monopoly and collusion under control. Basically, to make sure there are competitors to go to, and that there are no cabals.

In all honesty, I think even collusion is somnething that can be solved with competition. If you've got a group of companies colluding to make a cheap crappy product, when the people want something else...one of those companies will break ranks to provide the new product, and make a fortune off the people who want a better product.

THat's my idealist beliefs, at least, and why I have faith in as much laisez-faire economics as possible. IMO, relying on the government for regulation means relying on the goodwill of those humans, while relying on capitalism is relying on the greed of humanity. I think relying on greed is a safer bet than relying on good will. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712245.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712245.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712286.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712286.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
As Kilkrazy noted, the power of market forces and competition to safeguard people from predation has been conclusively demonstrated to be functionally nonexistent.

Read up on the tobacco companies. Or on working conditions in factories a hundred years ago. Or on the history of monopolies. It just doesn't work. Profit trumps other considerations, and those who don't have money are at the mercy of those who do. It's still this way, to an extent, but less so. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712333.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712333.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
The Green Git wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:What do you consider would be a fair division of national income?


First of all, I'd have to reject the whole notion of dividing national income in the first place. The money of the citizens does not belong to the nation; it belongs to each of the individuals that resides in the nation.

That said, it's up to each to go out and earn what they want or need. That's "Fair". I need a new car, I go exchange the talents, skills and abilities at my disposal for money. Once I get enough I can buy the car (or take out a loan).





Yeah yeah talents etc. I have talents and skills to steal your new car cuz I need a new car. I don't need taxes paying for cops. You do.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712409.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712409.page GMT Re:Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
Frazzled wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Right, because the new budget would put 8 year olds in the factories. I think everyone needs to calm down here.


I think that was in reaction to Fraz's post, not the budget.


So you're saying Communism is NOT a party? Its like everything I've been told is a lie...


What are you talking about? Papa Fraz, did you forget your meds again?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712436.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712436.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
Mannahnin wrote:I know this song, and I knew the words back in the 80s. As I said, I grew up Libertarian. The problem is that greed is shortsighted, and that consequences for the abusers are ignored or negated if they have enough money. Do you remember the beginning of Fight Club, where the narrator explains the nature of his job? Evaluating the cost of safety recalls for auto manufacturers to determine if it will cost more to do the recall, or to pay off the settlements for people who die?


Oh, I know. Like I said, it's my idealist capitalist utopia. I know we NEED the government to do these things, but that's the idealist in me thinking about it.

Read up on the tobacco companies. Or on working conditions in factories a hundred years ago. Or on the history of monopolies. It just doesn't work. Profit trumps other considerations, and those who don't have money are at the mercy of those who do. It's still this way, to an extent, but less so.


I would say that the fact that the working coniditions in factoires have improved so much in the West over the past 100 years to be an example of how public pressure eventually resulted in imporement. Like I said, it's a capitalist utopia that's about as realistic as the communist one. I don't pretend to think it's ever going to be a reality. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712441.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712441.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?



And here's a quickie under 10-min video about the fire:




One of the reasons so many people died was because the building was designed to maximize productivity at the expense of ingress/egree routes. That's greed for you- maximizing profit over safety. Another was that management locked many of the doors to control the movements of the workers and help management check purses to make sure women weren't shoplifting. The owners were acquitted of wrongdoing under the existing laws, and even though they lost a judgment of $75 per death in a civil suit, they got back ~$400 per death from their insurance company. One of them got arrested again two years later for locking doors in his factory, and was fined $20.

I guess I don't understand why, if you recognize that both Libertarianism and Communism are unworkable, idealistic systems, you'd identify as either of them in a politics thread. Heck, in a fantasy world which doesn't actually resembly reality, I might like to be a Gryffindor, or an Avenger, or a Harper. But I don't identify any of those as my political affiliation.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712709.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712709.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
Mannahnin wrote:But public pressure didn't really do anything, until backed up by labor and safety laws.


Wouldn't it be reasonable to say that organized labor is public pressure?

Gah. I was in a union for too long. I see what you were saying now. "...labor (laws) and safety laws." ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712792.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712792.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
See, I don't view Libertarianims as 'unworkable'. I view Ayn Rand's capitalist paradise as unworkable. I view benevolent dictatorship as unworkabele, and I view communism as unworkable. However, the libertarian ideals of less government intervention in everything, not just economics is something I believe is a good for society. I don't want government OUT of the economy, I see that they have an important place. What I want is to see government's role in the economy limited to the absolute minimum. THAT I do not see as unworkable.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712797.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712797.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
ChrisWWII wrote: Triangle Shirtwaist is a classic example that, in the capitalist utopia, would result in people not buying from them anymore, making it unprofitable for the company. In reality, it created public outcry that resulted in the government passsing legislation to force the company to adapt. Same result, different mechanic. One works, the other doesn't. Ideally, to my mind we'd have the former, but we have to make do with the latter.


I think you're going to an awful lot of trouble in order to embrace unfettered capitalism, to the point where you're willfully ignoring significant elements of human nature; notably the decision to withhold purchasing products from unethical companies, which almost no one does.

ChrisWWII wrote:
What I want is to see government's role in the economy limited to the absolute minimum.


I've always been sort of bewildered by the degree of hostility some people express with respect to the state.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712828.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712828.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
dogma wrote:
I think you're going to an awful lot of trouble in order to embrace unfettered capitalism, to the point where you're willfully ignoring significant elements of human nature; notably the decision to withhold purchasing products from unethical companies, which almost no one does.


It's idealism. Some see a world devoid of war, or whatnot. I see a world where unfettered capitalism governs itself. It goes against human nature, but that's why it's an ideal. It's something to strive for.


I've always been sort of bewildered by the degree of hostility some people express with respect to the state.


The problem I have with the state, is that I think that no one man or organization can really 'control' the economy, and trying to will only screw things up in the end. However, I also acknowledge we need the government, because until we can form afore mentioned capitalist utopia, human nature will stop self-regulating capitalism. However, we should keep the government's involvement to a minimum...no need to meddle too much with something we can't fully understand. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712842.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712842.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
Mannahnin wrote:Your jokes don't work as well when you skim the thing you're responding to and get it backwards.


I did misread it. I thought this was another "here we go again" flat tax thread. I'll commit seppuku after I've seen the new Thor movie, unless the movie does it for me.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712845.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712845.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
ChrisWWII wrote:And in a democracy, public pressure can create laws and regulation. Triangle Shirtwaist is a classic example that, in the capitalist utopia, would result in people not buying from them anymore, making it unprofitable for the company. In reality, it created public outcry that resulted in the government passsing legislation to force the company to adapt. Same result, different mechanic. One works, the other doesn't. Ideally, to my mind we'd have the former, but we have to make do with the latter.


Yeah, pretty much. I think if we're not on the same page, they're pretty much adjacent. In reality, public shaming of a company only does so much good, and lasts only so long. I prefer not to shop at Wal-Mart, but my wife doesn't care as much and still shops there occasionally, just because they're cheap. Once upon a time everyone knew that Amway was a shady (semi)pyramid scheme, and they changed the name they operated under in the US to "Quixtar". Recently they started using Amway here again; I guess their market research showed that people had largely forgotten their sins.


ChrisWWII wrote:See, I don't view Libertarianims as 'unworkable'. I view Ayn Rand's capitalist paradise as unworkable. I view benevolent dictatorship as unworkabele, and I view communism as unworkable.


I can see that. It's just that IME Libertarianism is a range which includes Ayn Rand's fantasies. I should know; my mother was into both and I'm named after a character in one of her books. I've known a number of nice Libertarians, and I know (and respect, and to some extent share) the ideals they uphold. But IMO those ideals really don't work in practice, any more than Communism does.


ChrisWWII wrote:However, the libertarian ideals of less government intervention in everything, not just economics is something I believe is a good for society. I don't want government OUT of the economy, I see that they have an important place. What I want is to see government's role in the economy limited to the absolute minimum. THAT I do not see as unworkable.


Yup. That's the difference. IMO, and from what I've observed of history, "absolute minimum" is somewhere below the level that enables tragedies like the Triangle Shirtwaist fire. I expect you meant "absolute minimum which still keeps minimum health and safety regs", but other people don't. Right now the NH house and senate, stuffed with recently-elected Libertarians and Tea Partiers, just passed a misleadingly named "right to work" bill which abolishes our state's minimum wage law, and attacks the collective bargaining rights of workers.

The rhetoric going around this country right now, and the legislation and deregulation advocated by certain parties, are, in my opinion, undoing progress and setting us back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Your jokes don't work as well when you skim the thing you're responding to and get it backwards.


I did misread it. I thought this was another "here we go again" flat tax thread.


Haven't you pigeonholed me as a socialist yet?


Ahtman wrote:I'll commit seppuku after I've seen the new Thor movie, unless the movie does it for me.


Kirby designs, man! Just focus on the Kirby designs! If you're that skeptical about the writing and acting, just be sure to be high or drunk and enjoy the visuals. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712846.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712846.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
The proponents of deregulation argue that many regulations are essentially written by the industry, and serve a better purpose of locking out competition than anything else.

While this argument rings true, the problem is that the same situation that had lead to regulations controlled by industry means deregulation is controlled by industry. So if you deregulate, you'll inevitably end up with all the regulations meant to screw over competitors still in place, but the useful safety, labor and antitrust regulations being gutted. So even if the libertarians are actually right, they're still pushing (hell, pushed for and got) disastrous policies.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712878.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712878.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
Mannahnin wrote:
Yeah, pretty much. I think if we're not on the same page, they're pretty much adjacent. In reality, public shaming of a company only does so much good, and lasts only so long. I prefer not to shop at Wal-Mart, but my wife doesn't care as much and still shops there occasionally, just because they're cheap. Once upon a time everyone knew that Amway was a shady (semi)pyramid scheme, and they changed the name they operated under in the US to "Quixtar". Recently they started using Amway here again; I guess their market research showed that people had largely forgotten their sins.


Close enough, I guess. Glad we agree on that at least. Wal-Mart is another thing entirerly which I won't get into here.

I can see that. It's just that IME Libertarianism is a range which includes Ayn Rand's fantasies. I should know; my mother was into both and I'm named after a character in one of her books. I've known a number of nice Libertarians, and I know (and respect, and to some extent share) the ideals they uphold. But IMO those ideals really don't work in practice, any more than Communism does.


Well, yes. Libetarianism covers a wide range of topics. My personal view of Ayn Rand is she is to libertarianism as Karl Marx is to communism. She wrote some books about it which talk about an ideal world where the system she's espoousing works perfectly. Lots of nice quotes, etc. etc. but the political system contained just doens't work without the authors hand controling everything. (Though I did like Anthem, but that's basically a copy pasted version of Zamyatin's We...both good books too, imo).

Yup. That's the difference. IMO, and from what I've observed of history, "absolute minimum" is somewhere below the level that enables tragedies like the Triangle Shirtwaist fire. I expect you meant "absolute minimum which still keeps minimum health and safety regs", but other people don't. Right now the NH house and senate, stuffed with recently-elected Libertarians and Tea Partiers, just passed a misleadingly named "right to work" bill which abolishes our state's minimum wage law, and attacks the collective bargaining rights of workers.

The rhetoric going around this country right now, and the legislation and deregulation advocated by certain parties, are, in my opinion, undoing progress and setting us back.


Yes, my view of 'absolute minimum' is 'the government keeps the currency working, keeps the banks working, and makes sure companies aren't breaking the law, whatever the law may be'. I personally think that that limit is reasonable enough that most people can agree on it. My blood only tends to boil when i see the government trying to control companies with laws etc. E.g. When it comes to polluion, I prefer 'pollution credits' to simply passing a law saying that you can produce x tons of pollution a year.

My thoughts about unions are still up in the ari, and I need to do more studying before I can state an educated opinion on that, instead of just spouting out whatever I heard from my favourite news station. I am generally in favor of deregulation, but I also know we can't afford to go back to the Robber Barons era. While deregulation is a good, it can't go too far. That just hurts more people than it helps.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712889.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712889.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
ChrisWWII wrote:
Yes, my view of 'absolute minimum' is 'the government keeps the currency working, keeps the banks working, and makes sure companies aren't breaking the law, whatever the law may be'. I personally think that that limit is reasonable enough that most people can agree on it. My blood only tends to boil when i see the government trying to control companies with laws etc. E.g. When it comes to polluion, I prefer 'pollution credits' to simply passing a law saying that you can produce x tons of pollution a year.

My thoughts about unions are still up in the ari, and I need to do more studying before I can state an educated opinion on that, instead of just spouting out whatever I heard from my favourite news station. I am generally in favor of deregulation, but I also know we can't afford to go back to the Robber Barons era. While deregulation is a good, it can't go too far. That just hurts more people than it helps.



So in reality, you're in favor of a vastly more powerful government than what we have now? Cause following the law is the last thing on a corporations mind, outside of a few high profile cases the penalty for a corporation of any real size breaking the law will be substantially less than what they made breaking the law.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712892.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712892.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
The Green Git wrote:What would be "fair" is taking the total tax bill and dividing it equally among the taxpayers. That's fair.
Because obviously, peopel who aren't lucky must be lazy.

Yes, that's right. The main thing involved with being rich is almost invariably luck, not skill. Luck of being born rich, luck of finding that one perfect job, luck of finding that one lucrative contract luck of knowing just the right people, luck of being in the right place at the right time, etc. And then once you get it, it's easier to get it again, because of the way our society works.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712895.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712895.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
ChrisWWII wrote:Well, yes. Libetarianism covers a wide range of topics. My personal view of Ayn Rand is she is to libertarianism as Karl Marx is to communism. She wrote some books about it which talk about an ideal world where the system she's espoousing works perfectly. Lots of nice quotes, etc. etc. but the political system contained just doens't work without the authors hand controling everything. (Though I did like Anthem, but that's basically a copy pasted version of Zamyatin's We...both good books too, imo).


Feeling more and more kinship here. Despite its flaws, I quite enjoyed Anthem as well.


ChrisWWII wrote:
Yup. That's the difference. IMO, and from what I've observed of history, "absolute minimum" is somewhere below the level that enables tragedies like the Triangle Shirtwaist fire.

The rhetoric going around this country right now, and the legislation and deregulation advocated by certain parties, are, in my opinion, undoing progress and setting us back.


Yes, my view of 'absolute minimum' is 'the government keeps the currency working, keeps the banks working, and makes sure companies aren't breaking the law, whatever the law may be'. I personally think that that limit is reasonable enough that most people can agree on it.


Yes, but the hangup is in the "the law" part. Many Libertarians seem to think that we need no or almost no laws controlling or regulating anything, despite history demonstrating that that is a recipe for a lot of deaths, suffering, and poverty.


ChrisWWII wrote:My thoughts about unions are still up in the ari, and I need to do more studying before I can state an educated opinion on that, instead of just spouting out whatever I heard from my favourite news station. I am generally in favor of deregulation, but I also know we can't afford to go back to the Robber Barons era. While deregulation is a good, it can't go too far. That just hurts more people than it helps.


Smart move, withholding judgment when you know you need more information. I wish more of us had that much sense. I'm in a similar position on unions. I support the idea of collective bargaining and the importance they have historically. But I also recognize that they lead to some abuses and excessive inefficiencies in some cases as well. I'm a bit leery of "deregulation" as being a good thing in general. Usually there was some reason those regulations were instituted in the first place. And when it's the companies which would profit most who are shaping the decision to deregulate, you have to be at least a little wary of letting the fox guard the henhouse! Look at Enron.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712897.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712897.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
Requia wrote:So in reality, you're in favor of a vastly more powerful government than what we have now?

I believe the government should have the power to enforce the authority given to it in the Constitution, and only that power. What exactly this power is, of course, open up to interpretation of the Supreme Court. However big or small the resultant government is, is the government size I stand for as a libertarian.

Mannahnin wrote:Feeling more and more kinship here. Despite its flaws, I quite enjoyed Anthem as well.


Really a book more people should read.

Yes, but the hangup is in the "the law" part. Many Libertarians seem to think that we need no or almost no laws controlling or regulating anything, despite history demonstrating that that is a recipe for a lot of deaths, suffering, and poverty.


Yes, that's where I differ from a lot of Libertarians. (I also disagree with them on foreign policy, but that is, again another topic.) A lot believe in the capitaist utopia as I like to call it, where things regulate themselves. And while I sympathize with theme, and share that ideal, I also see that humans aren't perfect enough to pull that off yet. We need a guiding hand, and that hand is the government. I'd even say that the Constitution supports this claim. The US government is beholden to its citizens, and if acting in the best intests of its citizens means regulating corporations a bit, then so be it. Just don't create a hostile business environment. I much more a fan of 'carrot' policies when it comes to businesses than stick.


Smart move, withholding judgment when you know you need more information. I wish more of us had that much sense. I'm in a similar position on unions. I support the idea of collective bargaining and the importance they have historically. But I also recognize that they lead to some abuses and excessive inefficiencies in some cases as well. I'm a bit leery of "deregulation" as being a good thing in general. Usually there was some reason those regulations were instituted in the first place. And when it's the companies which would profit most who are shaping the decision to deregulate, you have to be at least a little wary of letting the fox guard the henhouse! Look at Enron.


Thanks. As of now, my personal ideas that circle in my head are that the union's time is past...but I keep hearing evidence that contradicts that idea, so I hold back from making a final decision in the end. I think the difference in being leary of deregulation may be an outlook and ideals thing. I honestly believe it's possible to make it in the fox's best interest to guard the hen house, and once the fox understands this...it'll go along with the ride.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712901.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712901.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
We literally CAN'T go back to "just the stuff that's defined in the Constitution". It'd be nonfunctional.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712905.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712905.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
Read the Constitution like the Bible I say, recognize that there is wisdom in there, but also recognize that it is old, and may need to be read as metaphor or as guidelines. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712920.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712920.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
Of course, they would also mean the current US government would get a say as to what's in the constitution, which might be worse.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712922.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712922.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
I'm much more in favor of keeping the SUpreme Court doing its job of keeping an eye on the Constitution, deciding what's Constituional and what's not. They are much more flexible than the ammendment process when it comes to keeping interpretations of the Constitution up to date. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712929.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2712929.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
ChrisWWII wrote:
Yes, but the hangup is in the "the law" part. Many Libertarians seem to think that we need no or almost no laws controlling or regulating anything, despite history demonstrating that that is a recipe for a lot of deaths, suffering, and poverty.


Yes, that's where I differ from a lot of Libertarians. (I also disagree with them on foreign policy, but that is, again another topic.) A lot believe in the capitaist utopia as I like to call it, where things regulate themselves. And while I sympathize with theme, and share that ideal, I also see that humans aren't perfect enough to pull that off yet.


I would tend to think that if we shape our policies and laws with the expectation that greed is the fundamental underlying force and inescapable, we cannot transcend greed. I don't believe in any form of utopia. But I think we can better ourselves if we try to be better and have good priorities and ideals.


ChrisWWII wrote: We need a guiding hand, and that hand is the government. I'd even say that the Constitution supports this claim. The US government is beholden to its citizens, and if acting in the best intests of its citizens means regulating corporations a bit, then so be it. Just don't create a hostile business environment.


One point of worldview where I think we differ is that I don't see the government as a "guiding hand", or something really external to the citizenry. It's the tool with which we get things done collectively. Cooperative and coordinated action is where humanity gets all our best stuff done. Whether it's bridges to cross rivers, skyscrapers to hold people and look awesome and impressive, or systems of laws which give us justice and equal treatment. Government is how we do that, as a society.

Corporations are another form of cooperative effort, but the issue with a for-profit corporation is that it's highest good and top priority is always profit. Profit comes ahead of life, health, safety, justice, etc. Unless someone forces the corporation to treat those things as priorities. Now, the officers of the company itself can do that, but as soon as the company goes public, they are beholden to the shareholders to maximize profits. And can even be sued by the shareholders for damages, and lose their jobs, if they don't. This is part of why external regulations are absolutely necessary; because otherwise corps must pursue profit even at the expense of endangering or harming people.

I think a lot of things are or can be done well within the for-profit model. But you need to have some boundaries and limits to make sure profit doesn't come at significant cost in human life and suffering. IMO this is one of the biggest problems with healthcare in this country. Doing it on a private, for-profit basis means that people's healthcare takes a backseat to profit, a lot of the time.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2713152.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2713152.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
ChrisWWII wrote:
The problem I have with the state, is that I think that no one man or organization can really 'control' the economy, and trying to will only screw things up in the end.


The Soviets did a fairly effective job of controlling the economy, even it didn't produce optimal outcomes.

Anyway, economics is such that the amalgamation of wealth produces a natural governing force, meaning that I can't actually imagine how an unfettered, capitalist system would perpetuate itself.


]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2713248.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2713248.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
dogma wrote:
ChrisWWII wrote:
The problem I have with the state, is that I think that no one man or organization can really 'control' the economy, and trying to will only screw things up in the end.


The Soviets did a fairly effective job of controlling the economy, even it didn't produce optimal outcomes.

Anyway, economics is such that the amalgamation of wealth produces a natural governing force, meaning that I can't actually imagine how an unfettered, capitalist system would perpetuate itself.




It couldn't it would eat itself alive!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2713391.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2713391.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
Mannahnin wrote:
I would tend to think that if we shape our policies and laws with the expectation that greed is the fundamental underlying force and inescapable, we cannot transcend greed. I don't believe in any form of utopia. But I think we can better ourselves if we try to be better and have good priorities and ideals.


Hmmm, see I view greed as one of those base, primal instincts of a humn being that you simply can't work around. It will always be with us, simply because it's instinct. We want our genetic legacy and ourselves to have the best chanc of thriving, and the best way to do that is to gather resources, occasionally at the expense of others. It's something so fundamental to being human, that trying to trascend it is impossible, and we should accept that and try and use greed for the greater good of all.

I guess the belief in the existence of a potential utopia is just a thing of youth. Only 18 years on this planet, so I haven't had TOO much time to be completely disillusioned.

One point of worldview where I think we differ is that I don't see the government as a "guiding hand", or something really external to the citizenry. It's the tool with which we get things done collectively. Cooperative and coordinated action is where humanity gets all our best stuff done. Whether it's bridges to cross rivers, skyscrapers to hold people and look awesome and impressive, or systems of laws which give us justice and equal treatment. Government is how we do that, as a society.


Hmm, I see your point, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. While I agree that cooperation and coordinated action is the key for driving society forward, it is better to harness the base instincts of humanity (like greed) to drive things forward in a way that directly benefits people. It's why communism doesn't work, people don't like working hard and then not getting rewarded for it. I always saw government's place in the world, as an overwatch, a regulating body that makes sure the actions of the for-profit corporations doesn't get out of hand, and they don't start hurting people, or taking dangerous short cuts in the name of saving money.

In a way, I view the government as a kind of...'accelerator' in the capitalist utopia I mentioned earlier. Instead of the people regulating with their wallets, the government steps in to regulate with laws in a way that is more effective, and quicker than the people alone.

I think a lot of things are or can be done well within the for-profit model. But you need to have some boundaries and limits to make sure profit doesn't come at significant cost in human life and suffering. IMO this is one of the biggest problems with healthcare in this country. Doing it on a private, for-profit basis means that people's healthcare takes a backseat to profit, a lot of the time.


Ah, when it comes to health care, I believe that letting it be a private endavour was better than making it public. We kinda saw how things worked there, doctors work, malpractice comes after them if they screw up, and the desire to do better drives them forward to find newer and better cures for everything. However, we also saw the downside in terms of increasing costs that kept some individuals out of the system of healthcare. Health care is a complicated issue, and I don't pretend to be an expert. I don't like the fear mongering some members of the right have unleashed upon the idea of universal health care, but I'm still doubtful, and a little bit anxious about the whole thing.

dogma wrote:
The Soviets did a fairly effective job of controlling the economy, even it didn't produce optimal outcomes.


Well, I see some advantages of a cnetrally planned economy, and the Soviets were the epitome of that. If you're running your country centrally (like a giant factory) you get some efficiency in the system, as long as you stick to industrialization. You can industrialize fast, and pump out obscene amounts of industrial production, which is what the Soviets did.

The problem is that, sooner or later you run into a brick wall. Once you've fully industrialized....what now? You amy be able to control an industrial economy, but micromanaeing a service economy gets harder and harder, and, as we saw with the Soviets, eventually fails completely.


Anyway, economics is such that the amalgamation of wealth produces a natural governing force, meaning that I can't actually imagine how an unfettered, capitalist system would perpetuate itself.


I'm not sure what you're saying here...that the governing force of capitalism stops the system from expanding? I'd say that it drives the system on. The desire for more money, more customers, more expansion would drive companies and corporations to search for such assets, or have smaller corporations founded to take advantage of untapped resources. Of course, this is back to my capitalist utopia, so reality kinda went flying out the door.



]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2713715.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2713715.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
ChrisWWII wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
I would tend to think that if we shape our policies and laws with the expectation that greed is the fundamental underlying force and inescapable, we cannot transcend greed. I don't believe in any form of utopia. But I think we can better ourselves if we try to be better and have good priorities and ideals.


Hmmm, see I view greed as one of those base, primal instincts of a humn being that you simply can't work around. It will always be with us, simply because it's instinct. We want our genetic legacy and ourselves to have the best chanc of thriving, and the best way to do that is to gather resources, occasionally at the expense of others. It's something so fundamental to being human, that trying to trascend it is impossible, and we should accept that and try and use greed for the greater good of all.


Adam Smith would have called that the invisible hand at work. He did not believe in unfettered capitalism, though. He wanted merchant greed to produce good outcomes, and frequently warned that business interests would collude to form cartels and monopolies at the expense of the public.

There are several problems with the dream of a self-regulated capitalist utopia.

(A) Classical market economics is based on the idea that all actors in the market have 100% information, and act rationally. These conditions aren't true.
(B) Even accountants will tell you that not everything can be measured with money.
(C) It's clear that much human behaviour isn't actuated by other drives than monetary greed.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2713806.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2713806.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2713866.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2713866.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
ChrisWWII wrote:
The problem is that, sooner or later you run into a brick wall. Once you've fully industrialized....what now? You amy be able to control an industrial economy, but micromanaeing a service economy gets harder and harder, and, as we saw with the Soviets, eventually fails completely.


Sure, my point was merely that if you want to control an economy, then there are ways to do it.

ChrisWWII wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying here...that the governing force of capitalism stops the system from expanding? I'd say that it drives the system on. The desire for more money, more customers, more expansion would drive companies and corporations to search for such assets, or have smaller corporations founded to take advantage of untapped resources. Of course, this is back to my capitalist utopia, so reality kinda went flying out the door.


I'm saying that all capitalist economies naturally place the majority of wealth into the hands of a small number of people, and that those people naturally govern the rest of the economy by nothing more than their direction of capital; a fact that naturally works against the traditional, capitalist assumptions of perfect information and perfect competition.

I'm also saying that said extremely wealthy individuals are unlikely to limit their control over the system to the manipulation of liquid capital, and are very likely to form something nearly identical to government.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2714414.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2714414.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
dogma wrote:I'm also saying that said extremely wealthy individuals are unlikely to limit their control over the system to the manipulation of liquid capital, and are very likely to form something nearly identical to government.
Which is basically what we have right now in the US. Try becoming a politician without having a proper amount of wealth...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2714435.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2714435.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2714525.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2714525.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2714905.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2714905.page GMT Any US voters want to sign a petition supporting the Fairness in Taxation Act?
dogma wrote:

I'm saying that all capitalist economies naturally place the majority of wealth into the hands of a small number of people, and that those people naturally govern the rest of the economy by nothing more than their direction of capital; a fact that naturally works against the traditional, capitalist assumptions of perfect information and perfect competition.

I'm also saying that said extremely wealthy individuals are unlikely to limit their control over the system to the manipulation of liquid capital, and are very likely to form something nearly identical to government.


Hmm, I agree with you on that. It goes against my ideals, but ideals have to bow in face of reality. It does make quite a bit of sense. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2715140.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/363131/2715140.page GMT