It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by xpert11
Free market vs Econmic regulation.
High taxs and government services vs low taxs private enterpise. This is a broad econmic debate.
First of I am a supporter of the free market. The biggest fault of the free market econmy isnt the idea but the way governments practice it.
In practice unions seem to be more intrested in power then people. When I went to school in Aust teachers seem to spend more time on strike then teaching. I have never met someone who has benfited from a union.
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
As a friend once remarked to me, it's funny that just as we started to understand that a degree of 'command economy' was actually what we needed to be doing it disappeared.
Originally posted by xpert11
The command econmy is to ridged.
I dont think the government should decide the price of good and services.
Heres an example the railways were once profitable in NZ this was because any goods that travled over 18Km had to travel via rail. Note the NZ railways also employed lagre numbers of people.
Dont transport firms have the right to compete on equal terms with the railways?
Also if governments restrict imports to protect local jobs it limteds the consumers choice why shouldnt I be able to buy a prouduct from overseas ?
The government shouldnt decide how I can spend my money.
When the government controlls the export market it denys people the right to seek differnt markets for there prouducts.
The free market caused short term pain it terms of job loses but in the long term we are better off not living with econmic false hoods.
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- I don't see why this has to be.
We already have certain goods made effectively to order.
The market not the government should decide supply & demand.
- If all the costs are included in the calculation then perhaps so.
- ......and if that consumer choice comes at the expense of our own society and environment?
At the end of the day most people choose lower prices over local jobs and the environment when given a choice.
- None of us live in a bubble. We 'tell' each other what to do all the time.
Aside from paying tax you decide how your money is spend.
ie facing the consequences of the several thousand air miles flown to take a product which can be just as easily produced at home or the social impact of the collapse of a particular industry etc etc.
Not really Countries were basic human rights exist cant compete with the likes of China. It is still cheaper to assemble goods in sweat shops in China and ship them around the world then it is to manufacture these goods in first world countries.
- It may be that a 'free market' is in the longer term the biggest economic falsehood of them all.
If the free market fails it will be due to government mismangerment not the idea. Governments need to aboilsh hidden taxs graudly in order to avoid high inflation. The free market will fail if governments only take half measures. I dont think there is one true free market econmy in the world.
Xpert11
TheVagabondI don't believe in punishing success, but I also don't believe that the successful need the government's help. Money floats. You don't see wealth naturally accumulating in the hands of mechanics and walmart employees.
If you leave them more of their own money and empower them to earn more money (but not just give it to them mind you) they're going to spend it and they're going to invest it and that money will fuel the economy and find its way to the successful, inturn being paid back to employees and being recycled back up through consumption and investment.
First all I want say that I agree with your sentiments.
I have a question How are people spose to invest money when there wages have gone up about $2 in 10 years?
It would be hard enough for the average NZ worker little alone the American worker who may earn less.
Im not against taxs cuts but it seems to me that they are canceled out by rises in inflation when wages are stagnet.
Originally posted by zappafan1
That's been tried and, as usual, the government screws it up. Also, that's using Socialist/Marxist ideas, and math and history shows it never works. It also is against our Constitution and/or Bill of Rights.
Tax breaks for "certain" industries? Businesses/corporations don't pay any taxes
What might have a chance in the near future, would be the "Fair Tax", info on which can be found at the following: www.fairtax.org...
The American economy would literally explode,
What might have a chance in the near future, would be the "Fair Tax", info on which can be found at the following: www.fairtax.org...
Originally posted by zappafan1
I was responding to the idea of taxes going to fund the various Social programs, which is definately Marxist.
The progressive tax system currently in place is also based on Marxist principals.
REPLY: No, the Fair Tax does none of those things. First, it would eliminate the entire industry of lobbyists, as 95% of lobbyists go to D.C. to try and get favorable tax breaks for those they work for.
The Black Market will always exist, but it will make it more difficult for it to exist.
Hoarding won't happen because it removes the extreme costs a company pays to keep up with the tax laws (in fact the "taxes" themselves), which would allow for a given company to invest and grow, which would create more jobs.
The F.T. is VERY flexible to the individuals needs, as the only thing that is taxed at the consumer level are NEW items, not used.
"Unjustly burdened" would describe excessive corporate taxation, which the Fait Tax would eliminate.
Which "sectors" are you referring to?
The trade decifit would be reduced if companies are able to produce more here in America, which would happen if their operating costs are lowered an avg. of 30%.
And, although $1.00 per hour is almost criminal by most standards, it usually represents a dramatic increase in the wages one would normally make in those countries.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
Originally posted by zappafan1
I was responding to the idea of taxes going to fund the various Social programs, which is definately Marxist.
State investment in the public good predates Marx, so I disagree with the contention that all investment in public good, even through "social programs" as popularly defined, is necessarily Marxist.
That however may be a tangent issue because I believe you have misunderstood me.
When I said, " think if you cut unnecessary government spending in some areas to fund large and well-targeted tax breaks for college education, medical insurance, housing, etc,..."
I was not suggesting government medical insurance or housing, etc. For America, as matters now stand, I would be against those ideas.
I was suggesting that the government should keep a tax code which promises never to take so much of a citizens own money that he would be unable to acquire these things for himself, providing that he takes the initiative to earn and save the money for them.
Seems capitalistic enough to me, but not mercilessly so.
The progressive tax system currently in place is also based on Marxist principals.
Yes and no. I believe it comes down to rationale and effect.
If the rationale is that income must be redistributed to create equality of results, then a measure is Marxist. If the rationale is to fund a collective investment, and to allocate the responsibility for costs according to share in the benefits, then it is simply fair.
I assume you would agree that the ruling in US v. Butler that money cannot be taken from one group and distributed to another and that later circumvention of that ruling which made the Great Society programs possible were unconstitutional.
I submit to you that to tax a laborer equally in order to fund infrastructure which disproportionately benefits others is a de facto redistribution of income from the poor to the wealthy.
While it is axiomatic that all costs, including taxes, are ultimately channeled to the consumer, income taxation which applies to business entities retains certain subtle advantages.
A corporation is legally distinct from its owners, but this simply does not hold in reality. The money is obviously going somewhere. The cost flows from the corporate accounting offices down to the cash register, but then is partially rebuffed by writeoffs, tax breaks, and above all, the progressive tax code, channeling the balance of the government budget back to those whom actually end up in possession of the corporate entities' money.
So long as these people are not expected to shoulder a portion of the expense disproportionate to their stake in the government and its works, the progressive tax code is not Marxist, but is merely the mechanism of correcting the phenomenon whereby those who benefit most from public works would be able to pass the costs on to those least able to afford it and least benefited by the spending.
Now, this is obviously not perfect either. In a perfect world, the budget would be either itemized or at least categorized, percentage stake in the spending would be assigned to sectors of the population, and each class would pay a flat tax for their bracket specific to each expenditure which pays that class' stake in the government's work.
This opens up a very dangerous path to overtaxation which would require budget referenda. It is present impractical for a large and populous nation of large expenditures, however it seems theoretically sound where conditions and/or technology allows.
REPLY: No, the Fair Tax does none of those things. First, it would eliminate the entire industry of lobbyists, as 95% of lobbyists go to D.C. to try and get favorable tax breaks for those they work for.
The Black Market will always exist, but it will make it more difficult for it to exist.
I do not understand how a consumption tax would hinder the blackmarket. On the contrary, it seems obvious that if taxation is taking place at the cash register, that many people will seek to circumvent the register. The substantial increase in prices will create a demand for cheap stolen and smuggled goods.
That's the good news though.
The US has a GDP of 11.75 Trillion (CIA World Fact Book 2005). We have a Budget of 2.354755 Trillion (Wikipedia)
Divide the first number by the second, you get .20 and some change. That's 20 cents on the dollar consumption tax, and it gets much higher if you don't assess a consumption tax to businesses on the wages they pay, which will of course flow to prices, and cannot be redirected back to the holders of the corporation for lack of a tax code. So you've got a bare minimum 20% price increase, probably closer to 30% or more considering my point on wages and yours on passing of costs. Remember, we still haven't added state and local taxes either. That's even more.
How does the price increase compare to the income increase for a poor family?
The bottom two tax brackets will see their taxes effectively doubled from 10-15% (before deductions) to approximately 30%. The third tax bracket (which goes up to 70k, just shy of double the per capita GDP in this country, will see a slight increase.
The bottom two brackets would literally be ruined instantly. If you're making 29k, then your rent, car payment, car insurance, gasoline bill, utilities, etc all go up 20-30%, while the income at your disposal only goes up 15%. What happens? If you're INCREDIBLY frugal, and don't live in California, your disposable income is gone. If you do live in CA, and aren't very a monumental tightwad- you're now homeless.
Consumption will have to dramatically reduce just for people to survive. Producers will have to export, but who is going to buy that much American merchandise considering where our currency is? We're definately going to have to import cheap, but that's not going to work either because there aren't going to be any jobs in this country when consumption drops.
Hoarding won't happen because it removes the extreme costs a company pays to keep up with the tax laws (in fact the "taxes" themselves), which would allow for a given company to invest and grow, which would create more jobs.
Wait, I thought companies didn't pay taxes. Their not saving any money because any money they are spending is being charged to the consumer.
Meanwhile, the consumers are hoarding. They can't afford to spend money. Those who aren't hording are going to be making the smart play and investing in nations that haven't committed fiscal suicide.
The F.T. is VERY flexible to the individuals needs, as the only thing that is taxed at the consumer level are NEW items, not used.
"At the consumer level" is deceptive. If it's being taxed at other levels it gets passed down the line as a cost. If it's not being taxed it only increases the share of the budget which must be borne on those new items, therefore you get fewer taxes of greater amount- zero sum.
"Unjustly burdened" would describe excessive corporate taxation, which the Fait Tax would eliminate.
This is where we differ. I believe that unjustly burdened refers to anyone who is forced to provide for the public to such an extent that they cannot sufficiently provide for themselves. The businesses which thrive and make their owners billionaires under our current progressive tax system do not qualify.
A person who works his butt off just so he can have enough money to qualify as broke (rather than homeless) and at the end of it finds himself unable to send his son to college because his money was spent by the NASA to develop technologies that will eventually make multi-billion dollar contractors even richer as they use that technology to provide the luxury of slightly faster internet access to those who can afford to purchase it- all ostensibly in the name of building a space station or some such business... that person would qualify as unjustly burdened in my mind.
Which "sectors" are you referring to?
Those which are strategically necessary to all Americans to maintain as a contingency, but could not survive without preferential tax treatment and in some cases subsidies. Shipbuilding is a good example- the Navy has to order a certain number of ships, need them or not, to keep the industry afloat so that they'll be there when we need them to build the next line of defense against a new threat. Farming in some cases qualifies. Etc.
The trade decifit would be reduced if companies are able to produce more here in America, which would happen if their operating costs are lowered an avg. of 30%.
Where will this operating cost reduction come from? Their operating costs are already offset by prices. The Unfair Tax is just going to make it impossible for any portion of that passed down cost to be reflected back to the shareholders and owners, thereby taking money out of the consumers hands and reducing sales. Now if this does not completely crush our economy, we can export and the rich will make a ton of money on that (assuming that foreign nations can afford to pick up the slack for the American consumer) but what good is a trade surplus which is bought at the expense of quality of life? It might look good on the balance sheet (if nothing goes horribly wrong) but it's going to look like crap on main street.
And, although $1.00 per hour is almost criminal by most standards, it usually represents a dramatic increase in the wages one would normally make in those countries.
It's OK to exploit the hell out people because they were in trouble before you showed up? You take a job from a fellow American, take it to the most desperate people on Earth and don't pay them enough to live in human conditions, create a several-hundred percent profit margin, and pat yourself on the back as a humanitarian?
By that rationale, I can import 12 year olds from Ethiopia to work in America as sex slaves. Hey, it's marginally better than what they had before- at least they won't starve to death, and I'm making money. Everybody wins, right?
I'll give the website a little more combing over, but the general principle seems hopeless. They will need very detailed numbers to convince me.