Originally posted by skyshow
I view fruit of labor and gains from capital two different things. The latter couldn't happen without first the labor having been done.
They are part of the same process since labor cannot occur in a vacuum. It takes Capital for investment to make labor have any meaning. For a
company to have any gains as far as profits it needs to constantly invest so as to keep consumers happy and maintain its profit share or increase it.
Thus when you TAX capital you're digging into future investment that may have increased labor.
Taxing huge incomes that people make off of money made by others is different than taxing a dump truck driver or a trash collector who trades their
hard physical labor directly for their pay, and a pay that barely supports themselves and family.
I agree, that's why I think all forms of taxes are bad. That money doesn't fall from the sky. When you take it; be it from either the
rich or the poor, it's certainly not being used in the best way the for the market to dictate. Instead this money is taken to D.C. where the
politicians get to spend it on what they want, and by proxy on what a few have lobbied for.
In a truly "free market" capitalist system, you wouldn't have a govn't. military to defend the golden goose...it would be up to the companies to
pay for that directly where they saw fit.
Either way they would "pay" to protect their assets right? When they transport goods from production facility to market the trucks drive on roads
Yes, in a free market property rights would still exist. If you held-up a truck and confiscated its contents you would be liable to
compensate the owner, since you are infringing on his/her property. You could either argue this through privates courts, or as in our REAL WORLD case
have the local police enforce or judicial system. The military should not be used to enforce property right, as it is currently being used. The
military was and should be used to defend us from a foreign enemy. US being 300 million people.
The water that flushes the toilets at the can on the second floor of regional headquarters comes from a municipal sewage and water treatment plant
right? My point is these things are all needed and provided by the govn't in exchange for tax revenue.
Well, it maybe provided by the government but it doesn't mean that they are the only ones most efficient at providing this good.
The rich benefit obviously the most, and have a lot more to contribute. Now if the working class were paid a hell of a lot more they too could afford
to contribute more, and would also be benefiting more.
This is a misnomer, corporations pay higher utility rates than individuals. Water, Electricity, Waste disposals rates are not the same
across the board. In most instances except the case of the Agricultural Industry these rates are higher for businesses than individuals. Just ask
any business owner.
Also just because Paris Hilton flushes her toilet, the same as I does not mean that we should advocate making her pay more because her bank account is
bigger than ours. That is a morally reprehensible argument. Sure, she can flush it ten times more per day as an individual because she can afford it
if she wishes so, and therefore her utility bill will be 10 times higher than mine. But that is okay, because she is obviously still paying into the
I think you are confusing the financial ability to pay more with the OBLIGATION TO pay more, made up by individuals like yourself or others that fall
into the Marxist dogma.
Finally, in another post it was brought up that regulation limits consumer choice. Um, before regulation of food such as meat packing, consumers were
getting sick and dieing due to contamination etc...
Are you making the argument that without government we would all still be eating rotten meat? Industries make these corrections on their
own, since they are in business to make money. If meat is rotten or bad, people will stop eating it and turn towards other substitutes or other
producers of meat. Thus hurting the bottom line and losing profits. So it is in the interest of food manufacturers to produce the best product they
it took govn't regulation so that consumers could even exist to make a choice.
So you are making the case that Regulation increases choice?
Regulation keeps things like airline jets safe by forcing companies to pay for expensive preventative maintenance on aircraft that otherwise if left
up to the "free market" (a myth anyway) wouldn't happen.
So without the FAA the airlines would have no necessary reason to keep jets running and safe? They would I suppose fly all the jets they
had until they fell from the sky...
Regulations have come about because it was necessary and needed in and by society.
Regulations have been created to protect industry and their interests. Just look at who is the first to applaud the banking industry
regulation; Bankers, or Airline Regulation; Airlines, Energy regulation; Energy Industry. You think the public is savvy enough to organize themselves
and write up these regulations? You've got to be kidding!! Regulation legislation is primarily written by those that know their own industry and
primarily to benefit themselves and limit their competitors.
Why turn back the clock and repeat the madness we had in history? Take Iraq for instance, the neo-cons planned it to be a free for all and tried to
install open and free markets whereby everyone was on their own...it resulted in unemployment figures that shot through the roof, civil unrest, and
the free market capitalist haven that was supposed to trickle down and help everybody only ended up helping, as usual, the wealthy few.
Again the WAR in Iraq has nothing to do with capitalism. It is to do with CORPORATISM and the elite power structure. Instead of questioning the
regulation that has solidified their power structure some of you guys welcome it, hell even want to further advance it through further protectionism
or subsidizing. I say, good luck to you libs, you will not accomplish a thing.