Originally posted by Soldier
It is already possible for everyone, through hard work, to own thier own car and home.
That's simply not true. It never can be 100% true and I can deal with that, but in cases where the government can to limit that by bringing capital
where others won't to create jobs, the government should do so.
All you've got to do is run around town for about an hour. Gas up your car, go to Walmart, and stop at Mc Donalds. In my experience, you can in that
one hour meet over a dozen people in their late 20s or 30s who would have to work 60 or 70 hours a week just to live on their own, and even then there
is little or no way they can afford to own rather than rent. In today's economy (at least in my experience in Southern California) it takes about
double what you'd make at 40 hours and minimum wage just to get by on your own.
If you're working class and want a home, get married, work 60 hours a week your whole life (your spouse too), never had kids, never get seriously
ill, and if you don't mind living in the boondocks or a slum that would be a big help too.
And every day there are students who put themselves through college with part time jobs and government loans.
What percentage of the total population though? I assume we both recognize that there are many highschool graduates who do not see college as being
financially possible. Ever notice how heavily the armed forces, especially the navy, lean on that college money as an incentive? Why would that be an
effective way of getting people to join the armed forces if most people could manage by other means? (I'm reminded of some prominent historical
figure who said "No man would join the Navy who had the contrivance to get himself into a prison instead..." but I digress.)
I think that government intervention in the market is nearly always a bad idea.
In certain ways I would agree. This is because many forms of government intervention represent an attempt to ignore or over-power market forces. This
is perhaps the greatest reason for the failure of socialism. Making investments in order to put people to work is nothing new though, and it works. I
just think the government should plan it and do it more regularly instead of considering it strictly a bail-out for hard times.
As for limiting corporate profits, this is a VERY bad idea. The concept of the corporation is by far one of most important inventions in
history. It has allowed man to discover new lands, create new inventions, and create unheard of wealth for billions.
I think you might have misunderstood me. I'm not suggesting that we simply cap profits. I'm suggesting that in some cases, especially medicine, the
government monopolize R and D, production, etc and take the corporations completely out of the loop. Capping profits ignores market forces-
undertaking development and production at-cost as a public work does not. It's perfectly viable.
The corporation is simply a machine for raising capital to support a venture. It does in private business what the government does in state business.
It does not innovate- it equips and pays the innovators. I believe that things such as the development and production of medicines are part of vital
healthcare infrastructure and as infrastructure are state business, not private, and not subject to profiteering. The government should raise the
capital to equip and pay the innovators just as well as they are currently paid, but should take no profit on its investment or on the distribution,
essentially offering medication at wholesale, as well as increasing efficiency by eliminating R and D redundancies between companies.
Progressive taxes are a good thing, but you can't go overboard. Progressive taxes only work if those being taxed don't feel as if they are
being punished. People are willing to pay more, within reason. If the taxes become unreasonable the tax payers will flee or find a way to hide thier
money. Pick out the countries with the most progressive tax systems and cross reference that with the Forbes list of wealthiest people. How many
millionaires are there in Sweden.
I agree with you on the point that you can't over-tax the investors to the point of breaking the incentive. I'm not an economist and I'm not
pretending to be qualified to deal with the numbers here. I am simply speculating that there is quite possibly room for rearrangement in our tax code
without breaking the will of investors. We know for a fact that the higher tax brackets can handle higher taxes because they got a tax cut not that
long ago.
If indeed there is room for an adjustment, we should make it, and target the benefit very carefully at people who at this time do not own homes but
would choose to invest in one if they are allowed to keep a little more of their income each month.
Like I said, I'm not an economist, but what I do understand is that our economy works not on the accumulation of money, but on the circulation of it.
You don't judge the economy by how much money people can amass, but on how much money is moving and the quantity of goods and services that are
acquired by consumers as a result. So we want money to circulate. Money floats. It inevitably ends up with the rich people because they are the ones
you buy stuff from. To keep it circulating, you have to keep a good flow of cash to the bottom in the form of take-home wages, so that it can begin
circulating back towards the top again.
As for the corporations paying more because they benefit from the employee's free education, that arguement doesn't make sense to me. Who
benefited more, the company who hired an educated employee, or the citizen who was able to get a high paying job with the education.
Maybe it's just me, but the main tangible benefit of an education is employability. Sure you understand things and you feel good about yourself, and
nerdy girls like you, but the big payoff is that you can get a job. Now if I alone have to pay the cost of learning how to do a job, what exactly am I
getting out of this? The joy of working? What it amounts to is that you are working just to pay for your room, board, and job training. Most
reasonable people in that situation, given the opportunity, would go the way of Henry David Thoreau- disappear into the woods, grow your own food, and
evade your taxes. There is no sense spending 1/3 of your life at work and 1/3 of your life resting up so that you can go to work tomorrow if all you
get for it is room, board, and the ability to pay your taxes.
Now the corporation on the other hand is making out pretty good on this deal. They are making a profit- the people behind the corporation have plenty
of discretionary spending in their budgets, and they have their serfs to thank for that- the common man who basically works for just enough to
survive, and of course to pay for the privlidge of living under his government. Let those people, who have money to spare, take a portion of that, and
share in a portion of the burden of education- which they are benefiting from equally with the student. The wealthy still have plenty- maybe less than
they want, but plenty, and the working man at least has a little allowance for himself now so that he can hope to actually own his things rather than
rent them, and god willing, maybe even do that and have money to spend on the occasional luxury.
I know I have an uncommon viewpoint, but I think it's important to remember that civilization, economics, etc are a tool, but now men serve their
tools. You spend your whole life away from home, so that you can afford a home. You work yourself sick so that you can afford a sick day. Something
has gone wrong. Normally I'd say if I don't like it I ought to just walk away, but the world isn't as big as it used to be. We don't all have that
option. So, it seems fitting that the majority of the world population- the people who spend more time maintaining these tools than using them- should
lean on the boss to get things fixed.
We need to get away from this idea of punishing corporations. They are not evil. They provide jobs for the people.
To have a wealthy man share his wealth with the people who make him wealthy is not a punishment. They're welcome to their mansions, they're car
collections, their fountains, and even their golf (although I consider golf an arrogant, elitist game which perfectly symbolizes the hardness of heart
of rich men in a world where people starve to death every day- keeping in mind that the world is bigger than just America). They can keep all of that.
But then with all that money people have sitting around and have nothing better to do with than buy a third house to spend one month out of the year
in, might I humbly suggest that they pay their dues to the society that supports them.
I'll lay it out for you barney style- I know the truth is that this is never going to happen. It wouldn't be good for business for Americans to own
their homes or their cars, or even their freakin video tapes. Renting keeps the money flowing upward. If we had an ownership society, almost all of
the working class would inevitably pass on homes to their children. Those who depend on us to rent, lease, and borrow on credit would be done for.
Those who try to use fines or workplace policies as mechanisms of control, would lose their power. Look at the growing phenomenon of employers who try
to regulate what you can do in your off-duty hours, smoking cigarettes for example. That would be finished in an ownership society where people could
afford to be on strike or between jobs without missing their rent payment.
So my rant is over now, and forgive me if it's a tad militant. It's certainly not personal. I simply believe that the state of things is about
excess and control, and that this is not the way things have to be.
