NationStates Jolt Archive

I have proposed to abolish income taxes. It is wrong to take away the fruits of one mans labor and for to long governments have been putting guns to people's heads for their hard earned money. Working men, middle class, and wealthy buisnessmen will benefit from this proposal.

Go to here to approve it
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/69180/page=UN_proposal/proposal=90/vote=for/start=90

I disagree with what you are asking for. Income tax pays a crucial role in the government. If we didn't have income tax, the government's budget would be ruined, and the country would fall apart.

It is not the place of the UN to dictate how nations may conduct their taxation. Alsanchia opposes this odious encroachment of UN powers onto what has hitherto been held and hopefully shall remian as the sovereign right of states.

Taxes are the price of soceity. They are the price you pay for not having to defend yourself from enemies, for not having to grow your own food, for not having to teach your own children everything. They are the price you pay to live in safety.

Working men, middle class, and wealthy buisnessmen will benefit from this proposal.

However, governments will not. And ultimately, if the government doesn't benefit then the working men, middle class, and wealthy businessmen don't either. (At least in NationStates.)

The Empire of Cyrodiilia refuses to support this proposal.

:Emperor Revan Mithrandir

I hate taxes. I think that any form of income tax hurts economic growth, and only leads to socialism and tyranny. Mainly because the government is much more inefficient in its spending than a corporation or individuals, since there are so many layers of burreacracy, and special interests.

However, I cannot support this idea, since each nation should have their own tax system. I'm a Libertarian, so ideally I support only user fees for services, basically you pay for what you get. More realistically I support a flat sales tax . . . but yeah, it should be up to each country to decide.

Game mechanics purposal, setting the taxes at 0% is doable though.

Many nations don't need income taxes, but many do. Instead of a proposal, maybe this should be a general UN discussion on income taxes, since I'm sure you wouldn't want to impose tyranny on sovereign nations. Heh heh.

Income taxes are the price of civilization. Anyone is free to set up a colony on any of the other planets on this system, or on an island in the middle of the sea, in which there are no taxes. The likelihood of survival is approximately nil. The social contract on which government is based involves taxation- we agree to it as part of our citizenship. As such, I find this entire discussion to be a waste of time and yet another bit of Randian stupidity.

I absolutely refuse to even consider this proposal.

the PReG unequivocly opposes this resolution and announces it will withdraw from the un if if the resolution passes

Income taxes are the price of civilization. Anyone is free to set up a colony on any of the other planets on this system, or on an island in the middle of the sea, in which there are no taxes. The likelihood of survival is approximately nil. The social contract on which government is based involves taxation- we agree to it as part of our citizenship. As such, I find this entire discussion to be a waste of time and yet another bit of Randian stupidity.

I absolutely refuse to even consider this proposal.

Well I agree some type of funding is necessary to maintain a government, but I don't necessarily think it has to be an "income tax". I mean the United States went up until 1912 if I remember correctly without an income tax (except for times of war). They just had tarrifs and taxed certain items, like property, but no established income tax . . . and I thought we got along fine actually.

"Low taxes are the result of low spending." =)

Taxes are the price of soceity. They are the price you pay for not having to defend yourself from enemies, for not having to grow your own food, for not having to teach your own children everything. They are the price you pay to live in safety.

Then fund the government with sales taxes, excise taxes, tariffs, etc.

Income taxes allow the government to snoop into your bank records and violate your most fundamental liberties. Ideally, the government would be so small we could fund it with excise taxes and a low-rate tariff totalling about $100 billion in revenue a year. But I'd chose a sales tax over an income tax any day simply because of the privacy issues involved.

In 1900, the federal income tax was 0% and total government (federal, state, and local combined) revenue equaled 8% of the GDP.

People did not starve in the streets.
We were not overrun by barbarians.
The crime rate was much lower than it is today.
The economy grew much faster than it does today.

In 2000, federal income tax was about 30% for the average American and total government revenue equaled half (50%) of the GDP.

We are losing more Constitutional rights every day.
Despite being very well-funded, our education system is largely a failure.
Government regulations are driving up the price of healthcare to the point where many senior citizens are no longer self-sufficient.
Poverty is a major problem, even though welfare pays, directly or indirectly, over $20,000 per poor person.

I disagree with what you are asking for. Income tax pays a crucial role in the government. If we didn't have income tax, the government's budget would be ruined, and the country would fall apart.

Don't use income tax. Use a national sales tax. That is much less intrusive than income tax. But the most important thing is: Cut spending!

Problems of the Sales Tax:
- May be slightly regressive (poor pay a slightly higher percentage)

But I think that's far outweighed by the benefits:
- Less intrusive, thus civil liberties are protected
- Less bureaucratic, thus money is saved and the rate can be lower
- Doesn't discourage investment, thus everyone will be richer
- Can't be manipulated as easily by politicians and bankers

its kinda hard to maintain social programs and cut spending

Even if I agreed with this suggestion I would not support it as a proposal by the UN. It should be for individual governments to decide how they will tax their populations, the UN cannot enforce a ban on income tax.

As it happens, I fully support income tax anyway. It is the fairest form of taxation, and also serves as a convenient way of keeping the gap between poor and wealthy to a minimum

The idea that spending by corporations is more efficient than government is a myth completely unsupported by the facts. In fact, market-driven systems tend to create *more* bureaucracy, because of the need for layers of accountants to handle payments, issue bills, detect fraud and so on.

And, in something called the "real world" - a complex computer simulation of Nation States that East Hackney's ministers use to test policy, replacing government health spending with private health insurance created yet another level of bureaucracy and proved grossly inefficient.

I refer the interested to Market Driven Politics by Colin Ley, a study of two nations in the "real world" simulator called the "US" and "UK". Some selected quotes:

"Markets in health care, at least in the USA, fail by comparison with non-market provision. The richest country in the world spends 15 per cent of its GDP on health care - almost three times as much per capita as Britain - but its mortality and morbidity statistics are close to the OECD average, and some of the basic ones - infant mortality, for instance - are significantly worse than Britain's." (p.102)

"The transaction costs of the US health-care markets - advertising, collecting premiums, recording and billing, etc - are huge; some estimates put them as high as 25 per cent of total health-care costs, compared with an estimated 6 per cent in Britain." (p.103)

Global Market,

In the early 1900's people DID starve in the street, they just weren't counted because nobody cared. Look at pauper's cemetaries from that era and you will see there were lots of people buried in them.

Second, poor people were essentially chattel slaves (indentured servants) who were forced to work. If you didn't have a job, you would be put in jail and forced to do hard labor until you signed a compulsory employment contract. That was the solution to poverty - force people to work for private entertprise as indentured servants who had no right to choose their employer or quit their job, or refuse a contract. (These contracts, btw, also forced the wealthy to provide room and board for these indentured servants.)

Third, when the government was not collecting any income tax, the 8% revenue it was getting was entirely from import/export duties/taxes/fees which meant we had a VERY protectionist trade policy. You can't have free trade while relying totally on import/export revenues. As for the idea of federal sales tax, that's another issue but it's not something that was done in the early 1900's. All in all, I'd say looking to the 1900's as an example of the virtues of unrestrained capitalism is a very bad idea.

Global Market,

In the early 1900's people DID starve in the street, they just weren't counted because nobody cared. Look at pauper's cemetaries from that era and you will see there were lots of people buried in them.

Second, poor people were essentially chattel slaves (indentured servants) who were forced to work. If you didn't have a job, you would be put in jail and forced to do hard labor until you signed a compulsory employment contract. That was the solution to poverty - force people to work for private entertprise as indentured servants who had no right to choose their employer or quit their job, or refuse a contract. (These contracts, btw, also forced the wealthy to provide room and board for these indentured servants.)

Third, when the government was not collecting any income tax, the 8% revenue it was getting was entirely from import/export duties/taxes/fees which meant we had a VERY protectionist trade policy. You can't have free trade while relying totally on import/export revenues. As for the idea of federal sales tax, that's another issue but it's not something that was done in the early 1900's. All in all, I'd say looking to the 1900's as an example of the virtues of unrestrained capitalism is a very bad idea.

It is not the business of the Un to dictate when and where governments can tax their own people. I'm all for an increase in tax, esspecially on marriage and religious people.

The Community of Ecopoeia is highly amused by this proposal. It seems that certain fun-loving nations' calls for less serious proposals are finally being heeded. In fact, this puts the author on a giggle-infested plateau with major comic illuminati such as Rand and Friedmann.

Congratulations, Meta Consortium, Theseus 51 and Global Market! You've helped us remember that, whatever hardships may be afflicting us, we still have hope if we can smile.

Vlad Taneev
Speaker for the Economy

The Community of Ecopoeia is highly amused by this proposal. It seems that certain fun-loving nations' calls for less serious proposals are finally being heeded. In fact, this puts the author on a giggle-infested plateau with major comic illuminati such as Rand and Friedmann.

Congratulations, Meta Consortium, Theseus 51 and Global Market! You've helped us remember that, whatever hardships may be afflicting us, we still have hope if we can smile.

Vlad Taneev
Speaker for the Economy

Catholic Europe does not support this resolution as we need the money that the income tax generates to equalise wealth levels within our nation.

Catholic Europe does not support this resolution as we need the money that the income tax generates to equalise wealth levels within our nation.

If you don't want an income tax in your country, then don't have one. The UN has no business deciding how my government taxes its people.

The idea that spending by corporations is more efficient than government is a myth completely unsupported by the facts. In fact, market-driven systems tend to create *more* bureaucracy, because of the need for layers of accountants to handle payments, issue bills, detect fraud and so on.

And, in something called the "real world" - a complex computer simulation of Nation States that East Hackney's ministers use to test policy, replacing government health spending with private health insurance created yet another level of bureaucracy and proved grossly inefficient.

I refer the interested to Market Driven Politics by Colin Ley, a study of two nations in the "real world" simulator called the "US" and "UK". Some selected quotes:

"Markets in health care, at least in the USA, fail by comparison with non-market provision. The richest country in the world spends 15 per cent of its GDP on health care - almost three times as much per capita as Britain - but its mortality and morbidity statistics are close to the OECD average, and some of the basic ones - infant mortality, for instance - are significantly worse than Britain's." (p.102)

"The transaction costs of the US health-care markets - advertising, collecting premiums, recording and billing, etc - are huge; some estimates put them as high as 25 per cent of total health-care costs, compared with an estimated 6 per cent in Britain." (p.103)

What is the worst kind of company? A corrupt one? A company that has favortism, uses "fuzzy math" and "accounting tricks"? One that has tons of debt? How about one that is a monopoly in the industry? Yeah, that's pretty bad huh?

That's the government.

The thing that you fail to realize is that competition is good. With only one company (aka government) they control everything. Yeah, you need 2 accountants for 2 companies, but the 2 companies are competing against each other, driving prices down and quality up. Otherwise they would go bankrupt (except with government corporate welfare, grrr, more government).

With your simulaiton, you are assuming a perfect, cost-efficient government that combines all companies and gives the taxpayer the best services. It doesn't happen. Ever. There is no incentive for the government to be efficient with their money. In fact the opposite is often true because if they don't spend all their money, their budgets get cut because "they didn't need the money" so what do departments in government do? Spend all the money they can, and ask for more next year.

If you don't want an income tax in your country, then don't have one. The UN has no business deciding how my government taxes its people.

But if you don't think that the Un has the right to decide your finances, what does the UN have the right to do, in your opinion?

Oh dear, Theseus 51. You appear to be ignoring the simple, real fact that private enterprises consistently fails to deliver the services required by society. This is because, like government, they are inefficient and a slave to vested interests. However, government is directly accountable to the people it serves; corporations are accountable only to the profit motive. If a corporation is responsible for an essential service, such as rail transport, it will forsake quality service for cost-cutting measures and then crawl back to the government to squeeze more money out of taxpayers in the form of subsidies. The government cannot not pay the subsidy because otherwise there is no service.

Besides, even if you're not persuaded ideologically, look at the issue from a simple statistic basis. Read East hackney's post again and learn. This 'real world' appears to be an excellent simulation...

Vlad Taneev
Speaker for the Economy
Community of Ecopoeia

A recent analysis of trends conducted by leading members of the research group in a univeristy bar toilet has concluded the following:

You're an idiot.


Taxes are a governemts income. Income taxes make up a lot of it. Go and get an education. We're willing to provide you with a real education if you step down from the UN. Our facilitioes are world benchmark, really, it'd be better for everyone.

I got some "real world" ideas for you all. East Germany vs. West Germany. Soviet Russia vs. United States. Hong Kong before the British leased it, and after with their free market capitalism.

Need more "real world" examples?

And yes, corporations only care about profits. Remember, the fact is government NEVER cares about saving money because they don't have profits. They just steal money from people (taxes) and spend it. They spend tons more on special interests and pork projects in their district to get re-elected. The biggest wasters of money are most likely to get re-elected. Talk about accountability . . .

If government doesn't do it, who will? Charities, there are tons of charities around the world. If people had their money back (less taxes), they would donate. Even with the relatively high income tax rates in the United States (around 30-40% depending on tax bracket), Americans are the most charitable people in the world. Imagine if they had more money in their pockets. Sure they would spend a lot on themselves (spending = economic growth = jobs = no need for burreacratic government), but I'll bet you anything they would donate more.

I'm not trying to call yo socialists anything negative. But capitalism, limited government, low taxes and low regulation drive this economy. If it didn't work, we would all be following the examples of the state run companies of the Soviet Union or pre-captilalism China.

How's this. Name the 10 greatest economies right now. Or 100 years ago. Were they socialist societies, or were they free market capitalistic socities?

I got some "real world" ideas for you all. East Germany vs. West Germany. Soviet Russia vs. United States. China with state run enterprises, China today with capitalism. Hong Kong before the British leased it, and after with their free market capitalism.

Need more "real world" examples?

And yes, corporations only care about profits. Remember, the fact is government NEVER cares about saving money because they don't have profits. They just steal money from people (taxes) and spend it. They spend tons more on special interests and pork projects in their district to get re-elected. The biggest wasters of money are most likely to get re-elected. Talk about accountability . . .

If government doesn't do it, who will? Charities, there are tons of charities around the world. If people had their money back (less taxes), they would donate. Even with the relatively high income tax rates in the United States (around 30-40% depending on tax bracket), Americans are the most charitable people in the world. Imagine if they had more money in their pockets. Sure they would spend a lot on themselves (spending = economic growth = jobs = no need for burreacratic government), but I'll bet you anything they would donate more.

I'm not trying to call yo socialists anything negative. But capitalism, limited government, low taxes and low regulation drive this economy. If it didn't work, we would all be following the examples of the state run companies of the Soviet Union or pre-captilalism China.

How's this. Name the 10 greatest economies/per capita income/standard of living. Are they Marxist socialist societies, or are they free market capitalistic socities?Or look in the United States, the states people are moving to and away from (there's a huge direct correlation between low taxes and population growth and one of high taxes and migration away.

I got some "real world" ideas for you all. East Germany vs. West Germany. Soviet Russia vs. United States. China with state run enterprises, China today with capitalism. Hong Kong before the British leased it, and after with their free market capitalism.

Need more "real world" examples?

None of your capitalist examples has/had 0% income tax rate. So they show nothing about this proposal, which would eliminate income tax.

As to charity, many people might donate to "charities" but there'd be far more going to scam charities and also to stupid things like giving televangelists money, and helping charities which help animals when people are starving (it is so annoying when you see a TV appeal for Oxfam or someone to help starving third-world children followed by an advert for donations to the f***ing Battersea dogs home :roll: ). Even if you think that's a person's choice, it still doesn't solve the problem of how poor people could get help.

I advocate some balance between capitalism and socialism, where you tax in proportion to income to lessen the wealth gap so that everybody can be lifted above a certain standard of living (at least the poverty line, preferably something better though), but where you can still earn more if you work harder/are better at your job etc.

Theseus51 has nicely highlighted the hollowness of neoliberal arguments in favour of the market and against government regulation and nationalisation.

In the face of concrete evidence that nationalised industries work more efficiently, he continues to insist that competition is some kind of magic formula to smooth away all economic ills.

There are some industries in which competition is neither practical nor desirable. Healthcare is one, railways are another. In these, privatisation has simply duplicated resources and slashed safety without any improvement in quality whatsoever. Likewise, the increasing marketisation of the BBC has only served to drive down quality and worsen wages and working conditions for employees.

Even in traditionally private industries - supermarkets, for instance - competition doesn't bring about any real efficiency. There's as much wasteful bureaucracy in one of the big supermarket chains as in the worst-run government enterprise. But supermarkets can get round it by using their economic clout to drive down wages and screw suppliers for the lowest possible price.

This is not "efficiency" - it's piracy, and extremely damaging to the economy, as the result is millions of workers forced to live on bread-line wages who have to be *subsidised by the government* in order to live. Consider Wal-Mart in America, for instance, where most employees must claim food stamps to supplement their meagre wages.

That hits the economy. A well-paid, well-treated workforce benefits everybody as there's more money going around. And that means taking on board some of the principles of socialism - as America did in the early 20th Century, and was all the better for it.

Theseus51's model of gangster capitalism ultimately leads to a race to the bottom in which a few ludicrously overpaid bosses lord it over armies of millions of near-starving workers propped up by government handouts. I challenge him to produce real-world examples of the benefits of competition, rather than relying on fuzzy hypothetical arguments.

If you don't want an income tax in your country, then don't have one. The UN has no business deciding how my government taxes its people.

But if you don't think that the Un has the right to decide your finances, what does the UN have the right to do, in your opinion?
That's the problem with this UN. People seem to think it's a national legislature. They want to legislate NATIONAL issues.

This is the United Nations International Organization, Catholic Europe. We should be concentrating on issues that CROSS national boundaries. International trade and commerce, war, mutual defense, war crimes, sharing the seas, providing aid to less fortunate nations, providing a set of common rules that MAY be used for certain tricky issues like extradition ... all these are legitimate transnational issues.

Trying to force a nation to accept specific governments, economies, or social behavior qualifies as INTERNAL national politics. The UN has no business there, IMNSHO.

The question of whether or not to tax the citizens, and in what form that tax manifests, is for the individual nation to decide, NOT the United Nations.

James Moehlman
Asst. Manager ico U.N. Affairs

In 1900, the federal income tax was 0% and total government (federal, state, and local combined) revenue equaled 8% of the GDP.

People did not starve in the streets.

You're very wrong about that. God, just look at New York City during that period. It was insane. Absolutely insane.

The perception is that there weren't people starving in the streets. There were, thousands of them- not to mention the hobos, tramps, and itinerants.

We were not overrun by barbarians.

No, but then again we hadn't yet "remembered the Maine" and entered the age of imperialism. By now... well, we're sort of stuck.

The crime rate was much lower than it is today.
The economy grew much faster than it does today.

More people were religious, and the population of the United States was lower. We had not yet entered the age of the true megacorporations, assembly lines, etc. Our economy was still relatively new, opportunities were nearly boundless. Now our economy has matured, production is more efficient, and economic downswings (and the growing need for education to succeed) push less-educated people to the sidelines. Many turn to crime.

The society of the past is not the society of today. The solutions to the problems of today are not the solutions to the problems of the past.

In 2000, federal income tax was about 30% for the average American and total government revenue equaled half (50%) of the GDP.

We are losing more Constitutional rights every day.
Despite being very well-funded, our education system is largely a failure.
Government regulations are driving up the price of healthcare to the point where many senior citizens are no longer self-sufficient.

Losing rights has what to do with taxation? None.

Our education system is largely a failure only because so much more is expected today of students. Our society is information-based, and jobs that anyone could have filled a century ago now require much more intelligence and much more education. Part of it is also the fact that stupid people breed more and infect future generations with their stupidity, and we've now been through two major waves in population. You can only educate a stupid person so much before further efforts become useless.

Poverty is a major problem, even though welfare pays, directly or indirectly, over $20,000 per poor person.

See above for the reasons for this. Unemployment+minimum wage jobs+low education=poverty.

With a free market system, yeah, the gap between the rich and the poor is a lot wider than in the socialist paradise you guys advocate. That's because there are rich people. In a marxist socialist state, yeah, the government runs everything, and yeah, people all make about the same amount. Why? Because they all make so little money. Capitalism raises everyone's standard of living, even the poor's. They just seem so "poor" cause the rich are so rich. If only the government would stop stealing half of everyone's money, we could all prosper even more . . .

Capitalism is only for people who believe in meritocracy. It's where you have the millionaires. The billionaires. It's for people who want to be rich. If you want the government to take care of you, move to Canada or France with subsidized health care, high unemployment, and no millionaires. Move to a socailist state. The government will take care of you.

For those that don't want the government to take care of you, where you have the chance of failure, but no upper limit on success, capitalism is the way. If you want the ogvernment to take care of you, that's fine. You'll just go on from today until your deaths hoping, trusting, needing the government to take care of you. Being dependent on it and teaching your kids to be the same.

And that's fine, people should lead their own lives. Just remember, someone has to pay for it. You can have great health care, education, social services without someone paying for it. Who? Those rich people you demonize, that's who. The ones who worked smart and became rich. They didn't work "hard", they worked smart.

Working smart and working hard do count for something. Too bad the only place where it pays off is in capitalism.

The best way to increase the size of government, increase taxes and increase its tyrannical rule is to make people dependent on it. Take so much of their money and "offer" services that they forgot how much they are paying for them. Sure the government offers schools and roads, but you're paying for it. It's the only shop in town.

If government had to compete with other schools for students, with other health plans, it would lose. The people would win, and pay less money for the same services. The only reason it wins now is cause it takes so much of your money that no other entity can compete with government. Yeah, people go to public schools, cause it's "free" . . . well, free in the sense that they offer it to you after taking hundreds of billions of dollars from you in taxes. Roads are free . . . well, free in the sense that they take hundreds of more billions of dollars. And trust me, if you think health care is expensive now, wait till you see how much it costs when it's "free".

Capitalism is only for people who believe in meritocracy. It's where you have the millionaires. The billionaires. It's for people who want to be rich. If you want the government to take care of you, move to Canada or France with subsidized health care, high unemployment, and no millionaires.

Riiiiight... you don't know a bloody thing about either of those two countries, do you? At all? Millionaires abound in both of those countries.

For those that don't want the government to take care of you, where you have the chance of failure, but no upper limit on success, capitalism is the way.

Personally, I favor modified capitalism. Look, I'd rather a failure in capitalism not mean starvation and suffering on the part of children. Capitalism is inherently heartless; some of the so-called "socialist" programs insert a bit of morality at the cost of a bit of productivity.

Capitalism is the best economic solution... but pure capitalism is just evil.

And that's fine, people should lead their own lives. Just remember, someone has to pay for it. You can have great health care, education, social services without someone paying for it. Who? Those rich people you demonize, that's who. The ones who worked smart and became rich. They didn't work "hard", they worked smart.

Aside from the ones who use the capital their parents gave them and then just let it sit in an investment account, or have their family's fortune as a safety net when all of their businesses fail abysmally. I'm thinking of someone in politics... hmm... who could that be...

If government had to compete with other schools for students, with other health plans, it would lose.

*stares*
*boggles*
*bangs head on wall*
Have you ever... even for a moment, even HEARD of "private schools?" At all? IT'S ALREADY COMPETING!

On the other hand, considering what you've just said I can see why so many people want to reform the schools...

The people would win, and pay less money for the same services. The only reason it wins now is cause it takes so much of your money that no other entity can compete with government. Yeah, people go to public schools, cause it's "free" . . . well, free in the sense that they offer it to you after taking hundreds of billions of dollars from you in taxes.

And people go to private schools as well. Private schools compete quite nicely, thank you very much. Not everyone can afford schooling for their children.

Roads are free . . . well, free in the sense that they take hundreds of more billions of dollars. And trust me, if you think health care is expensive now, wait till you see how much it costs when it's "free".

Roads benefit us all. Taxes are just a convenient way of paying for them. Service fees would slow traffic, and solutions that don't slow traffic infringe on privacy.

Catholic Europe does not support this resolution as we need the money that the income tax generates to equalise wealth levels within our nation.

1) Why is it the governmnet's job to equalize wealth?

2) Even if it is, wouldn't a sales tax be infinitely more desirable? A sales tax means much less bureuacracy, which means lower rates for everyone. It means an upfront, non-hidden tax, thus removing the justification for snopping into people's Swiss bank accounts and otherwise violating their financial privacy, thus improving civil liberties. And it's better for business as there are fewer dead-weight losses.

*Sighs, shakes head, takes off 'Ecopoeia' hat and speaks as a member of the real world.*

Please excuse the clumsy quoting, I'm useless with computers.

Theseus51: "With a free market system, yeah, the gap between the rich and the poor is a lot wider than in the socialist paradise you guys advocate. That's because there are rich people. In a marxist socialist state, yeah, the government runs everything, and yeah, people all make about the same amount. Why? Because they all make so little money. Capitalism raises everyone's standard of living, even the poor's. They just seem so "poor" cause the rich are so rich. If only the government would stop stealing half of everyone's money, we could all prosper even more . . . "

All this does raise the issue of what a society's aims are. Personally, I don't subscribe to a traditionally 'socialist' view. It occurs to me that you're arguments are founded on the principle that money/the economy is the key measure of a country's success. I don't agree with this assertion. If people are economically 'poor' yet content and, at the same time, progress is being made in science & the arts and the environment around them is good - how is this country deficient? True standard of living cannot be measured in terms of economic wealth alone.

In addition, socialism doesn't necessarily mean the 'government/state' owns everything. The idea is that the people own everything between them. However, socialism is extremely vulnerable to exploitation and has consistently failed because people have sought to control from above. Sounds familiar...

Incidentally, your use of the word 'marxist' in this scenario is wrong. Marxism and socialism are not equivalent.

"Capitalism is only for people who believe in meritocracy. It's where you have the millionaires. The billionaires. It's for people who want to be rich. If you want the government to take care of you, move to Canada or France with subsidized health care, high unemployment, and no millionaires. Move to a socailist state. The government will take care of you. "

Again, your measure of success and merit is purely in terms of economic wealth. Vacuous celebrities are rich, swindlers are rich; are they the people we should look up to?

Canada appears to me to be doing pretty well for itself. It's hardly socialist though. Ditto France, which has a decent economy but hopeless political situation (not quite in the same league of hopelessness as Italy or the US - I know, I know, there are worse 'socialist' states, I'm just using developed - 'successful' - countries as examples). As for unemployment - what worth is low unemployment when the majority of the jobs are barely at subsistence level (hello to the US again and a big welcome to the UK, where unemployment is astonishingly low - but are the figures rigged?).

"For those that don't want the government to take care of you, where you have the chance of failure, but no upper limit on success, capitalism is the way. If you want the ogvernment to take care of you, that's fine. You'll just go on from today until your deaths hoping, trusting, needing the government to take care of you. Being dependent on it and teaching your kids to be the same. "

I don't expect the government to 'take care of me', I expect it to provide a decent infrastructure for education, mass transit, defence, health. Not because I like being nannied but because it is impossible for private enterprise to deliver these basic necessities in an efficient, trustworthy manner. Unfortunately, governments tend to bugger these up as well. The perfect example is in the UK, where nationalised rail was terrible. It was privatised...and is still terrible. But the government now gets no money from fares and has to subsidise the pathetic, profiteering incompetents who now run the rail even more than it had to pre-privatisation. How can competition solve this - you can't have competition in this kind of service simply because of practicalities. Neo-libertarianism looks great on paper but is often simply dangerous when applied to the real world. It assumes model behaviour (just as socialism does, to be fair) from humans, who are inherently flawed creatures.

"And that's fine, people should lead their own lives. Just remember, someone has to pay for it. You can have great health care, education, social services without someone paying for it. Who? Those rich people you demonize, that's who. The ones who worked smart and became rich. They didn't work "hard", they worked smart."

For 'smart', read dishonest, corrupt, cheating, back-stabbing, exploitative. Not always, I'll admit, but frequently.

"Working smart and working hard do count for something. Too bad the only place where it pays off is in capitalism. "

Absolutely - but people are smart and hard-working without gaining these rewards. Unless, as I said before, smart actually means you behave like a sh*t (what's the forum etiquette with regards to swearing?). At any rate, it doesn't just pay off in capitalism, that's a nonsensical statement.

"The best way to increase the size of government, increase taxes and increase its tyrannical rule is to make people dependent on it. Take so much of their money and "offer" services that they forgot how much they are paying for them. Sure the government offers schools and roads, but you're paying for it. It's the only shop in town."

But corporations generally do not act in the best interests of the public! Governments are often venal and cowardly and corrupt but so are corporations. At least a government is there specifically to achieve certain public goals. Schools - education should be equally attainable to all, further education based on merit (chiefly intellectual). That merit is not determined by economic wealth as the wealthy are not the most intelligent as a rule. I don't really care what specific government/organisation/whatever is running the show as long as everyone has the opportunity for happiness, knowledge, development and growth. Paying for education immediately denies people the chance to prove their merit. This is a grievous crime.

"If government had to compete with other schools for students, with other health plans, it would lose. The people would win, and pay less money for the same services. The only reason it wins now is cause it takes so much of your money that no other entity can compete with government. Yeah, people go to public schools, cause it's "free" . . . well, free in the sense that they offer it to you after taking hundreds of billions of dollars from you in taxes. Roads are free . . . well, free in the sense that they take hundreds of more billions of dollars."

Government 'losing' to private schools is irrelevant. Paying for education excludes people, denies them the chance to prove their worth and fulfil their potential. Ditto health - give me Britain's health service over the US's any day. And even now this despicable, crony-riddled, war-mongering government of ours (which is certainly not left wing) is trying to destroy this heritage. It ain't great but it's better than the neo-lib alternative. Can't pay? Well, you can rot.

"And trust me, if you think health care is expensive now, wait till you see how much it costs when it's "free".

Oh, did I just nullify your argument on health? We have tax-funded health here in Britain and it doesn't cost the earth. Our taxes are comparable to those in the US. Well, not for the ultra-rich, who are given ludicrous tax relief by the US's obscene 'leadership'. Frankly, I'd happily ramp up the taxes on these people.

Ahem, sorry, descending into rant.

Here is the main problem with extreme capitalism as I see it. No matter how well-intentioned, how sound theoretically and how noble an ideal (I don't agree, obviously, but I understand that this is how you feel and I respect that opinion - like a lot of purist idealism, it's a nice concept), capitalism is undone by greed, deceit and corruption. As with Bush, Enron, Berlusconi, etc, etc, you can't trust people to not abuse it for their own benefit.

So, what's the answer (as I'm a sceptic about conventional socialism and government as well as capitalism)? I don't know, I like the co-operative movement as a compromise but I'm not convinced. Essentially, I don't believe we're ready for the next stage of how we run our lives. I guess we keep compromising, improving and adapting until we're at the stage where the next step becomes natural.

Hmm, we appear to have strayed off the actual proposal theme somewhat...anyway, time to do something else with my day.

Best wishes

*puts 'Ecopoeia' hat back on*

Vlad Taneev
Speaker for the Economy

Once again Theseus51 has been forced to resort to hypothetical arguments in defiance of all known facts. Capitalism does *not* "raise everyone's standard of living, even the poor's". It causes a race to the bottom in which the average worker's standard of living becomes worse - in absolute terms, not relative - than the equivalent worker in even the most vaguely "socialist" state - France, for instance. I refer him again to the example of Wal-Mart in the USA, which I outlined above and which he appears to have completely overlooked.

*stares*
*boggles*
*bangs head on wall*
Have you ever... even for a moment, even HEARD of "private schools?" At all? IT'S ALREADY COMPETING!

You friggin' idiot. Even if you go to a private school, you still have to pay for a public school. That's not competition at all, that's a force-imposed monopoly.

Once again Theseus51 has been forced to resort to hypothetical arguments in defiance of all known facts. Capitalism does *not* "raise everyone's standard of living, even the poor's". It causes a race to the bottom in which the average worker's standard of living becomes worse - in absolute terms, not relative - than the equivalent worker in even the most vaguely "socialist" state - France, for instance. I refer him again to the example of Wal-Mart in the USA, which I outlined above and which he appears to have completely overlooked.

If your socialist countries are so great, why does the United States have a MUCH higher immigration rate? Many European socialist nations have more emigrants than immigrants. Obviously people don't like that.

The average American worker is statistically better off than the average French worker... Higher per capita income, etc.

Personally, I favor modified capitalism. Look, I'd rather a failure in capitalism not mean starvation and suffering on the part of children. Capitalism is inherently heartless; some of the so-called "socialist" programs insert a bit of morality at the cost of a bit of productivity.

Why is it moral to take people's money and give it to others against their consent?

Capitalism is the best economic solution... but pure capitalism is just evil.

It's the only system based on voluntary exchange. It's the only system where the individual is never used as a means to an end against his will (the alternative is called 'slavery') What could be more moral than that?

Aside from the ones who use the capital their parents gave them and then just let it sit in an investment account, or have their family's fortune as a safety net when all of their businesses fail abysmally. I'm thinking of someone in politics... hmm... who could that be...

Which is absolutely irrelevant.

*stares*
*boggles*
*bangs head on wall*
Have you ever... even for a moment, even HEARD of "private schools?" At all? IT'S ALREADY COMPETING!

THat's not competition since you HAVE TO PAY FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS ANYWAYS. That's like if you had to pay for a GM car regardless of whether you chose a GM car or a Crysler Car, that's not competition at all. That's a monopoly imposed by the force of arms. Simple.

On the other hand, considering what you've just said I can see why so many people want to reform the schools...

I used to go to public school. No use in reforming. Abolition is the only solution. A tax credit/voucher system to fund poor people's education in private schools could be instituted as a interim measure.

And people go to private schools as well. Private schools compete quite nicely, thank you very much. Not everyone can afford schooling for their children.

No they don't. Listen, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU GO TO PRIVATE SCHOOL OR NOT, YOU STILL PAY SCHOOL TAX. That is NOT competititon. Competition is when you can CHOOSE who you want to pay.

Roads benefit us all. Taxes are just a convenient way of paying for them. Service fees would slow traffic, and solutions that don't slow traffic infringe on privacy.

User fees are much more equitable than taxes. Especially when you consider that the income tax is a huge infringement on privacy.

But once again, if you really want to fund something, fund it with a SALES TAX (or excise tax, low-rate tariff, etc.), NOT an income tax. This is because an income tax creates a lot of bureaucracies, problems, and infringes on privacy, which a sales tax doesn't do.

What a naive post.

The Global Market wrote: Why is it moral to take people's money and give it to others against their consent?

One might also ask: Why is it moral to steal the value of other people's labour for one's own gain? That is what capitalists do, whether through the luck of having been born into a wealthy family or through having the dice of the stock market fall in one's favour.

The Global Market wrote: It's the only system based on voluntary exchange. It's the only system where the individual is never used as a means to an end against his will (the alternative is called 'slavery') What could be more moral than that?

Really? You think capitalism is based on voluntary exchange? Go to Mexico, or Indonesia, or any place where US capitalism has destroyed local industry and left workers no choice but to slave away in a US-owned sweatshop for pay rates far below a decent living wage. Capitalism *is* slavery and involves little element of voluntary exchange.

The Logarchy wrote:
Aside from the ones who use the capital their parents gave them and then just let it sit in an investment account, or have their family's fortune as a safety net when all of their businesses fail abysmally. I'm thinking of someone in politics... hmm... who could that be...

The Global Market wrote: Which is absolutely irrelevant.

It's entirely relevant. Since the rabid Randians insist that capitalism is the best way to allow individuals to stand or fall on their own merits, it follows that the aim of any free-market capitalist must be to give each individual an equal start in life so as to allow those natural talents to shine.

If an individual of sub-normal intelligence, with a string of business failures behind him, is repeatedly propped up in his business endeavours and eventually has his place in the White House bought for him, that rather puts the lie to the idea that capitalism is a system which brings excellence to the forefront. And it confirms that success in a capitalist system is nothing to do with intelligence or business acumen and everything to do with one's parents and contacts.

The Global Market wrote: User fees are much more equitable than taxes.

I suggest you look up the meaning of the word "equitable". It is not the same thing as "equal". As I have posted elsewhere, user fees are grossly inefficient, creating extra levels of bureaucracy and opportunities for fraud.

Besides which, why should only rich people be able to use schools, roads etc? It benefits capitalists if their poorer employees are also able to use these things. A well-educated workforce benefits capitalists and can be provided most cheaply through centralisation. A well-maintained road network benefits capitalists too - your employees can live where they like and get to work promptly and easily. Centralised provision is the most efficient option, and income tax is the most equitable way of funding that centralised provision.

One might also ask: Why is it moral to steal the value of other people's labour for one's own gain?

It's not. But the operative word there is 'steal', i.e. take without consent.

BTW the market determines what the value of your labor is. In a pure capitalist society, all workers--white collar adn blue collar alike--are paid exactly what the market deems their work to be worth.

That is what capitalists do, whether through the luck of having been born into a wealthy family or through having the dice of the stock market fall in one's favour.

Not a single American billionaire inherited more than $10 million. Try again.

Really? You think capitalism is based on voluntary exchange? Go to Mexico, or Indonesia, or any place where US capitalism has destroyed local industry and left workers no choice but to slave away in a US-owned sweatshop for pay rates far below a decent living wage.

Please read some studies first. Most "sweatshops" in third-world countries pay between twice and triple local wages. That's why workers would rather work in sweatshops than local industry in the first place.

Capitalism *is* slavery and involves little element of voluntary exchange.

How so? Pure capitalism is the only system based solely on voluntary contract between individuals. All other systems involve some element of coercion (taxes are, by definition, coercive. They are the government taking your property by force).

It's entirely relevant. Since the rabid Randians insist that capitalism is the best way to allow individuals to stand or fall on their own merits, it follows that the aim of any free-market capitalist must be to give each individual an equal start in life so as to allow those natural talents to shine.

No, the aim of free-market capitalism is to protect rights.

There will always be inequality in capitalism. But systems that prioritize equality over freedom tends to achieve neither.

If an individual of sub-normal intelligence, with a string of business failures behind him, is repeatedly propped up in his business endeavours and eventually has his place in the White House bought for him, that rather puts the lie to the idea that capitalism is a system which brings excellence to the forefront. And it confirms that success in a capitalist system is nothing to do with intelligence or business acumen and everything to do with one's parents and contacts.

Also incorrect. Bush's successes in politics largely come from the corruption in politics. A pure capitalist would argue for a complete separation of business and state. This would get rid of the political corruption that helped prop Bush up to power.

But once again, if you look at America's billionaries, all of them made their own fortunes.

I suggest you look up the meaning of the word "equitable". It is not the same thing as "equal". As I have posted elsewhere, user fees are grossly inefficient, creating extra levels of bureaucracy and opportunities for fraud.

HOW? It defies logic for user fees to be more bureaucratic or fradulent than income tax. It's much easier to cheat on income tax than it is to pay for the service once you use it. Equitable means fair. And fair means you pay for what you use, not for what someone else uses.

Besides which, why should only rich people be able to use schools, roads etc?

THey shouldn't. Before the government got involved in college education, the price of a college was only about 30% of what it is today (including inflation adjustments). Applying that same logic on public secondary schools yields that:

Current cost of a medium-priced private school per year: $8,000
Getting rid of government intervention per year: $2,400

Current Washington, DC (one of the worst school districts in teh country) public school budget per student: $10,500 a year

So, make up your mind. Would you rather the poor send their kids to a good private school for $2,400 a year, which almost all can afford, or pay $10,500 a year for crappy public schools with drugs and shootings?

Government means inefficiency because it is immune to market forces. Since, wheras businesses always have to provide better products at lower prices in order to get money, the government can take what money it needs using physical force and coercion.

It benefits capitalists if their poorer employees are also able to use these things. A well-educated workforce benefits capitalists and can be provided most cheaply through centralisation. A well-maintained road network benefits capitalists too - your employees can live where they like and get to work promptly and easily. Centralised provision is the most efficient option, and income tax is the most equitable way of funding that centralised provision.

Centralized provision is not the most efficient option.

In constant 2000 dollars,

One year cost of a law school before ABA Regulations (1920): $9,000
One year cost of a law school today: $40,000

One year cost of a medium-priced private college before government tuition aid: $10,000
One year cost of a medium-priced private college today: $35,000

Cost of an appendix removal before the government got involved in healthcare: $300
Cost of an appendix removal today: $1,000

Cost of a gallon of gas in the United States, with low tariffs and subsidies: $1.80
Cost of a gallon of gas in Sweden, with high tariffs and subsidies: $4.50

Government IS inefficient. Because it's a monopoly guaranteed by physical force.

Moreover, the income tax is NOT equitable.

It is bureaucratic. You need the IRS to check on bank records, etc.
It violates civil rights. The income tax gives the government an excuse to violate your financial privacy and abridge your due process of law.
It harms investment. Sunk costs forces the real rate of income tax higher.
It is unfair. People start paying for what others are using more often.

"I feel our income tax is a disgrace to the human race."
--Jimmy Carter

*Sighs, shakes head, takes off 'Ecopoeia' hat and speaks as a member of the real world.*
..................................................................

*applauds* :D

It's the only system based on voluntary exchange. It's the only system where the individual is never used as a means to an end against his will (the alternative is called 'slavery') What could be more moral than that?

You're a peasant in an LEDC, born into a family too poor to afford any education for you. Your choice is work in agriculture and barely eke out a living, possibly risking starvation in bad years, to be unemployed and starve, or to go and work 16 hours a day in a Nike or Gap factory complete with barbed wire and abusive factory managers who beat you if you don't meet your quota, and thereby earn just enough to feed yourself (and sometimes not even that). This is a mockery of the concept of choice and voluntary association.

Please read some studies first. Most "sweatshops" in third-world countries pay between twice and triple local wages. That's why workers would rather work in sweatshops than local industry in the first place.

When the choice is between sh*t and total sh*t, that's not a real choice.

In a pure capitalist society, all workers--white collar adn blue collar alike--are paid exactly what the market deems their work to be worth.

But the market is not necessarily just.

Not a single American billionaire inherited more than $10 million. Try again.

But most of them probably inherited the privileges that allowed them to become billionaires. If your parents can send you to the best schools and universities, and you have plenty of money to start a business and buy the best business advice on offer, it probably wouldn't take much above-average luck or intelligence to become a billionaire.

And anyway, the extremes are not always what's relevant. Most middle-class people probably come from middle-class families and most working-class people probably came from working class backgrounds.

HOW? It defies logic for user fees to be more bureaucratic or fradulent than income tax. It's much easier to cheat on income tax than it is to pay for the service once you use it. Equitable means fair. And fair means you pay for what you use, not for what someone else uses.

I don't know much about the practicalities of bureacracy etc concerning taxes, but on principle, the poor should not be denied access to basic necessities like healthcare simply because they don't have the cash.

Your comments on private schools are irrelevant. Today, all private schools offer a good education, because nobody would bother to pay for crap education when they can get an average one for free. But if all schools were private, the ones that poor people would be able to attend would all be offering a poor education for a cheap cost.

Your figures for petrol prices don't take into account the differences between the availability of oil to the two countries.

As to the other figures, lots of things become increasingly expensive as time goes on, even without government intervention, as far as I know (don't ask me why, I don't study economics). Also, they may be overall more expensive, but at least now they are available to all who need/can benefit from them (at least they are in the UK).

I would rather have the injustice of people who can afford it paying for services they don't use than the far greater crime of allowing people to starve or die simply because they are poor.

*Sighs, shakes head, takes off 'Ecopoeia' hat and speaks as a member of the real world.*
..................................................................

*applauds* :D

It's the only system based on voluntary exchange. It's the only system where the individual is never used as a means to an end against his will (the alternative is called 'slavery') What could be more moral than that?

You're a peasant in an LEDC, born into a family too poor to afford any education for you. Your choice is work in agriculture and barely eke out a living, possibly risking starvation in bad years, to be unemployed and starve, or to go and work 16 hours a day in a Nike or Gap factory complete with barbed wire and abusive factory managers who beat you if you don't meet your quota, and thereby earn just enough to feed yourself (and sometimes not even that). This is a mockery of the concept of choice and voluntary association.

Please read some studies first. Most "sweatshops" in third-world countries pay between twice and triple local wages. That's why workers would rather work in sweatshops than local industry in the first place.

When the choice is between sh*t and total sh*t, that's not a real choice.

In a pure capitalist society, all workers--white collar adn blue collar alike--are paid exactly what the market deems their work to be worth.

But the market is not necessarily just.

Not a single American billionaire inherited more than $10 million. Try again.

But most of them probably inherited the privileges that allowed them to become billionaires. If your parents can send you to the best schools and universities, and you have plenty of money to start a business and buy the best business advice on offer, it probably wouldn't take much above-average luck or intelligence to become a billionaire.

And anyway, the extremes are not always what's relevant. Most middle-class people probably come from middle-class families and most working-class people probably came from working class backgrounds.

HOW? It defies logic for user fees to be more bureaucratic or fradulent than income tax. It's much easier to cheat on income tax than it is to pay for the service once you use it. Equitable means fair. And fair means you pay for what you use, not for what someone else uses.

I don't know much about the practicalities of bureacracy etc concerning taxes, but on principle, the poor should not be denied access to basic necessities like healthcare simply because they don't have the cash.

Your comments on private schools are irrelevant. Today, all private schools offer a good education, because nobody would bother to pay for crap education when they can get an average one for free. But if all schools were private, the ones that poor people would be able to attend would all be offering a poor education for a cheap cost.

Your figures for petrol prices don't take into account the differences between the availability of oil to the two countries.

As to the other figures, lots of things become increasingly expensive as time goes on, even without government intervention, as far as I know (don't ask me why, I don't study economics). Also, they may be overall more expensive, but at least now they are available to all who need/can benefit from them (at least they are in the UK).

I would rather have the injustice of people who can afford it paying for services they don't use than the far greater crime of allowing people to starve or die simply because they are poor.

You're a peasant in an LEDC, born into a family too poor to afford any education for you. Your choice is work in agriculture and barely eke out a living, possibly risking starvation in bad years, to be unemployed and starve, or to go and work 16 hours a day in a Nike or Gap factory complete with barbed wire and abusive factory managers who beat you if you don't meet your quota, and thereby earn just enough to feed yourself (and sometimes not even that). This is a mockery of the concept of choice and voluntary association.

No it's not. A supplier CHOOSES to supply certain things. A demander then CHOOSES to buy something out of those things. That's choice. The employers own their own property. They have teh RIGHT to choose NOT to invest in your country. Likewise, you have the RIGHT to choose NOT to work for them.

When the choice is between sh*t and total sh*t, that's not a real choice.

Yes it is. Everybody has a freedom of choice. But choice would involve TWO people. You need TWO parties to make a deal. If no one wants to make a deal with you, that's too bad. Forcing people to make a deal with you violates freedom of choice.

But the market is not necessarily just.

Then what do you consider just, pray tell? What pay could be more just than pay equal to what others are willing to pay for your work?

But most of them probably inherited the privileges that allowed them to become billionaires. If your parents can send you to the best schools and universities, and you have plenty of money to start a business and buy the best business advice on offer, it probably wouldn't take much above-average luck or intelligence to become a billionaire.

Over 80% of American college students recieve financial aid. You don't have to be rich to get into a top college. We've been over this already, the main factor in external advantages is how much your parents care about your education, not how much money you have.

And anyway, the extremes are not always what's relevant. Most middle-class people probably come from middle-class families and most working-class people probably came from working class backgrounds.

Class divisions are completely arbitrary. What do you consider 'middle class' and 'working class'? If you define middle class as between the poverty line and ten times the poverty line, over five out of every six Americans are middle class.

I don't know much about the practicalities of bureacracy etc concerning taxes, but on principle, the poor should not be denied access to basic necessities like healthcare simply because they don't have the cash.

On principle, the people providing a service should be allowed to determine what conditions they want to provide the service under and who to provide the service to. They are, the ones, after all, doing the providing.

Your comments on private schools are irrelevant. Today, all private schools offer a good education, because nobody would bother to pay for crap education when they can get an average one for free. But if all schools were private, the ones that poor people would be able to attend would all be offering a poor education for a cheap cost.

Hmm, I didn't think of that. But nonetheless, my point remains. A private school, which recieves LESS MONEY per student, does better than a public school recieving MORE MONEY. Even if the poor did have to go to the worst schools, it would STILL BE CHEAPER BY A LOT FOR EVERYONE.

Your figures for petrol prices don't take into account the differences between the availability of oil to the two countries.

Guess why less oil is available to Sweden? Tariffs maybe?

As to the other figures, lots of things become increasingly expensive as time goes on, even without government intervention, as far as I know (don't ask me why, I don't study economics). Also, they may be overall more expensive, but at least now they are available to all who need/can benefit from them (at least they are in the UK).

If something becomes increasingly expensive as time goes on, that's because it becomes scarcer. The only real examples I can think of are nonrenewable fossil fuels.

I would rather have the injustice of people who can afford it paying for services they don't use than the far greater crime of allowing people to starve or die simply because they are poor.

The injustice of socialism is that people are FORCED to provide services, which is typically referred to as slavery.

You're a peasant in an LEDC, born into a family too poor to afford any education for you. Your choice is work in agriculture and barely eke out a living, possibly risking starvation in bad years, to be unemployed and starve, or to go and work 16 hours a day in a Nike or Gap factory complete with barbed wire and abusive factory managers who beat you if you don't meet your quota, and thereby earn just enough to feed yourself (and sometimes not even that). This is a mockery of the concept of choice and voluntary association.

No it's not. A supplier CHOOSES to supply certain things. A demander then CHOOSES to buy something out of those things. That's choice. The employers own their own property. They have teh RIGHT to choose NOT to invest in your country. Likewise, you have the RIGHT to choose NOT to work for them.

When the choice is between sh*t and total sh*t, that's not a real choice.

Yes it is. Everybody has a freedom of choice. But choice would involve TWO people. You need TWO parties to make a deal. If no one wants to make a deal with you, that's too bad. Forcing people to make a deal with you violates freedom of choice.

Technically, yes, there is a choice. But when all options available result in sh*t, there you have the failure of capitalism. To say that these people are free to choose is a mockery.

But the market is not necessarily just.

Then what do you consider just, pray tell? What pay could be more just than pay equal to what others are willing to pay for your work?

Pay equal to what others are willing to pay would be just if:
1. People always considered the effects of their actions and when they went to the shops thought "hmmm....is what I'm paying equivalent to what I believe the producer's labour to be worth?" - they don't, they just think "oooh cheap trainers!". It's inescapable, especially when the producers are on the other side of the world and so distant from the consumer's mind
2. The other problem is with the rise of TNCs - if you had two identical products selling in the US, but one had been made in the US and one in Vietnam, the labour should be worth the same. However, the workers who produce the one in Vietnam get less, because more of the money goes to transporters and TNCs. If you can get people to consider the worth of something, the best you'll do is the worth of actual product, not the worth of the labour that produced and transported it - there's a big difference.

Over 80% of American college students recieve financial aid. You don't have to be rich to get into a top college. We've been over this already, the main factor in external advantages is how much your parents care about your education, not how much money you have.

Can those who rely on financial aid get into the very best private schools? No, they can get into decent private schools at best. And again, why should children be punished because their parents don't care?

Class divisions are completely arbitrary. What do you consider 'middle class' and 'working class'? If you define middle class as between the poverty line and ten times the poverty line, over five out of every six Americans are middle class.

I would consider middle class to begin significantly above the poverty line. Somewhere in there is something like a "comfort line" which gives a good standard of living as opposed to simply an adequate one (the poverty line).

Even if you consider class lines to be arbitrary, how's this? I would guess that most people's income is not that much different to that of their parents' (taking into account changes in cost of living etc.).

On principle, the people providing a service should be allowed to determine what conditions they want to provide the service under and who to provide the service to. They are, the ones, after all, doing the providing.

Well I'm talking about things like the NHS. The provider is the government - they choose to provide a universal service, and the taxpayers choose to vote them in with full knowledge that they will have to pay taxes to fund it (admittedly the electoral process could be improved so that people could be sure of what they were voting in), and doctors choose to work for the NHS. And anyway, the principle isn't as important as the principle of not letting people die because they don't have money.

Your comments on private schools are irrelevant. Today, all private schools offer a good education, because nobody would bother to pay for crap education when they can get an average one for free. But if all schools were private, the ones that poor people would be able to attend would all be offering a poor education for a cheap cost.

Hmm, I didn't think of that. But nonetheless, my point remains. A private school, which recieves LESS MONEY per student, does better than a public school recieving MORE MONEY. Even if the poor did have to go to the worst schools, it would STILL BE CHEAPER BY A LOT FOR EVERYONE.

Yes it would be cheaper, but that's not the point. The point is the quality of the education and thus how much of an opportunity is given to the child at the beginning of their life.

Your figures for petrol prices don't take into account the differences between the availability of oil to the two countries.

Guess why less oil is available to Sweden? Tariffs maybe?

Doesn't the US have it's own, fairly substantial, oil reserves? This would at least partially contribute to the cost/lack of it. Anyway, I'd rather live in Sweden, so that there's a good balance between capitalism and socialism, knowing that although I pay a lot of taxes, they go to improve society's lot as a whole.

If something becomes increasingly expensive as time goes on, that's because it becomes scarcer. The only real examples I can think of are nonrenewable fossil fuels.

Ok, not an economist. My studies are tending more towards the sciences.

The injustice of socialism is that people are FORCED to provide services, which is typically referred to as slavery.

See above, on the NHS.

Technically, yes, there is a choice. But when all options available result in sh*t, there you have the failure of capitalism. To say that these people are free to choose is a mockery.

You are always free to choose within your own means. That's the only way to guarantee that everyone has a choice. Life's like a Poker game ... sometimes, you're dealt a bad hand and both options are bad. But being a Poker game, almost everyone gets lucky sometimes. A success in a capitalist society is one who sees when he has a good hand, or sees opportunity in a bad hand, and seizes the opportunity.

Pay equal to what others are willing to pay would be just if:
1. People always considered the effects of their actions and when they went to the shops thought "hmmm....is what I'm paying equivalent to what I believe the producer's labour to be worth?" - they don't, they just think "oooh cheap trainers!". It's inescapable, especially when the producers are on the other side of the world and so distant from the consumer's mind

If an employee beleives that his labor is worth more to the employer than his wages, he can always complain to teh employer and ask for a raise. If his raise is denied, than obviously he's already being paid what he's worth.

2. The other problem is with the rise of TNCs - if you had two identical products selling in the US, but one had been made in the US and one in Vietnam, the labour should be worth the same.

No they shouldn't. The average American worker is far more productive than the average Vietnamese worker. It might take 15 Vietnamese to produce something during the same time 1 American could. For that reason, the American would recieve 15x higher wages.

However, the workers who produce the one in Vietnam get less, because more of the money goes to transporters and TNCs. If you can get people to consider the worth of something, the best you'll do is the worth of actual product, not the worth of the labour that produced and transported it - there's a big difference.

But the product of your labor is what people are paying for... It's like when I go to the store and buy a TV, I'm paying money so that I can have the TV, not so the workers can feed their families. That's just the inevitable byproduct of my self-interest in having a TV.

Can those who rely on financial aid get into the very best private schools? No, they can get into decent private schools at best. And again, why should children be punished because their parents don't care?

Yes they can. Go to some Ivy Schools' Websites. All of them offer 100% need-based aid. I have yet to hear of a student who turned down Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. because he didn't have the money. I know four students who got into those schools on full need-based scholarships.

I would consider middle class to begin significantly above the poverty line. Somewhere in there is something like a "comfort line" which gives a good standard of living as opposed to simply an adequate one (the poverty line).

Even if you consider class lines to be arbitrary, how's this? I would guess that most people's income is not that much different to that of their parents' (taking into account changes in cost of living etc.).

First off, almost everyone is making more than their parents taking CoL into account, because Real GDP is growing. I think you mean making about the same relative to other people. Makes sure you clarify that. Perhaps your statement, but most people are conservatives in that they seek solely to maintain the status quo, especially among upper-middle-class. In fact, the class with the least upwards or downwards mobility is actually the upper-middle-class. For the lower class, there is ample upwards mobility to the top, or at least the middle, since empirically poor people have often proven more resourceful and ambitious. Actually, strike that. I'm willing to bet that the lower-middle-class has the most mobilities, since they have the benefits of both 'classes'.

Nonetheless the point is this -- someoen wwho is ambitious and not conservative will not be making about the same as his parents :wink:.

Well I'm talking about things like the NHS. The provider is the government - they choose to provide a universal service, and the taxpayers choose to vote them in with full knowledge that they will have to pay taxes to fund it (admittedly the electoral process could be improved so that people could be sure of what they were voting in), and doctors choose to work for the NHS. And anyway, the principle isn't as important as the principle of not letting people die because they don't have money.

No. You're assuming a unanimous decision. The MAJORITY of the people vote for the program. That's not everyone. Every taxpayer is an individual.

I would support a Constitutional Amendment by which everybody voting in favor of a war would have to join teh military. Everyone voting in favor of an increase in government spending would have to pay for it out of their own pockets, and not the pockers of others.

Yes it would be cheaper, but that's not the point. The point is the quality of the education and thus how much of an opportunity is given to the child at the beginning of their life.

The quality of education would be higher. Private schools do more with less money.

Doesn't the US have it's own, fairly substantial, oil reserves? This would at least partially contribute to the cost/lack of it. Anyway, I'd rather live in Sweden, so that there's a good balance between capitalism and socialism, knowing that although I pay a lot of taxes, they go to improve society's lot as a whole.

That's your decision. You have no right to force it on others.

Ok, not an economist. My studies are tending more towards the sciences.

Econ here. Maybe international relations.

Sales taxes are regressive, which we take to mean "bad for everybody".

Sales taxes are regressive, which we take to mean "bad for everybody".

Yeah, of course sales taxes aren't perfect. But:

Bad things about the sales tax:
- Possibly somewhat regressive

Bad things about the income tax:
- Invades privacy
- Bureaucracy
- Higher rates
- Easily abused by politicians
- Sunk costs
- Excuse to take away civil liberties
- Loopholes, easy to evade
- Discourages investment

I would rather have the sales tax.

Ideally, though, the government would be so small it could be funded solely by excise taxes and a low-rate (2-3%) uniform tariff.

oops

You are always free to choose within your own means. That's the only way to guarantee that everyone has a choice. Life's like a Poker game ... sometimes, you're dealt a bad hand and both options are bad. But being a Poker game, almost everyone gets lucky sometimes. A success in a capitalist society is one who sees when he has a good hand, or sees opportunity in a bad hand, and seizes the opportunity.

At what point do these peasants get a really "good hand"? Sure, maybe they'll have the occassional bit of luck, but there's no real opportunity for most of them to improve their standard of living in any significant way. Maybe life is a poker game, but my approach is to lower the stakes so that nobody has to lose that badly - if that means lucky or good players can't win as much, so be it.

If an employee beleives that his labor is worth more to the employer than his wages, he can always complain to teh employer and ask for a raise. If his raise is denied, than obviously he's already being paid what he's worth.

He can go ask...unless that request results in the risk of physical abuse. He isn't being paid what he's worth, he's being paid as little as the TNC thinks it can get away with - because when the alternative is nothing, people will always work for next-to-nothing.

No they shouldn't. The average American worker is far more productive than the average Vietnamese worker. It might take 15 Vietnamese to produce something during the same time 1 American could. For that reason, the American would recieve 15x higher wages.

Perhaps the difference in productivity is due to the fact that the American gets enough money to feed himself and have a decent quality of life, and works in better conditions, and other factors.

But the product of your labor is what people are paying for... It's like when I go to the store and buy a TV, I'm paying money so that I can have the TV, not so the workers can feed their families. That's just the inevitable byproduct of my self-interest in having a TV.

My point exactly - people don't pay what your labour is worth, they pay what your product is worth.

Can those who rely on financial aid get into the very best private schools? No, they can get into decent private schools at best. And again, why should children be punished because their parents don't care?

Yes they can. Go to some Ivy Schools' Websites. All of them offer 100% need-based aid. I have yet to hear of a student who turned down Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. because he didn't have the money. I know four students who got into those schools on full need-based scholarships.

Are there enough need-based scholarships on offer to cater for the entire education of every person who can't afford a private school? If somebody's had a poor primary (elementary?) school education, then they won't have fulfilled their potential to the same extent as somebody who's been to a private primary school, and so won't have as good a chance of getting into a good secondary school even if a scholarship is on offer - and the same applies for secondary school to higher education. If you want to rely on the charity of private schools, you're going to have to have enough scholarships to provide for every stage of the education of every child from a poor family.

First off, almost everyone is making more than their parents taking CoL into account, because Real GDP is growing. I think you mean making about the same relative to other people. Makes sure you clarify that.

Yes thanks that's what I meant.

Perhaps your statement, but most people are conservatives in that they seek solely to maintain the status quo, especially among upper-middle-class. In fact, the class with the least upwards or downwards mobility is actually the upper-middle-class. For the lower class, there is ample upwards mobility to the top, or at least the middle, since empirically poor people have often proven more resourceful and ambitious. Actually, strike that. I'm willing to bet that the lower-middle-class has the most mobilities, since they have the benefits of both 'classes'.

Nonetheless the point is this -- someoen wwho is ambitious and not conservative will not be making about the same as his parents :wink:.

It shouldn't be necessary for somebody born into poverty to be above average to attain average standards - two people of average ability and ambition born into different social classes are probably going to remain where they are, despite the fact that they have equal potential.

I would support a Constitutional Amendment by which everybody voting in favor of a war would have to join teh military. Everyone voting in favor of an increase in government spending would have to pay for it out of their own pockets, and not the pockers of others.

Interesting idea. But nothing would ever get done, because almost everyone would always hope that others would do it for them. The thing about voluntary socialism is that those who are needed the most (i.e. those with more to give) are often going to be the ones who choose not to participate - so it wouldn't work because there wouldn't be enough input.

I guess you'll call the only alternative slavery, and perhaps you're right. But when it comes down to it, if you have such a broad definition of slavery, slavery is inescapable. Capitalism results in the de facto slavery of the workers, and total communism results in the de jùre slavery of the upper classes. Compromise, which is what I advocate, is just a mixture of the two, until such a time as enough people are decent enough to voluntarily help each other out in a major way.

The quality of education would be higher. Private schools do more with less money.

No, the efficiency of education would be better. Value for money might improve, but very little money would still result in very little value.

Anyway, I'd rather live in Sweden, so that there's a good balance between capitalism and socialism, knowing that although I pay a lot of taxes, they go to improve society's lot as a whole.

That's your decision. You have no right to force it on others.

Ah but otherwise it doesn't work, at least not with humans the way they are now. See above.

Taxes are the price of soceity. They are the price you pay for not having to defend yourself from enemies, for not having to grow your own food, for not having to teach your own children everything. They are the price you pay to live in safety.

Then fund the government with sales taxes, excise taxes, tariffs, etc.

Income taxes allow the government to snoop into your bank records and violate your most fundamental liberties. Ideally, the government would be so small we could fund it with excise taxes and a low-rate tariff totalling about $100 billion in revenue a year. But I'd chose a sales tax over an income tax any day simply because of the privacy issues involved.

Plus it would be a fair tax for rich and poor.

Personally, I favor modified capitalism. Look, I'd rather a failure in capitalism not mean starvation and suffering on the part of children. Capitalism is inherently heartless; some of the so-called "socialist" programs insert a bit of morality at the cost of a bit of productivity.

Why is it moral to take people's money and give it to others against their consent?

Because they can always emigrate if they don't like it, and because it's even more immoral to let children starve. Lesser of two evils. That's life.

Capitalism is the best economic solution... but pure capitalism is just evil.

It's the only system based on voluntary exchange. It's the only system where the individual is never used as a means to an end against his will (the alternative is called 'slavery') What could be more moral than that?

If a person feels he is being used to an end against his will, he can leave. By living in a country with an income tax, that person is granting consent to payment. By taking advantage of that country's resources, that person is granting consent to payment. Taxation is voluntary; taxpayers are represented in Congress and have full right of emigration.

Aside from the ones who use the capital their parents gave them and then just let it sit in an investment account, or have their family's fortune as a safety net when all of their businesses fail abysmally. I'm thinking of someone in politics... hmm... who could that be...

Which is absolutely irrelevant.

You said rich people worked hard. I provided counterexamples. If you'd like to retract your original assertion, I'll retract my counterexample.

*stares*
*boggles*
*bangs head on wall*
Have you ever... even for a moment, even HEARD of "private schools?" At all? IT'S ALREADY COMPETING!

THat's not competition since you HAVE TO PAY FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS ANYWAYS. That's like if you had to pay for a GM car regardless of whether you chose a GM car or a Crysler Car, that's not competition at all. That's a monopoly imposed by the force of arms. Simple.

Another way is looking at it is by seeing the portion of the person's income tax that goes toward education as a subsidy for another person, which that person consents to by considering oneself a citizen of the country in question. So yes, it is a bit of a double payment. I do, however, see your point; this is why I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of vouchers, so long as the country can afford it.

On the other hand, considering what you've just said I can see why so many people want to reform the schools...

I used to go to public school. No use in reforming. Abolition is the only solution. A tax credit/voucher system to fund poor people's education in private schools could be instituted as a interim measure.

So did I. I disagree on the necessity of abolition. My view is that public schools do a decent job but could do better, and reform would accomplish that aim.

And people go to private schools as well. Private schools compete quite nicely, thank you very much. Not everyone can afford schooling for their children.

No they don't. Listen, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU GO TO PRIVATE SCHOOL OR NOT, YOU STILL PAY SCHOOL TAX. That is NOT competititon. Competition is when you can CHOOSE who you want to pay.

And yet private schools continue to be successful and attract star students. They're in no danger of extinction. And, for the record, having experienced parochial and nonparochial private schools, many of them are even worse than public schools, in my view.

Roads benefit us all. Taxes are just a convenient way of paying for them. Service fees would slow traffic, and solutions that don't slow traffic infringe on privacy.

User fees are much more equitable than taxes. Especially when you consider that the income tax is a huge infringement on privacy.

I don't, particularly, and percentage-wise user fees hurt the poor most, hence making them less equitable.

But once again, if you really want to fund something, fund it with a SALES TAX (or excise tax, low-rate tariff, etc.), NOT an income tax. This is because an income tax creates a lot of bureaucracies, problems, and infringes on privacy, which a sales tax doesn't do.

The bureaucracies exist because income tax law is full of loopholes, hidden gotchas, and other inanity. A simplified income tax code would eliminate or reduce most of the problems you mention.

Because they can always emigrate if they don't like it,
That's a bogus argument. No one should have to abandon his property to avoid having his property expropriated from him. Since everything else you say rests on this, there's no need for me to address this post any further.

Because they can always emigrate if they don't like it,
That's a bogus argument. No one should have to abandon his property to avoid having his property expropriated from him. Since everything else you say rests on this, there's no need for me to address this post any further.

Yes, he should, if he took the oath of citizenship or refused to leave at 18, when he gained the right to make decisions for himself and is, in the eyes of the law, a reasoning, thinking being with full right and title to all of his possessions. If he changes his mind later, the government has full right to say, "Well, that's all fine and dandy, but why in hell are you claiming that this is theft now, when you've been living under the terms of the social contract for <x amount of time> now? Pay your obligations and get the fark out." Democratic citizenship, in its basest form, is a contract between a person and society granting society certain rights while demanding certain protections; at least that's the gist of the Federalist Papers, Rousseau, Locke, and others.