| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
| |||||||
 EchoVortex (hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 16 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
As I really have better things to do with my time than sitting here rebutting both of you point by point, I'll just reprint the following, available from The Economic Policy Institute (epinet.org):
HOUSE STIMULUS PLAN DRAWS CRITICISM FROM NOBEL LAUREATES AND FORMER CEA MEMBERS Experts call for targeted, temporary measures to fight downturn Washington D.C. ? In a statement sent today to the U.S. Senate, where the future of legislation to boost the economy remains uncertain, nine Nobel laureates in economics and four past members of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President wrote that the stimulus package passed by the House of Representatives would fail to jump start the economy. To be effective, a stimulus must be "targeted to increase spending immediately," and "temporary, phasing out when the economy recovers," said the statement to Senators Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Trent Lott (R-MS). "The bill passed by the House fails on both counts." The statement, circulated by the Economic Policy Institute, calls for targeting the temporary benefits of a stimulus package to low-income workers and families, since they will quickly spend the money they receive, thus increasing consumer demand. Permanent tax cuts for wealthy companies and individuals, on the other hand, are unlikely to be spent and will damage the nation's long-term fiscal outlook, according to the statement. "The House bill is so loaded with tax cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals, it should collapse under its own weight," says Jeff Faux, president of EPI, who also signed the statement. "These tax breaks may do wonders for big campaign contributors, but will do little to heal a hurting economy and put people back to work." The nine Nobel prize winners who signed the statement are George Akerlof of the University of California at Berkeley, Kenneth Arrow and William Sharpe of Stanford University, Lawrence Klein of the University of Pennsylvania, Franco Modigliani and Robert Solow of the Massachusetts Institute for Technology, Douglass North of Washington University, Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University, and James Tobin of Yale University. The four former CEA members who signed the statement are Martin Baily of the Institute for International Economics, Alan Blinder of Princeton University, and Laura D'Andrea Tyson and Janet Yellen of the University of California at Berkeley. Now, you can quote Black's Law Dictionary all you want and give me all of the standard Libertarian arguments (although I doubt you'll ever find an example of anybody being KILLED here for refusing to pay taxes). Also, if you believe taxation is such an irredeemable evil, you are always free to move to a country without an intact taxation system. You would of course have to exlude the entire developed world (all of which nations, as I mentioned earlier, have higher tax rates than the US) and move to someplace where the bandits have much bigger guns than you do. The developed world, however, without exception, has seen the need for taxation. And they certainly haven't suffered economically because of it. If you know better than the nine Nobel Laureates, I suggest you send your next post to them. I'm not really interested.
| |||||||
|
Anonymous |
| ||||||
|
Funny, you haven't rebutted a single point I've raised. Apparently,
you haven't utilized rational thought in formulating your opinions and then want us to accept the misguided notions of a bunch of socialist professors. No country in history have ever taxed and spent itself into prosperity, quite the opposite. People have died resisting taxes in this country, but since your mind is closed to rational discourse I will not bother researching the facts to present to you. To show that I understand your feelings, I'll leave you with this motto, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Good Day Comrade.
| |||||||
|
ElPrimo journeyman Registered: 09/29/01 Posts: 92 Last seen: 23 years, 9 days |
| ||||||
|
Sure sounds impressive if you're a numbskull. But why not just give those 800,000 folks $1.5 million a piece and they wouldn't even have to work. You'd also have over a billion left over from that 1.35 trillion dollar tax and could spend some money to help feed some hungry kids.
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son   Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 10 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
EchoVortex writes:
"As I really have better things to do with my time than sitting here rebutting both of you point by point..." It has been my experience that when in any debate one of the participants utters a statement like the above it translates to, "I cannot refute your arguments." "...I'll just reprint the following, available from The Economic Policy Institute." "If you know better than the nine Nobel Laureates, I suggest you send your next post to them." Ah! The infamous "argument from authority" rears its ugly head. Since many of the people who signed this report are Nobel Laureates, then by all means they MUST be correct, right? Well... let's take a quick look at some of these authority figures, shall we? George Akerlof's area of interest: how economics is influenced by social psychology. -- "By ignoring these concepts, economists have neglected to see a wide range of important policy options that aim to change how people think of themselves. This variable of identity has a major role to play in many subfields of economics. These include the economics of education, of gender, of income distribution (including the place of disadvantaged minorities), of politics, of substance abuse, of unions, of fertility, and of politics." Kenneth Arrow, quoted in a 1995 interview about his 1978 article, "A Cautious Case for Socialism" -- "Let me say that the ideals that were sought for there, I still firmly accept. I think the idea that a society has to be responsible for all of its citizens, those who do well and those who do not, is really a precondition of a good society." Franco Modigliani: (from the Boston Globe, Dec 8 1985) -- "Modigliani is the 67 year old principal author of what economists call the ''life-cycle" hypothesis - itself now nearly 35 years old. But as if to confirm the worst fears of those who think that economics is an undercooked science, his award cloaks much controversy about what exactly is implied by the life-cycle hypothesis. At a meeting last summer to celebrate the lifetime accomplishments of Modigliani, his friend and former close collaborator Albert Ando (along with Arthur Kennickell of the Federal Reserve System) asked how much support there was for dominant interpretation of the life cycle in household data for the United States and Japan. "There was not much, they concluded. Attempts to use it to explain very large-scale empirical studies must be judged "a complete failure," they wrote in a survey of the published work. "We started with one of the most elegant theories in economics, and we could not find a way to fit abundant bodies of data into its neat framework," they concluded. (A cheerful Modigliani immediately set to work defending his hypothesis at the meeting, of course.) "Somewhat more generally, the University of California's Thomas Mayer wrote a decade ago, "Of all the many tests which have been undertaken by friends of the (life-cycle) hypothesis, not a single one supports it . . . I therefore conclude that the . . . hypothesis is definitely invalidated." Douglass North, from his autobiography: "I decided to go instead to the University of California at Berkeley. While I was there my life was completely changed by becoming a convinced Marxist and engaging in a variety of student liberal activities." "I cannot say that I learned much formal economics as a graduate student in Berkeley. My most influential professors were Robert Brady; Leo Rogin, a Marxist and a very influential teacher of history of economic thought; and M. M. Knight..." Joseph Stiglitz: is the author of "Wither Socialism?" I was unable to find excerpts from it online, only critical reviews of it. James Tobin: excerpt from his "A Liberal Agenda" -- "Freeman would like to soften this connection by some redistribution of assets. This requires, it seems to me, progressive taxation of estates and intergenerational gifts, and of income. A logical but radical instrument would be a progressive wealth tax." Laura D'Andrea Tyson: Dr. Tyson was the chief economic advisor of the Clinton Administration and a key architect of President Clinton?s domestic and international policy agenda during his first term in office. As the Administration?s top economic adviser, she managed all economic policy-making throughout the executive branch. Janet Yellen chaired President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers, stepping down in late 1999. She is married to George Akerloff. I leave it to the reader to decide how impartial these social psychologists, Socialists, authors of discredited theories, Marxists, proponents of wealth tax and ex-Clinton advisors may be when it comes to their opinions on Republican-sponsored tax cuts. "Now, you can quote Black's Law Dictionary all you want..." And what better source to quote? YOU were the one who suggested consulting legal experts to determine whether or not taxation was confiscation. "...I doubt you'll ever find an example of anybody being KILLED here for refusing to pay taxes." If you refuse to pay your taxes, the police will come to arrest you. If you resist arrest to your utmost, the police will do THEIR utmost to capture you. In the process, you may very well be injured or even killed. If you are overpowered, captured, convicted, and imprisoned, and then try to escape, you may very well be injured or killed during your escape attempt. To follow the chain of events through to its logical conclusion, your choices are limited -- (A) Fork over whatever the IRS says you must, or risk death. (B) Submit to imprisonment and hope you are not killed in a prison riot, or by a psychopathic cellmate, or by AIDS contracted after being gang-raped. "The developed world, however, without exception, has seen the need for taxation. And they certainly haven't suffered economically because of it." They certainly have suffered from OVER-taxation. Enormous amounts of tax money are pissed away on useless programs. Even though the US may still have the lowest tax rates in the developed world, it is really a case of "The best of a bad lot". It is undeniable that the citizens of the US would be better off financially if their tax burden were lower. pinky -------------------- 
| |||||||
|
EchoVortex (hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 16 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Why waste my time rebutting your arguments when they're minor and/or tangential?
That money you think "you" made was only made possible by the existence of legal mechanisms that protect you, your property, your right to do business. These legal mechanisms require social cooperation and money to maintain. It's only YOUR money because you live in a society that creates conditions in which you can make it. That tender is legal only because the government prints it and says its legal. The feds whom you think have their guns pointed on you actually have them pointed on the countless poor people who would kill you and take your property in a second, given a chance. You would need an army, not a gun, to protect you from those masses--your tax dollars are what pays for that army. For your information, comrades, communists reject the right to private ownership. Where did I ever argue for that? Hey, have you bought your tickets to Angola yet?
| |||||||
|
LeGrouper enthusiast Registered: 01/22/02 Posts: 256 Last seen: 21 years, 4 months |
| ||||||
|
ElPrimo your comment is hilariously juvenile and represents the epitome of economic misunderstanding. The government is not looking to make 800,000 people more wealthy. The government is looking to improve the economy, giving 800,000 people 1.5 million dollars each that somebody else worked for would be the ultimate in erasing incentives. You see, those 800,000 jobs supposedly are producing things that the country needs and will use, not just generating income. And that 1.35 Trillion tax cut is really 1.35 trillion dollars that somebody else earned and is having taken away from them. That is why communism always produces poor ass countries because the lack of incentives to work hard. I bet you always wondered why the government doesn't just print infinity money and just hand it out to everyone to stimulate the economy....
-------------------- The above post is entirely fictional and should not be taken out of context. Ali-G www.boyakasha.co.uk
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 10 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
EchoVortex writes:
"Why waste my time rebutting your arguments when they're minor and/or tangential?" So far, ALL of my comments and questions have been responses to points that YOU introduced: the respectability of making money through investment, speculation vs investment, the definition of "windfalls", the rationale for living off investment income rather than working as a janitor, the best method for the wealthy to ensure that the middle class remain economically strong, the intrinsic "worthlessness" of trashy bestsellers, the relationship of production to consumption, taxation as confiscation, the "shrinkage" of the middle class, the worth of government "services". If you consider these points minor and/or tangential, why did you choose to introduce them in the first place? "That money you think "you" made was only made possible by the existence of legal mechanisms that protect you, your property, your right to do business." Not true. I didn't THINK I made that money, I DID make it. The protective mechanisms you refer to only allow me a better chance of KEEPING my money rather than having it stolen from me by criminals. "These legal mechanisms require social cooperation and money to maintain." Agreed. I have no qualms with paying taxes for the services that protect my person and my property: police, courts, military. Period. "It's only YOUR money because you live in a society that creates conditions in which you can make it." The State does not CREATE conditions which allow me to create money. I do that for myself. The ceramic products I make and sell to others can be made in any society, or even on a desert island. "That tender is legal only because the government prints it and says its legal." Ah! And there's the rub. The government can, at any time, turn that tender (my property) into worthless trash by cranking up the printing presses. This has happened in COUNTLESS countries where government has control of the currency. It is happening today in Argentina and other countries, it is happening today -- at a slower rate, admittedly -- in the USA (compare the worth of a 2002 dollar with a 1972 dollar), and it will happen tomorrow in some other country. I would much rather use gold in my transactions, but the government does not allow this. Commerce existed for millenia before governments got into the business of minting money. "The feds whom you think have their guns pointed on you actually have them pointed on the countless poor people who would kill you and take your property in a second, given a chance." I am sure you meant to say criminals, not poor people. The vast majority of the poor are honest and not afraid to support themselves, and would not hesitate to return my wallet to me if I dropped it in a lineup at MacDonald's, or getting into my car or something. This has happened to me twice already, and has happened to friends of mine as well. Not all criminals are poor, either... not by a long stretch. "You would need an army, not a gun, to protect you from those masses--your tax dollars are what pays for that army." More accurately, it is the police that provide this protection, but I understand your basic point. Do you really believe the sole reason the poor don't rampage through wealthy neighborhoods in the USA is their fear of police or the army? If so, you have less respect for the poor than I do. Besides, as I pointed out earlier, I have no problems paying taxes to support the police, the courts, and the military. "For your information, comrades, communists reject the right to private ownership. Where did I ever argue for that?" Where? By saying that the government has the right, by way of some unwritten "social contract", to continually increase its area of influence in providing "services" that they decide we must have. Since the only way these "services" can be provided is through the confiscation of our privately-owned property (our money, and in some cases our land), in actual fact our right to private ownership is determined completely by government. In the USA you get to keep approximately two thirds of your property. In Canada, you get to keep a bit more than half of it. In Sweden, you get to keep approximately 35 per cent of it. "Hey, have you bought your tickets to Angola yet?" No, but I did become a resident of the Dominican Republic fourteen years ago (still debating whether I should bother going through the bureaucratic hassle of getting full Dominican citizenship so I can vote, too), where I pay no income tax or property tax or school taxes or social security or health care premiums. I do pay sales tax on some things, and duties on imported products are a little stiff on some items, but basically the government here does nothing for me but provide police protection, courts, and miltary. The government here does sweet dick all for me, but they ASK dick all of me, too. They don't care one way or the other whether I become wealthy or starve, as I long as I don't break the law. They LEAVE ME ALONE, to succeed or fail on my own efforts. A century ago, this was true of the United States of America, as well. I'm very glad that the Dominican government learned from the mistakes the US has made. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
EchoVortex (hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 16 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Pinky,
I have to say, at the very least, that I respect your decision to move to the Dominican Republic. That's voting with your feet. I take my hat off to you. Other than that, though, I have to say it seems to me you have a static view of history. A hundred years ago the United States was not a world power, it had a much smaller population, and most importantly, it didn't have thousands of ICBMs pointed at it. You write: "I'm very glad that the Dominican government learned from the mistakes the US has made." I'm sorry, but that is a ludicrous statement. The Dominican Republic is not even on the map economically, scientifically, or educationally. It is a de facto satellite of the US. Drawing equivalencies like that just hurts your case. When I say your rebuttals are minor/tangential, I mean you (and evolving) have scrupulously avoided the issue of tax shelters and tax evasion. The reason of course is that you can't refute it; what's more, it blows holes in the theory that the government is unfairly bleeding the rich. Maybe it TRIES, but that doesn't mean it actually succeeds. Your rugged individualism is intriguing, and I will once again reiterate my grudging respect for the life you've created for yourself. But I'm afraid you still haven't convinced me that your ideas have relevance for the United States in the 21st century. It's clear to me that I haven't convinced you either, but in the final analysis it's irrelevant because it seems you, I, and evolving are the only ones on this forum who are in the least bit interested in this topic. We could spin our wheels for ages and have nothing to show for it but wasted time. I wish you well.
| |||||||
|
God_Killer enthusiast Registered: 04/03/01 Posts: 137 Last seen: 22 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
but in the final analysis it's irrelevant because it seems you, I, and evolving are the only ones on this forum who are in the least bit interested in this topic.
I'm quite interested in this topic myself but the shark argues better than I do and I mostly agree with him on this issue so I been keepin my redneck mouth shut. -------------------- Beer is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy.-Benjamin Franklin
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 10 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
EchoVortex writes:
"A hundred years ago the United States was not a world power, it had a much smaller population, and most importantly, it didn't have thousands of ICBMs pointed at it." How do any of those circumstances alter the fact that lower taxes mean more money available for growth? "PSM writes: "I'm very glad that the Dominican government learned from the mistakes the US has made." EV responds: I'm sorry, but that is a ludicrous statement. The Dominican Republic is not even on the map economically, scientifically, or educationally." Please explain how this relative insignificance prevents the Dominican government from learning from the mistakes the US government has made. As for economics, the D.R. has had the fastest-growing economy in Latin America for quite some time now. It also houses the oldest university in the western hemisphere and the first medical school in the western hemisphere. "It is a de facto satellite of the US." Bullshit. You must be thinking of Puerto Rico. I think that, as a Dominican resident, I just might have a better understanding of US influence here than you do. Our economic trade with South American countries or even with Europe FAR outweighs US trade. "Drawing equivalencies like that just hurts your case." What equivalences did I draw? "When I say your rebuttals are minor/tangential, I mean you (and evolving) have scrupulously avoided the issue of tax shelters and tax evasion." As have you. This is the FIRST time in any of your posts that you have raised either topic. "The reason of course is that you can't refute it;" Refute what? The fact that government has created tax shelters? The fact that people of all social classes try to pay as little tax as possible? Why would I try to deny either of these self-evident facts? "...what's more, it blows holes in the theory that the government is unfairly bleeding the rich." Dude, the government is unfairly bleeding EVERYONE. However, under a sliding scale tax system such as the one in place in the US today, the ones who get hosed the worst are the ones whose annual income is the highest. Ask anyone who has passed from one tax bracket into the next. You seem to believe that evading taxes and utilizing government-approved tax shelters are equivalent. Clearly they are not, but let's take a look at the question of tax evasion, shall we? Government statistics show that more than 70 per cent of Americans will ADMIT to "cheating" on their tax returns. A blunter term for "cheating" is "evasion", n'est ce pas? Tax evasion is certainly not a behavior that is restricted to the wealthy. It is as American as apple pie. "But I'm afraid you still haven't convinced me that your ideas have relevance for the United States in the 21st century." And you haven't convinced me (or anyone else reading this thread, I'll wager) that lowering taxes is a bad thing, whether in the US or in Malaysia, whether in the 19th century or the 21st century. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
EchoVortex (hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 16 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Here are the top ranking countries, according to the World Bank, in terms of per capita GNP (2001 figures, adjusted for purchasing power parity)
1. Luxembourg 2. Liechtenstein 3. United States 4. Bermuda 5. Switzerland 6. Norway 7. Iceland 8. Cayman Islands 9. Belgium 10 Canada The Dominican Republic is number 96 on the list. Here are the top rankings for life expectancy from the World Health Organization (adjusted for expected years of "full health") 1. Japan 2. Australia 3. France 4. Sweden 5. Spain 6. Italy 7. Greece 8. Switzerland 9. Monaco 10 Andorra The US ranks 24th. The DR ranks 114th (out of 197). The majority of countries at the top of both lists have high tax rates and extensive social safety nets. (Bermuda and the Cayman Islands are aberrations--they are tax shelter parking lots for money that was actually produced in other economies). You seem to measure quality of life simply by the number of dollars that you, as an individual, have in your bank account. I simply consider this short-sighted. If the United States is the one making the mistakes (and according to your way of thinking (taxes--bad! bad!), Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Luxembourg, etc., are making even bigger mistakes) then why is it that they surpass the Dominican Republic in every single objective measure of national success available--per capita purchasing power, healthy life expectancy, scientific innovation and research? Population size doesn't count as an excuse--the DR has 8.5 million, Norway only has 4.5 million. Personally, I would rather pay higher taxes and live in a nation where the people lead long, healthy lives and large segments of the population are not impoverished. That's just my personal preference. The fact that the DR has a fast growing economy doesn't mean very much when the economy is so small to begin with. Communist China has an even faster growing economy. Growth rates have little to do with standard of living. Japan has been in recession for the past ten years, but the standard of living is still one of the highest in the world. When Japan was undergoing its phenomenal growth during the 50s-80s, it was one of the most centrally organized economies imaginable. And by the way, I did mention tax shelters and evasion in my very first post. It doesn't exactly make me elated and happy to pay taxes, and it is certainly true that much tax money is squandered by the government. I don't particularly trust the government, either. But I do trust gov't a tiny bit more than I trust corporations who are only accountable to their shareholders, and wealthy individuals, who are usually interested only in their own profit. Sure they may invest their money, thereby helping the national economy--but then again, they may invest it abroad, in search of higher returns, thereby helping somebody else's economy. The government, for all of its failings (and there are many, to be sure) at the very least has to keep in mind the big picture in addition to short-term gains. The money the government spends is also reinvested into the economy, in one form or another. It doesn't just disappear into a black hole.
| |||||||
|
God_Killer enthusiast Registered: 04/03/01 Posts: 137 Last seen: 22 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
The money the government spends is also reinvested into the economy, in one form or another. It doesn't just disappear into a black hole.
Um, the only money tht isn't re-invested in the economy in one way or another is that money that I have burried out back in a mason jar. -------------------- Beer is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy.-Benjamin Franklin
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 10 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
EchoVortex writes:
"The majority of countries at the top of both lists have high tax rates and extensive social safety nets. (Bermuda and the Cayman Islands are aberrations--they are tax shelter parking lots for money that was actually produced in other economies)." It is true that the Dominican Republic is on the bottom half of those lists. It is also true that from the time Columbus set foot on its shores until about 35 years ago, the Dominican Republic was either a colonial possession of one of the superpower nations or the personal playground of a series of vicious dictators. Give us some time. "You seem to measure quality of life simply by the number of dollars that you, as an individual, have in your bank account. I simply consider this short-sighted." Not at all. I measure quality of life by the amount of freedom an individual has. "If the United States is the one making the mistakes (and according to your way of thinking (taxes--bad! bad!), Norway, Iceland, Sweden, Luxembourg, etc., are making even bigger mistakes) then why is it that they surpass the Dominican Republic in every single objective measure of national success available--per capita purchasing power, healthy life expectancy, scientific innovation and research? Population size doesn't count as an excuse--the DR has 8.5 million, Norway only has 4.5 million." The Dominican Republic has had less than a generation of freedom in its 500 years of existence. The rest of the time its wealth was being siphoned off into the treasuries of other nations (Spain, France, England) or into the pockets of Trujillo and his cronies. It will take some time to catch up to the Scandinavian countries. Anyway, why this interest in bashing the D.R.? Is it because we have done so well in such a short time without taxing our citizens to death? Or is it just to divert my attention from the reason you jumped into this thread in the first place: your opinion that the latest Republican-sponsored tax breaks are a bad thing. "Personally, I would rather pay higher taxes and live in a nation where the people lead long, healthy lives and large segments of the population are not impoverished. That's just my personal preference." Ah, but you seem convinced that a long healthy life and the lack of impoverished people can only be achieved through high levels of taxation. This is clearly not the case. "The fact that the DR has a fast growing economy doesn't mean very much when the economy is so small to begin with." Gotta start somewhere. "And by the way, I did mention tax shelters and evasion in my very first post." OOPS... my bad. You did indeed give passing mention to "offshore tax shelters"... I missed that. You never mentioned tax evasion, though. "The money the government spends is also reinvested into the economy, in one form or another." And what evidence do you have to support this astoundingly naive claim? SOME money, sure. But ALL money? It is to laugh! "It doesn't just disappear into a black hole." Actually, it does. What else would you call the endless series of "loans" to African nations that will never be repayed? Government subsidies of "artists" whose work is of passing interest to maybe six art critics in New York? Warehouses filled with MOUNTAINS of "government surplus" stuff? Millions of gallons of milk literally poured down sewers? I could go on for days listing boondoggle after boondoggle. Face facts, dude, the money that the government spends on these "services" would be better used by tossing it into the furnace of the nearest electrical generation plant. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
Ellis Dee Archangel   Registered: 06/29/01 Posts: 13,104 Loc: Fire in the sky Last seen: 6 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
>>>>The money the government spends is also reinvested into the economy, in one form or another. It doesn't just disappear into a black hole.
If the money is given to the UN or sent to third world dictators or used to enrich mexican drug dealers under the guise of saving the mexican economy it doesn't disapear in to a black hole either. Just because the money isn't vanishing doesn't mean that it is being used wisely. -------------------- "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
| |||||||
|
Ellis Dee Archangel Registered: 06/29/01 Posts: 13,104 Loc: Fire in the sky Last seen: 6 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
Echo Vortex,
I agree with you. I also think that social programs are more important than low taxes. Our society would be better off with a UK style socialized medicine program than with a tax cut for billionares. -------------------- "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
| |||||||
|
EchoVortex (hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 16 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
I, personally, have nothing against the D.R. In the NYC area, where I live, we have thousands of immigrants from there who came here seeking a better life (naively, I suppose you would say). It's just that you offered the D.R. as an example of a nation that is doing very well because of its low taxes. My point is simply that it's not doing all that well. Perhaps you're right, perhaps its only a matter of time, but that's purely a matter of speculation.
In the world as it exists today, advanced nations have a need for public spending. Most of that money is spent on essential services, not boondogles. Foreign aid consitutes only 1/2 of 1 percent of the US national budget. Funding for the National Endowment for the Arts weighs in at a hefty 1/100 of 1 percent of the budget, or 36 cents per citizen per year. I've been ripped off for far more than than by the many private oligopolies with which I am forced to do business--hundreds of times more. As far as gov't surplus rotting away in warehouses goes, this is also another exaggerated myth, but even if it were true, it doesn't change the fact that paying manufacturers for those goods is a form of economic stimulus (which is the case even if the goods aren't consumed). Perhaps "reinvested" isn't the right word; perhaps "reinjected" would be better. But all of the money that isn't sent abroad (99.5% of the budget) circulates right here in the US. Even if it is given to some flaky artist, that artist uses it buy things, which in turn constitutes economic activity. You talk about facts, but mostly all you offer are opinions. I offer opinions too, but at least I'm honest enough to label them as such. You pass your opinions off as facts without any factual support. If you can give me an example of a country that falls into the top twenty when it comes to BOTH economic well-being and health and life expectancy, and which at the same time has very low tax levels (say, less than 20% for the upper income brackets), then I would take what you say more seriously. Barring that, your assertions are merely theoretical. And PLEASE, when you come up with your example, do not take me back again into the mists of time: the US a hundred years ago or some shit like that. Face facts, dude: times change. You're right, I AM against the Bush tax cuts. Why? Because they're not matched by concurrent decreases in spending. You think tax and spend is bad? Cut tax and spend is even worse. The budget surplus had already more or less evaporated before 9/11. The losses and costs produced by that event will push the budget even further into deficit territory, which is simply a way of buying economic growth today so that somebody else will have to pay for it later (that is, the person who takes office after you leave). This is fiscal irresponsibilty, pure and simple.
| |||||||
|
nugsarenice Carpal Tunnel Registered: 06/04/00 Posts: 3,442 Loc: nowhere Last seen: 19 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
What else would you call the endless series of "loans" to African nations that will never be repayed?
What kind of loans are being given to Africa? Just curious. You would be hard pressed to find any bank willing to loan money for business purposes there, because any investment cannot be returned by profits, because their money is'nt worth shit. What kinds of loans were you speaking of? Imf? And i think that the imf does expect returns, right?
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 10 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
EchoVortex writes:
"In the world as it exists today, advanced nations have a need for public spending." Why? Apart from providing essential protective services (cops, courts, military), which is the obligation of ALL governments, regardless of when in historical time they existed, WHY is it necessary to tax more heavily than fifty years ago? "Most of that money is spent on essential services, not boondogles." Anything that is not spent on the protection of the inhabitants of a country is by definition not essential. "I've been ripped off for far more than than by the many private oligopolies with which I am forced to do business--hundreds of times more." WHO is forcing you to deal with these private entities? Since the government is the only entity in a society with the legal monopoly on the use of force, it follows that the government is the one doing the forcing. "As far as gov't surplus rotting away in warehouses goes, this is also another exaggerated myth, but even if it were true, it doesn't change the fact that paying manufacturers for those goods is a form of economic stimulus (which is the case even if the goods aren't consumed)." A form of economic stimulus? Then so is using tax dollars to hire a bunch of people to dig a trench for six months of the year, then fill it in for the other six months of the year. "If you can give me an example of a country that falls into the top twenty when it comes to BOTH economic well-being and health and life expectancy, and which at the same time has very low tax levels (say, less than 20% for the upper income brackets), then I would take what you say more seriously." Why limit it to the top twenty? By that standard, the US wouldn't make the cut. But I'll take a stab at it -- Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, Monaco, Hong Kong. "And PLEASE, when you come up with your example, do not take me back again into the mists of time: the US a hundred years ago or some shit like that. Face facts, dude: times change." Times change. Basic principles do not. "You're right, I AM against the Bush tax cuts. Why? Because they're not matched by concurrent decreases in spending." Ah! Why didn't you say so earlier? Your first post bemoaned the fact that the rich can support themselves through investments rather than physical labor and warned that the middle class was shrinking. None of your subsequent posts addressed the issue of deficit spending, either. Of course you are correct that government spending must be reduced. Which "services" in place today do YOU think should be cut? It seems you believe the 99.5% of tax dollars not spent on foreign aid are all required in order for America to exist in the 21st century. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
|
EchoVortex (hard) member Registered: 02/06/02 Posts: 859 Last seen: 16 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Here are some of the services that should be maintained: 1. Defense 2. Law enforcement 3. Courts (I assume from your previous posts that you agree with me so far. I'm sure you won't like the rest) 4. Funding for primary scientific research. Private industry is reluctant to invest in research that doesn't have immediate or near-immediate profit potential. The catch is that the findings of basic research have to be in place before applied technology can be developed from it. None of the four nations (all four are more like city-states than full-sized nations, by the way) you listed is a major player in scientific research and development. 5. Regulation and oversight in the areas of food, pharmaceuticals, pollution, transportation safety, industrial safety (including nuclear energy oversight) and fair labor practices. The private sector has historically proven itself to be irresponsible when it comes to self-regulation in these areas, often to the point of even hurting their own long-term interests. Short-term gain and government coercion are the only forces to which they tend to respond. 6. Public education. Those nations that have the most impressive track record of scientific innovation (number of patents, number of scientific journal publications, number of Nobel prize winners) all have extensive public education systems. Some, like the United States and Japan, have a mix of public and private. But none of them operates solely on the principle of private education. 7. The maintenance of diplomatic relations. This includes the building, upkeep, and personnel costs of diplomatic missions abroad. It may also include the disbursement of foreign aid. Of course you despise all forms of foreign aid, but the Marshall Plan and reconstruction aid to Japan after the war also fell under this category. Both of these initiatives were crucial in setting the stage to win the Cold War. 8. Here's one you're going to howl at, I'm sure. There should be subsidized health care in the United States. 16% of Americans are uninsured. The economic costs and burdens from illness, lost time from work, etc. are not to be underestimated. This is one of the many reasons why the US ranks so much lower than other industrialized nations in healthy life expectancy. 9. Social security and medicare. Other programs can reasonably be cut. Welfare (both low-income and corporate welfare), arts, pork barrel projects, etc. Even the postal service could probably be privatized. Existing programs can also be streamlined, with less money being spent in more creative and effective ways. These are problems that can be solved with the application of intelligence and effort. Simply repeating the mantra that all government is bad is absurd reductionism. As with most businesses, the single largest government expenditure is payroll. The public sector (national, state, and local governments) is far and away the largest employer in the land. The federal government alone employs 2.8 million people. Cutting those jobs will only add to the number of unemployed who will have to be soaked up elsewhere. Giving those people?s salaries as tax cuts to corporations or wealthy individuals will not necessarily result in the creation of an equivalent number of jobs. By the way, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg both have progressive (sliding) tax scales. The top end of the scale is relatively low, you're right, but they also "punish" the economically successful. Hong Kong doesn?t have to provide for its own defense?the UK used to do that, now the PRC does it. This helps lower public expenditures and keeps taxes down. Liechtenstein (pop 33,000), Luxembourg (pop. 443,000) and Monaco (pop. 32,000) make their money precisely by being tax havens. They fill a niche in the global economy. If all nations reduced their taxes to the same levels, those tiny ?nations? would lose their relative advantage. More money is parked there than is actually MADE there. Liechtenstein is officially represented abroad by Switzerland. Luxembourg rides piggy-back on the defense mechanisms of NATO, getting a lot more than it puts in. These are hardly representative of the situation of most nations with large economies and large populations. As far as this thread goes, whether you?ve convinced the three dozen or so people who might occasionally take a look at it (look at the number of thread views?a third or more of those are probably due to you and me) is really not terribly significant. This is a magic mushroom site, not a legislative body. The vast majority of the democratically elected leaders of the industrialized world have rejected the ?basic principles? which you?ve presented here. And why shouldn?t they? Their nations have achieved world leadership on a number of different fronts by embracing a very different set of principles these past 50 years. Why should they dismantle systems that have proven themselves to work simply on the say-so of you or anybody else? Even in the United States, where the Libertarians (I assume that?s what you are, since your views bear a striking resemblance to theirs) are a good deal stronger than in other advanced nations, Libertarians can?t seem to get elected to national or even to state office. Once in a while they get elected as county Inspectors of Elections or to small town councils--that's it. Here are the results of the 2000 US presidential elections, in terms of popular votes: 1. Gore?48.38% 2. Bush?47.87% 3. Nader?2.74% 4. Buchanan?0.42% 5. Browne (Libertarian)?0.36% Even that flake Nader got 7.6 times as many votes as the Libertarian candidate. Call it what you want: I call it a stunning dismissal of Libertarian principles. The people have spoken. Well, it?s been fun, but it?s starting to get rather boring and repetitive. I?ll leave you the satisfaction of having the last word on this thread. Lord knows you haven?t had that satisfaction in the real world political arena.
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 10 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
EchoVortex writes:
"Here are some of the services that should be maintained:" "4. Funding for primary scientific research. Private industry is reluctant to invest in research that doesn't have immediate or near-immediate profit potential. The catch is that the findings of basic research have to be in place before applied technology can be developed from it." The vast majority of primary scientific research, or BASIC research, has historically come from universities, and a surprising amount from private industry... IBM Labs, and GE Labs for example, are reknowned for this. I know you will say that many, if not most, of these universities receive government funding. But not all do. IBM and GE certainly don't. "5. Regulation and oversight in the areas of food, pharmaceuticals, pollution, transportation safety, industrial safety (including nuclear energy oversight) and fair labor practices. The private sector has historically proven itself to be irresponsible when it comes to self-regulation in these areas, often to the point of even hurting their own long-term interests. Short-term gain and government coercion are the only forces to which they tend to respond." Here we disagree. The problem with government regulations in these areas is that the minimums very rapidly become the maximums. Everyone just presumes that if a product meets all the required government standards it MUST be safe. Numerous examples have proven this assumption false. "6. Public education. Those nations that have the most impressive track record of scientific innovation (number of patents, number of scientific journal publications, number of Nobel prize winners) all have extensive public education systems. Some, like the United States and Japan, have a mix of public and private. But none of them operates solely on the principle of private education." All of them did, at one point or another. Even in the US, federal involvement in education is a fairly recent phenomenon (the DOE was created in 1980). And not a very successful one, either. See: http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0202/libsolutions.html "7. The maintenance of diplomatic relations. This includes the building, upkeep, and personnel costs of diplomatic missions abroad." Agreed. Since diplomatic efforts can often avoid armed conflicts, expenses associated with diplomatic relations may properly be considered a form of defense spending. "It may also include the disbursement of foreign aid. Of course you despise all forms of foreign aid, but the Marshall Plan and reconstruction aid to Japan after the war also fell under this category. Both of these initiatives were crucial in setting the stage to win the Cold War." What ended the Cold War was neither the Marshall Plan nor foreign aid. What actually ended the Cold War was the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union, which would have occurred much earlier if the US government had not been selling wheat to the USSR at below-market prices (a form of foreign aid), setting up cultural and scientific "exhange conferences", etc. "8. Here's one you're going to howl at, I'm sure. There should be subsidized health care in the United States. 16% of Americans are uninsured. The economic costs and burdens from illness, lost time from work, etc. are not to be underestimated. This is one of the many reasons why the US ranks so much lower than other industrialized nations in healthy life expectancy." Government involvement in health care is an unmitigated disaster. Ask anyone over forty (when medical care becomes more important) who lives in England or Canada. As an ex-Canadian, I can speak from personal experience on this one. Thousands of Canadians (and English) regularly visit the US or other countries with private health care in order to get the medical attention they NEED that they simply cannot get in their own country... and I am not talking about face lifts or liposuction, here... I am referring to essential operations to correct life-threatening conditions. MacLean's magazine, a Canadian publication, ran an excellent series of articles on the state of Canada's health care system some time in the last year. So did the Ottawa Citizen newspaper. I am sorry, but I don't remember which issues. It made me laugh my head off whenever proponents of Hillary's health care proposal would hold up Canada's medical system as a shining example. The Canadian health care system is in VERY serious trouble... everything that its opponents predicted would happen when it was introduced in the early 70s HAS happened, and more. England's National Health system is even MORE fucked, but only because it has been in existence longer. If there is one and ONLY one area where the government MUST keep its hands off, it is the area of medicine. "9. Social security and medicare." We all know that Social Security is in crisis. If taxes were lower, people could provide for their own future through REAL investing in retirement funds, or even in savings accounts. Social Security is not an investment... it is a Ponzi Scheme of mammoth proportions. "Other programs can reasonably be cut. Welfare (both low-income and corporate welfare), arts, pork barrel projects, etc. Even the postal service could probably be privatized. Existing programs can also be streamlined, with less money being spent in more creative and effective ways. These are problems that can be solved with the application of intelligence and effort. Simply repeating the mantra that all government is bad is absurd reductionism." All government other than that required to protect its citizens from force IS bad. It necessarily involves the violation of the rights of its citizens. "As with most businesses, the single largest government expenditure is payroll. The public sector (national, state, and local governments) is far and away the largest employer in the land. The federal government alone employs 2.8 million people." My point precisely. How can ANY society operate efficiently when the single largest employer is the government? "Cutting those jobs will only add to the number of unemployed who will have to be soaked up elsewhere. Giving those people?s salaries as tax cuts to corporations or wealthy individuals will not necessarily result in the creation of an equivalent number of jobs." Sheer speculation. In the rare cases where government departments HAVE reduced the number of employees, those employees have found other jobs. "By the way, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg... Hong Kong... Monaco... are hardly representative of the situation of most nations with large economies and large populations." You asked me to name a SINGLE nation that fit your criteria. I named FOUR. Note that three of the four were listed by name on the rankings that YOU introduced to this thread in order to make a point of yours. "As far as this thread goes, whether you?ve convinced the three dozen or so people who might occasionally take a look at it (look at the number of thread views?a third or more of those are probably due to you and me) is really not terribly significant. This is a magic mushroom site, not a legislative body." So? You think that the people who take the time to read the "Political Discussion" forum here don't vote? That they don't talk to others? If this forum is so insignificant, why did YOU bother to post here in the first place? Is the Op-Ed section of the New York Times a legislative body? Is the "Letters to the Editor" section of the Washington Post a legislative body? At least the folks who read THIS forum are open-minded enough to have defied the government position on entheogens... maybe they will be receptive to other areas that need to be changed. "The vast majority of the democratically elected leaders of the industrialized world have rejected the ?basic principles? which you?ve presented here." Because they have found that the easiest way to get re-elected is to promise "goodies" to the voters. They buy votes, plain and simple. These goodies are paid for by taxes. "Their nations have achieved world leadership on a number of different fronts by embracing a very different set of principles these past 50 years." The Soviet Union was once considered a world leader. England was once considered a world leader. "Why should they dismantle systems that have proven themselves to work simply on the say-so of you or anybody else?" Of course they won't dismantle these systems. The systems are what keep them in power. That doesn't mean the systems shouldn't be dismantled. And, laws ARE repealed from time to time. Not as often as they should be, but it DOES happen. Prohibition was repealed, after all. "Even in the United States, where the Libertarians (I assume that?s what you are, since your views bear a striking resemblance to theirs) are a good deal stronger than in other advanced nations, Libertarians can?t seem to get elected to national or even to state office." That doesn't mean their principles are incorrect. It just means Libertarian presidential candidates don't have the financial resources that the Demopublican candidates do. "Here are the results of the 2000 US presidential elections, in terms of popular votes: 1. Gore?48.38% 2. Bush?47.87% 3. Nader?2.74% 4. Buchanan?0.42% 5. Browne (Libertarian)?0.36% Even that flake Nader got 7.6 times as many votes as the Libertarian candidate. Call it what you want: I call it a stunning dismissal of Libertarian principles. The people have spoken." The number of proponents of a given theory is not proof of its validity. At one point in time, the majority believed the Earth was flat, that disease was caused by demons, and that some humans had the right to rule others by nature of their parentage. "Well, it?s been fun, but it?s starting to get rather boring and repetitive. I?ll leave you the satisfaction of having the last word on this thread." Seeya. pinky --------------------
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
I guess Dems don't find all tax cut's a bad thing! (  1 2 3 all ) |
 luvdemshrooms |
3,516 | 41 | 09/15/03 10:06 PM by Phred |
|
|
Bush sneaks through more tax cuts for the rich during war ( 1 2 all ) |
 EchoVortex |
4,934 | 39 | 03/26/03 09:09 PM by luvdemshrooms |
|
|
Corzine speaks on the Bush tax cuts. | luvdemshrooms |
620 | 3 | 10/30/03 02:00 PM by Phred |
|
|
ATTN: Supporters of Bush's tax cuts ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
 silversoul7 |
3,984 | 66 | 07/16/03 08:19 AM by Anonymous |
|
|
to those that vote based on tax cuts ( 1 2 3 all ) |
1stimer |
2,372 | 40 | 07/14/03 12:11 PM by DoctorJ |
|
|
Privatisation and Tax Cuts at work...USA ( 1 2 all ) |
 carbonhoots |
2,729 | 39 | 02/13/03 04:59 AM by Prisoner#1 |
|
|
Incredible article on the "tax cuts". | luvdemshrooms |
496 | 8 | 07/08/03 07:05 AM by Rhizoid |
|
|
Income Tax checks!! ( 1 2 3 all ) |
 Innvertigo |
6,252 | 52 | 08/21/01 12:04 AM by capncracker |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 5,775 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||