Yahoo.com: Fact Check, Are rich taxed less than secretaries?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

And, on average, the rich are still paying by far the highest effective tax rate, even with capital gains rates at 15%.

I believe that is false. IF what you are claiming is that the overall rate of taxation on all money taken home is higher on the rich than on the middle class.

[Prosperity]

Well, no, there was a direct justification as to why.

An individual has a larger more immediate claim on his money than anyone else.

That's begging the question isn't it? What is the difference between sayting something belongs to him ("his"), and saying he has an immediate claim to it? "his" and "immediate claim" are the same idea (property rights) spelled out in different ways.

So when does someone have a proprietary right to money in their possession.... Let's see

What's "his" is what is left over from his obligations are deducted from his possessions. Taxes are an obligation, but certainly not the only one. If your business partner receives money for whatever your business does, then it doesn't mean it is all his money. He may possess it for a time, but he also has obligations to you as his partner. If somebody has money he owes taxes on (or whatever other obligation), then it's not entirely his money. His money is what is left over from taxes.

The money you grow from the savings you've built up differs wildly from the money you earn from the work you do.

How? I don't necessarily disagree btw. Doesn't investing require work?

Again, no one should be taxed on the exchange of their hard work for monetary compensation,

again you've never justified this premise

but, apparently people think this is somehow ok. Yielding I can't help people beyond that idiocy, and they really think people SHOULD get taxed for working, they shouldn't get taxed on money that CAN be gained or lost. If they are fortunate enough to gain, great for them. They have actually helped the economy whether they gain or lose though. And many people lose.

I've already yielded in a simple tax formula of 12 percent on all "income" you include investment income, though you shouldn't.

Currently the risk/reward of investment itself has only the premise the government can take your reward, but you are responsible for your risk. If the government wants a piece of the risk/reward relationship, it should at least be an equal chunk, so a person who drops 40K in an investment is free from paying other taxes. Again, that's in today's system, which is already screwed up. In a flat system, it's still wrong to tax gains on people's savings, but, it's easier than fighting the fight with people who ALREADY think you GAIN something by losing your time, energy, effort, family life, personal advancement in the exchange for cash and thus should let the government have a portion of your work compensation.

To me, it's flatly crazy.

And, is why a national tax on all items still makes the most sense.

All transactions are effectively subsidized by the existence and enforcement of property rights... Freedom Isn't Free as they say, and that applies to the Free Market.

The government will take a share of your reward, but the government also subsidizes you by cutting down on transaction costs. What would be the cost of transaction without agents to enforce property rights? (courts, laws, police etc) Do you really think you would have as many opportunities to invest, with as much return without the legitimate enforcement of property rights? Obviously not. At the point where an investor takes a risk and puts his money into the market he's utilizing the government, and that transaction is effectively subsidized. This subsidy underlies all transactions. Thus, both the winner and loser are subsidized, and everybody wins to some degree or another. Isn't the free market, grand?

[The 12th Commandment]

Aren't there many individuals/families that earn their entire income on capital gains (as well as well as expend their entire productive output)?

Since corporations have been deemed "citizens" when it comes to advancing their agenda on the hill, should they not have the same tax obligation as every other "citizen"?

[PeterMP]

It wouldn't impact me in the slightest, nor would it impact you. Individuals would see a need and develop programs to help them.

If this were true there would have been no need to start medicare in the first place. The history of medical care shows it isn't true.

The fact of the matter is that through government action, we almost wiped out TB in the 1970s, however, the effort failed due to the inability to affectively and continually identify TB outbreaks and deliver antibioitics into some of the poorest communities. No private entity stepped up and filled the governments, and today, not only do we still have TB, but we have antibiotic resistant TB, and then those genes for antibiotic resistance have been transferred to other organisms, giving us other antibiotic resistant organisms.

And that affects me and you.

You want to fix the "income" disparity? That's simple. Assure people on the low end, who, I believe, tend to die sooner than people who have more money and access to health care, and thus get less of the systems they could, reasonably, use more of, are putting money in to those systems in ways which ASSURE that money is THEIRS or goes to those they love. Pass the income through over generations to build up.

The wealthy accumulate wealth, but, whether Snyder, Zuckerberg, Gates or others, they don't have to come from wealth to be wealthy. They can come from more humble beginnings and achieve greatness, as can anyone, anywhere in this country. I don't work as hard as those people, so I won't achieve to their level. Neither will any of us here, sadly .

But, the only way to help the poor isn't to create a system that does NOTHING for them if they die and helps no one in their family if they aren't around.

The only way is to create a system where you help them help the generational family. This is controversial, as I wouldn't do it, given I believe if an idiot wants to be an idiot and spend his money on whatever he wants, let him. But, you libs seem keen on the need to assure people are providing for others, so, let's START the process by saying they provide for themselves first, and draw on the support of others second. And create systems where they receive benefit living or dead so the next generation of their family has it slightly better than the last.

I have no idea what you are saying here.

But Zuckerberg's parents were a dentist and a psychatrist.

Gates' father was a lawyer and his parents held positions on corporate boards.

Not exactly humble beginnings.

And yes some people do come from real humble beginnings and achieve wealth, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility#United_States

So I'll ask again, do you think that growing income disparity is a problem?

"There has been a great disparity of income growth between 1979 and 2004 in the United States. The real, after-tax income of the top 1% earners has grown by 176% percent during that time, compared to a 69% rise for the top 20%, and an increase of 9% for the lowest 20%"

[Art]

I believe that is false. IF what you are claiming is that the overall rate of taxation on all money taken home is higher on the rich than on the middle class.

Before we know if it's true or false, define rich.

If rich is defined as Obama has, whereby anyone over $200,000 starts seeing tax increases, then the rich pay a FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR higher tax rate than anyone else. If rich is defined as most of define it, as people with uber millions and billions, then, they pay a lower effective tax rate, and merely pay the bulk of all taxes generally.

And, Prosperity, again, I did justify it. You saying I didn't, doesn't mean I didn't. Merely means you don't like the justification.

The justification that an exchange of your services or goods for someone else's money shouldn't be taxed is a fundamental American value and belief. It is justified by my statement you don't EARN anything in the exchange of something of value for something else of value. You merely have an exchange of items of equal value, or at least value you deem fair enough to exchange. Such things should not be taxed. Your work and effort should never be a taxable item. There's a far better argument that free money from the lottery is more worthy of taxation than an exchange of value for value.

Peter,

The start of Medicare is about the same thing the government always does. It caters to special interests. Health providers wanted money. What better way to get that money than to lobby the government to tax people and feed it to them in a forced, unaccountable fashion AND SELL it as a BENEFIT. Now, they were too smart for their own good as the system is going to bankrupt them largely because of the processes behind avoiding malpractice suits and the like, but, fixing health care is as simple as getting business (insurance AND attorneys) in the background and putting the consumer and the doctor in the foreground.

But, prior to Medicare there were far fewer people who couldn't find support for their health requirements than now.

As for the other part, the income disparity fix is simple. Instead of passing the earnings of another person to temporary help for the poor person, make the poor person provide for his future and family by putting money away over his career so he has something for himself and for his family, however small. Not a difficult concept. Working hard to improve your situation is easier when you see the direct correlation of your effort mattering. I do not believe it's a problem there's an income disparity that is increasing by some estimates BEYOND people not understanding it ONLY exists because of the growth of programs that allow people to do nothing and survive.

Handouts, welfare, unemployment never ending create a culture and class of broke people with no future. A system should be created to help them help themselves. That system is called capitalism. Give businesses a monetary nod to create jobs for people.

Remove all business social security contributions SO LONG as EVERY penny is spent on new employee salaries.

That moves your unemployment rate to about 7.5 percent.

[Prosperity]

And, Prosperity, again, I did justify it. You saying I didn't, doesn't mean I didn't. Merely means you don't like the justification.

The justification that an exchange of your services or goods for someone else's money shouldn't be taxed is a fundamental American value and belief. It is justified by my statement you don't EARN anything in the exchange of something of value for something else of value. You merely have an exchange of items of equal value, or at least value you deem fair enough to exchange. Such things should not be taxed. Your work and effort should never be a taxable item. There's a far better argument that free money from the lottery is more worthy of taxation than an exchange of value for value.

First, people don't exchange things if they view them of equal value because 1) it's pointless and 2) transaction costs would make equal trades a net loss

Second, "The justification that an exchange of your services or goods for someone else's money shouldn't be taxed is a fundamental American value and belief. " is not true.. see the long history of Excise Taxes

Third, at best the phrase above can be used to justify a claim about what earlier Americans valued (again, it doesn't even do that), what earlier Americans valued does not mean it is necessarily something we view as a fundamental value today (cause obviously, we don't)

[ncr2h]

Could someone explain exactly how the government earned the $20K of my $50K in income it took from me last year? Also, could someone explain why it's ethical for the government to use money that it took from me for things I did not want?

[PeterMP]

What is the policy prescription to fix this problem?

Honestly, I don't know, but I can't imagine that increasing taxes on the working poor is going to help the situation.

[The Evil Genius]

Could someone explain exactly how the government earned the $20K of my $50K in income it took from me last year?

If you read the past few pages, someone already has.

BTW - I doubt you paid 20k in taxes on 50k of earnings. I suspect their are other deductions (like a 401k and insurance premiums) that you are not factoring in.

[PeterMP]

Peter,

The start of Medicare is about the same thing the government always does. It caters to special interests. Health providers wanted money. What better way to get that money than to lobby the government to tax people and feed it to them in a forced, unaccountable fashion AND SELL it as a BENEFIT. Now, they were too smart for their own good as the system is going to bankrupt them largely because of the processes behind avoiding malpractice suits and the like, but, fixing health care is as simple as getting business (insurance AND attorneys) in the background and putting the consumer and the doctor in the foreground.

Are you really claiming that when Medicare was started that there weren't people that needed it?

There is a large amount of literature that shows that people make poor decisions about health care, which means that it isn't a good free market and that free markets fail when people don't/can't make good decisions. I've posted a good bit of it here before.

But, prior to Medicare there were far fewer people who couldn't find support for their health requirements than now.

And I've already given you the problems w/ allowing the "idiot" poor to lie around dying.

As for the other part, the income disparity fix is simple. Instead of passing the earnings of another person to temporary help for the poor person, make the poor person provide for his future and family by putting money away over his career so he has something for himself and for his family, however small. Not a difficult concept. Working hard to improve your situation is easier when you see the direct correlation of your effort mattering. I do not believe it's a problem there's an income disparity that is increasing by some estimates BEYOND people not understanding it ONLY exists because of the growth of programs that allow people to do nothing and survive.

Handouts, welfare, unemployment never ending create a culture and class of broke people with no future. A system should be created to help them help themselves. That system is called capitalism. Give businesses a monetary nod to create jobs for people.

Remove all business social security contributions SO LONG as EVERY penny is spent on new employee salaries.

That moves your unemployment rate to about 7.5 percent.

Why? Do you really believe that the money going to social security is really just disappearing and isn't going back into the economy (and therfore employeeing people)?

[alexey]

I'm not sure I'm entirely a free marketer. I'm a free market guy when it comes to dealing with other free markets. But, China, for example, is not a free market. If Nike wants to put a factory in China and then import shoes back in to America, I say, "Great. And for every shoe you bring back in from another country into the one you are headquartered, you pay, oh, $1000 to the government." You know what happens? Shoes are made here tomorrow. OR, companies say, "Screw you, I'll move to China." You have to be somewhat cautious on this type of punitive trade stuff, but China and Japan basically stole our technology on electronics and drove American companies out of business with their trade restrictions. We should be perfectly free to do that to them and do so with a smile.

But, no, the role of government is not as you suggest.

In America, the role of government is to stay out of the lives of people. The Constitution was written with enumerated governmental powers AND the specific language stating ALL things NOT listed here are held by someone else. Somehow we have allowed the federal government to ignore that and state anything NOT excluded them specifically is what they are to do. We believe in a limited government. Obama talks about funding money to rebuild schools. Uh. No. Schools are the domain of localities and states. They are taxed. They can do it. Not one dime of money should be spent by the Federal government on education. Hell, the Department of Education didn't even exist until Reagan, or was it Carter? MOST of the functions of the Federal government didn't exist for the bulk of our country.

Engineering people to think owning a home is a good thing is great. It caused people to buy homes they couldn't afford or maintain. It did more harm than good as with MOST things the government engineers people to believe in. In fact, yes, freedom is a far better regulator of individual behavior than government. The desire to profit and be rich and empower yourself to great heights is the foundation of the American dream, which, itself, is a simple statement that ANYONE in America can rise up and become something more than anyone in their family has ever been. Whether that enrichment is in education or finances or artistic is irrelevant. The ability to pursue your passion and live it is something precious here.

The government needs merely to allow people to pursue it and stay mostly out of their way. Again, the libertarian in me says the government can prevent people from doing harm to others as a legitimate need, but needs not prevent people from doing anything they wish to themselves and should NEVER take from one person to hand to another. Charity from the individual with means does that. Not government.

But, removing tax code benefits to marriage, our housing, or the car you drive, or business discounts for this or that, all make society far more manageable and equitable than picking winners and losers and doing so in a way to cause losers. The governments intervention and engineering around housing, for example, has hurt all home owners. There is little it does which has provided clear advantage without unnecessary interruption. Especially today when equality is so much more accepted than it had been a couple generations ago.

You are making a good point and providing good examples.

But there are other examples. Energy policy, technology, medical research, broadband, infrastructure, etc. Proper management of these things requires government action. This was largely not the case 200 years ago.

[jpyaks3]

Could someone explain exactly how the government earned the $20K of my $50K in income it took from me last year? Also, could someone explain why it's ethical for the government to use money that it took from me for things I did not want?

Because wealth is not created in a vacuum.

Without the government provided essential services you wouldn't have earned any of that.

Without a police force you may have gotten robbed, without a highway system you wouldn't be able to get to work or your company wouldn't be able to move its goods and products effectively, without the government protecting intellectual property rights any new ideas or products would be immediately undercut, if your company uses the internet at all forget about that created by the government through spending money, etc. etc. etc.

The government is allowed to use money for things that you don't want because you take advantage of services provided by the government that takes other peoples money and uses it whether for things they might not want, that's how economies and governments work.

[Predicto]

Could someone explain exactly how the government earned the $20K of my $50K in income it took from me last year? Also, could someone explain why it's ethical for the government to use money that it took from me for things I did not want?

Wow. 40 percent? That's pretty high. Are you sure?

My family's taxes were nowhere near as high a percentage of our income. Of course, we have a ton more income than you, including lots of sweet deductions and capital gains, so we paid a much lower percentage than that.

Art said:

If rich is defined as Obama has, whereby anyone over $200,000 starts seeing tax increases, then the rich pay a FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR higher tax rate than anyone else.

Again, I suggest that this is not remotely accurate. Or at least it isn't accurate for me. Our social security and medicare withholding cap out long before our incomes, so the percentage we pay is lessened. We have a big mortgage deduction, pensions, 401k and 457s, child care withholding and medical reimbursement accounts, etc, and all of that money is taken out pre-tax, thus reducing the percentage of our money that is taxed at the highest bracket. Unlike poor people, we do not spend all of our money, so sales taxes take up a much smaller percentage of our income. Some of our income is capital gains, so that is taxed at a mere 15 percent.

As a result, we do not pay a far, far, far larger percentage of our income in taxes than the working poor. We actually pay less, and we get richer.

If rich is defined as most of define it, as people with uber millions and billions, then, they pay a lower effective tax rate, and merely pay the bulk of all taxes generally.

And they pay the bulk of the taxes solely because they garner more and more of the taxable income and wealth every year. Poor people and lower middle class people pay a smaller percentage of taxes (and have "less and less skin in the game") because our public policies over the years have ensured that they have an ever shrinking percentage of the wealth on which to pay taxes.

[aREDSKIN]

The class warfare income %'s argument spittle is just that spittle. The Gov't pays nothing with %'s. It does with $$'s and sometimes even with $'s it doesn't have.

[Art]

First, people don't exchange things if they view them of equal value because 1) it's pointless and 2) transaction costs would make equal trades a net loss

Second, "The justification that an exchange of your services or goods for someone else's money shouldn't be taxed is a fundamental American value and belief. " is not true.. see the long history of Excise Taxes

Third, at best the phrase above can be used to justify a claim about what earlier Americans valued (again, it doesn't even do that), what earlier Americans valued does not mean it is necessarily something we view as a fundamental value today (cause obviously, we don't)

The fact you know what an excise tax is and that it exists in our founding thoughts as a country necessarily validates you understand exactly what I said is precisely and without counter true, from a fundamental standpoint. Americans had no problem with USE taxes. Paying for things they used. They had EXCEPTIONAL issues with taxes on "income" which they viewed as unfair because they made nothing in the exchange of their good or service for something of value from the person they entered the agreement with. In fact, the very concept of taxing a person's work or the good they provided to another person for something of equal value was so controversial, an Amendment had to be passed to make it POSSIBLE AND it was still so controversial, in 1903-ish, an Amendment saying the TOP EVER income tax could only EVER EVER EVER be 10 percent was proposed but shot down by the right because they feared if they wrote that in, the left would ultimately find a way to GET to 10 percent.

In fact everything you do for your living is an exchange of something of value for something else of value. In my case it is the exchange of IT skills and experience for money. The value is equal in nature, or at least acceptable in trade, though I believe I'm worth so much more. A cashier at 7-11 is exchanging his time, effort and ability to that task for money. It is a quintessential American value that such an exchange produces no "income" as it's merely an exchange of one thing of value for another thing of value. And, when you think about it, that is exactly what it is. You produce something for someone else to give you something else. The trade is equal in nature and could easily be said not to be taxed.

Excise taxes are perfectly fine. We knew to fund the government the way to do it was to have it tax you in fees for the things you used. It's still a good idea.

Conversely, in America, there is no actual justification to taking money from one segment of society and giving it to another. Indeed, you CAN say the act of so doing ultimately benefits the person who has had his money taken and given away by removing the smelly, old, poor, dead guy from his yard or something, but, again, communities take care of community needs, and our country is founded on that being done by us as individuals, not as a social collective. We've actually fought wars -- real and cold -- against the spread of those concepts. Sadly, as Marx himself predicted, they would ultimately take root from within.

Everything we do as a nation can be done in a better way that has more grounding in American values of freedom, self-responsibility and individual charity. THOSE values have made us the greatest nation to ever exist. Those which have led to swollen deficits, war against nations the Congress never bothers to declare war on, and the general dictatorship of the centralized polit....er, government in America, across party lines, are why we will ultimately (probably after I die) be the greatest country to have fallen under the weight of its own bloat. We can solve it. Almost everything the government currently pays for should be cut. Overnight.

The programs which are already broken and unable to be funded by the pyramid scheme should be borrowed to be paid until they can be repaired in a sustainable way for the future, but there's no real way to resolve the shortfall without default, which is the way we'll go if we don't act soon on it. The actual debt is scary enough. The unfunded liabilities are such that if every American were charged every penny he makes in taxes, we would still fall short of funding completely if costs continue to swell as they have.

[Destino]

Could someone explain exactly how the government earned the $20K of my $50K in income it took from me last year? Also, could someone explain why it's ethical for the government to use money that it took from me for things I did not want?

Visit the Dominican Republic and go outside the tourist areas. Go eat something and walk around. Start writing down the differences you see, when you're done figure out how many of them involve the government. Truth is most Americans have no concept of how the government is involved in their daily lives and why it's a good thing. Visit the non-intrusive government paradises of the world and behold the wonder. When you're in a rich area where everything is custom made to spec it doesn't matter what country you're in it's all good. When you go to the middle class or the working class you see the difference.

[Art]

Honestly, I don't know, but I can't imagine that increasing taxes on the working poor is going to help the situation.

It'll help the situation because those people, working hard, scraping by, will no longer think we should have three or four or five years of paid unemployment for those doing nothing. They will reject programs that eat their tax dollars. They will grow angry at the federal government for using war powers without following the Constitution.

Putting their money in the game both funds a substantial portion of income untapped currently, AND gives people a reason to say, 'Uh, seriously, why are we paying for that, exactly?"

[Ancalagon the Black]

Welcome back to Tailgate, Art.

In fact everything you do for your living is an exchange of something of value for something else of value. In my case it is the exchange of IT skills and experience for money. The value is equal in nature, or at least acceptable in trade, though I believe I'm worth so much more. A cashier at 7-11 is exchanging his time, effort and ability to that task for money. It is a quintessential American value that such an exchange produces no "income" as it's merely an exchange of one thing of value for another thing of value. And, when you think about it, that is exactly what it is. You produce something for someone else to give you something else. The trade is equal in nature and could easily be said not to be taxed.

You are equivocating on the terms "value" and "equal value" here. You aren't defining whose point of view you're viewing value from, and in not doing so you're implying that there is a uniform (government-imposed? ) perception of value, when in actuality value is in the eyes of the producer and consumer.

At its most fundamental, what you are saying - that the exchange of labor for money is a trade for two things of equal value - could not possibly be true. If either party were taxed at 1 cent on this trade, then the trade would not take place. What's necessary for the exchange to occur is for the labor producer to value the money more than the labor, and for the labor consumer to value the labor more than the money. That's what leads to consumer surplus and producer surplus.

Your argument that the trade is "equal" is not true in the eyes of the consumer or of the producer (even if the producer may think he's worth more). So in whose eyes is the trade for equal value?

[Prosperity]

The fact you know what an excise tax is and that it exists in our founding thoughts as a country necessarily validates you understand exactly what I said is precisely and without counter true, from a fundamental standpoint. Americans had no problem with USE taxes. Paying for things they used. They had EXCEPTIONAL issues with taxes on "income" which they viewed as unfair because they made nothing in the exchange of their good or service for something of value from the person they entered the agreement with. In fact, the very concept of taxing a person's work or the good they provided to another person for something of equal value was so controversial, an Amendment had to be passed to make it POSSIBLE AND it was still so controversial, in 1903-ish, an Amendment saying the TOP EVER income tax could only EVER EVER EVER be 10 percent was proposed but shot down by the right because they feared if they wrote that in, the left would ultimately find a way to GET to 10 percent.

In fact everything you do for your living is an exchange of something of value for something else of value. In my case it is the exchange of IT skills and experience for money. The value is equal in nature, or at least acceptable in trade, though I believe I'm worth so much more. A cashier at 7-11 is exchanging his time, effort and ability to that task for money. It is a quintessential American value that such an exchange produces no "income" as it's merely an exchange of one thing of value for another thing of value. And, when you think about it, that is exactly what it is. You produce something for someone else to give you something else. The trade is equal in nature and could easily be said not to be taxed.

Excise taxes are perfectly fine. We knew to fund the government the way to do it was to have it tax you in fees for the things you used. It's still a good idea.

Conversely, in America, there is no actual justification to taking money from one segment of society and giving it to another. Indeed, you CAN say the act of so doing ultimately benefits the person who has had his money taken and given away by removing the smelly, old, poor, dead guy from his yard or something, but, again, communities take care of community needs, and our country is founded on that being done by us as individuals, not as a social collective. We've actually fought wars -- real and cold -- against the spread of those concepts. Sadly, as Marx himself predicted, they would ultimately take root from within.

Everything we do as a nation can be done in a better way that has more grounding in American values of freedom, self-responsibility and individual charity. THOSE values have made us the greatest nation to ever exist. Those which have led to swollen deficits, war against nations the Congress never bothers to declare war on, and the general dictatorship of the centralized polit....er, government in America, across party lines, are why we will ultimately (probably after I die) be the greatest country to have fallen under the weight of its own bloat. We can solve it. Almost everything the government currently pays for should be cut. Overnight.

The programs which are already broken and unable to be funded by the pyramid scheme should be borrowed to be paid until they can be repaired in a sustainable way for the future, but there's no real way to resolve the shortfall without default, which is the way we'll go if we don't act soon on it. The actual debt is scary enough. The unfunded liabilities are such that if every American were charged every penny he makes in taxes, we would still fall short of funding completely if costs continue to swell as they have.

First, just because an amendment was sufficient doesn't mean it was necessary

For example, prohibition... an amendment may be sufficient to make marijuana illegal, but so is a law. So just because an amendment sufficed for prohibiting alcohol, doesn't mean we need an amendment to prohibit marijuana use. The fact that there was an amendment (which is hard thing to achieve) means that the country accepted it as legitimate. Prohibition was overturned but the income tax was not... Does that mean boozing is more of an inherent value than what you espouse? Actually, yes it does.

Second, time for money (e.g. your job) and money for liquor are both exchanges. Neither party views what they are receiving as equal to what they gave, because that would be pointless. They view it as more valuable otherwise they wouldn't go out of their way to make a trade in the first place. There is a huge difference between "equal" and "acceptable".

[Art]

You are making a good point and providing good examples.

But there are other examples. Energy policy, technology, medical research, broadband, infrastructure, etc. Proper management of these things requires government action. This was largely not the case 200 years ago.

I really don't know what you're talking about.

The great bulk of medical research that has been meaningful in the world has spawned out of private industry. There's no need for the government to research anything itself. Nor is there need for the government to grant money to studies. Save that money by not taking it from people who, themselves, will form foundations to cure diseases they have been impacted by and will work to eradicate. The highway system was generally pushed by the war department as a way to quickly move from end to end to defend the nation against attack and it had the commerce benefit of "shrinking" the nation by making it accessible. A legitimate argument can be made it is something the federal government should not have done as it was outside the bounds of the authority granted it, but, it is also one of the few things which appear to have both a reasonable success factor AND a self-sustaining funding source of tax on gas.

The government does not need, nor does it have, central control of energy in this country, though we are heading that direction, sadly.

Destino's point about having to boil water before drinking it in Mexico, and the glories of the third world we all love to visit, stay in tourist areas, then leave is ACTUALLY not a terrible one. Obviously SOME level of government interaction in areas of concern to Americans is both valuable and appropriate. The problem is MOST of the ails of the nation, from rampant pollution, to civil rights, to environmental concerns, all were problems long ago solved. Today people fight to add more to something largely not broken. About the only real ongoing issue from the start of the industrial age until now that has never been cleared up is the wide spread robber baronism so common with our businesses and their tight ties to our politicians.

That is only curable by limiting politicians to 6 years in D.C. (8 for the big guy) and assuring new people are in, and old people are working for the first time in their adult lives, and essentially negating the crony atmosphere of D.C.

That we continue to allow banks to rob us blind is remarkable. That we put a private bank in charge of our money as a nation and have it be answerable to NO ONE is the biggest conspiracy ever perpetrated that everyone knows about, and yet thinks is just great . Congress gave the money supply to a private bank.

And banks/financial institutions are at the core of almost every major financial problem we have had for about, oh, 90 years.

[Ancalagon the Black]

That is only curable by limiting politicians to 6 years in D.C. (8 for the big guy) and assuring new people are in, and old people are working for the first time in their adult lives, and essentially negating the crony atmosphere of D.C.

This is an aside, and I don't necessarily disagree with you...but how do you reconcile your standing up for the freedom and liberty of the individual with your desire to regulate the number of elections for which individuals can vote their preferred leader(s) in?

[PeterMP]

It'll help the situation because those people, working hard, scraping by, will no longer think we should have three or four or five years of paid unemployment for those doing nothing. They will reject programs that eat their tax dollars. They will grow angry at the federal government for using war powers without following the Constitution.

Putting their money in the game both funds a substantial portion of income untapped currently, AND gives people a reason to say, 'Uh, seriously, why are we paying for that, exactly?"

What does that do to fix income disparity?

I'm also really curious to see you respond to my post above.

Do you really believe the money paid by corporations into FICA doesn't end up back into the economy and contribute to employment?

[Art]

Welcome back to Tailgate, Art.

You are equivocating on the terms "value" and "equal value" here. You aren't defining whose point of view you're viewing value from, and in not doing so you're implying that there is a uniform (government-imposed? ) perception of value, when in actuality value is in the eyes of the producer and consumer.

At its most fundamental, what you are saying - that the exchange of labor for money is a trade for two things of equal value - could not possibly be true. If either party were taxed at 1 cent on this trade, then the trade would not take place. What's necessary for the exchange to occur is for the labor producer to value the money more than the labor, and for the labor consumer to value the labor more than the money. That's what leads to consumer surplus and producer surplus.

Your argument that the trade is "equal" is not true in the eyes of the consumer or of the producer (even if the producer may think he's worth more). So in whose eyes is the trade for equal value?

We are greatly fortunate that I didn't equivocate at all. I have said, now repeatedly, the exchange of your efforts or products for something else of value (money most likely) is the exchange of something of value/equal value/or at least value enough to be acceptable to the people engaged in the trade. My buddy is selling his boat. He wants $15K. He'll get $10K. The value is not equal to what he wants, but is equal to what the transaction was worth to both people once consummated. Indeed, I think my services are worth more than I get, but, I accept the price I get to make a living, pay bills and function. The exchange of my value for the value I receive in return is "equal" in that it is acceptable to the parties who engage in the trade. There is no difference between equal and acceptable as equal is defined merely by the acceptance in the case of two people engaged in a trade of one thing for another.

Prosperity,

In fact, yes, to the party holding the whiskey, the other person's money is of more value to him than the whiskey he will trade. And to the person willing to trade his money for that whiskey, the whiskey represents the greater value. The act of agreement makes the trade acceptable to both parties and is engaged as the exchange of one thing of value for another thing of value and because they said, "Yep, that's equal enough to accept it," it becomes equal in value for the duration of that trade. One or the other thing could rise in value and make it worth more on a subsequent trade.

It's a very simple premise. Individuals who trade something of value for something else of value have not actually GAINED in any way. They have lost one thing to gain another. They do not pay taxes on their ability to do a service. They do not pay a tax on products that can't be sold. They only pay when money is exchanged. My lawn guy does my lawn, but sometimes gives me a freebie when I fix his computer. When I pay him, it's taxable, but when I fix his computer it's not? Technically the government would say it likely is, but that's beside the point .

No American citizen should pay a tax on his efforts or his products in exchange for something of value, likely money. But, Americans SHOULD pay for the things they use in society which provide them value based on the use.

I want a passport? $1000 bucks. I don't gotta go anywhere, but if it's important to me, I'll pay it.

I pay $.25 a gallon for gas to keep up my highways. I drive less, I use them less, I pay less. It's a fair exchange. And it's actually the most American way possible.

[PeterMP]

There's no need for the government to research anything itself. Nor is there need for the government to grant money to studies. Save that money by not taking it from people who, themselves, will form foundations to cure diseases they have been impacted by and will work to eradicate.

How many diseases were cured that way before government funding?

That is only curable by limiting politicians to 6 years in D.C. (8 for the big guy) and assuring new people are in, and old people are working for the first time in their adult lives, and essentially negating the crony atmosphere of D.C.

That we continue to allow banks to rob us blind is remarkable. That we put a private bank in charge of our money as a nation and have it be answerable to NO ONE is the biggest conspiracy ever perpetrated that everyone knows about, and yet thinks is just great . Congress gave the money supply to a private bank.

I disagree. You should read some on the power of the federal bueracracy.

[Art]

This is an aside, and I don't necessarily disagree with you...but how do you reconcile your standing up for the freedom and liberty of the individual with your desire to regulate the number of elections for which individuals can vote their preferred leader(s) in?

Congress was never intended to be the career these Roman Senators have made it. You were supposed to serve, go home and farm, and either never return, or return at another time. We, Constitutionally, regulate presidential limits and at the time we never presumed Congress would need it. We feared a "king" so we regulated the President. We didn't fear the Roman Senate, because we assumed at founding dudes would go home and stuff. It wasn't really even a totally full time job. Now we see the curse of career politicos and the damage they cause and we have the history and foresight to know -- with the President -- it's right to limit that level of power and access. Regulating that I may not run for more than one or three terms in Congress (Senate and House) does not interfere with the individual's right to vote for an eligible person any more than limiting representation of the Presidency to American citizens.

---------- Post added September-20th-2011 at 06:24 PM ----------

How many diseases were cured that way before government funding?

The government has long been in the business of doing things it ought not and doing those things poorly. Tuskegee is an example of the government seeking to cure something, doing it in a horrendous way, and doing it poorly. Again, private industry cures disease and makes miracles. Because it's profitable to do so.