The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government[W:261:356]

[iguanaman]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

I say we cap wealth and end this non-sense once and for all.

We don't need to cap it but we sure could tax it. The top 5% have amassed a $40 Trillion nest egg mostly due to low taxes according to David Stockton.

 

[blaxshep]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

FYI, guy, I supported Obamacare because that's the best we could get (since the conservatives wouldn't let us have UHC) and I want my sons - both of whom have pre-existing conditions - to be able to afford health insurance. Without Obamacare, my sons wouldn't have been able to afford quality health insurance.

In other words, it's not always about politics. I know it's hard for you to conceive this, but among liberals, it's about what's best for the PEOPLE. By giving people a hand up, we give them a better chance to stand on their own...whereas today's conservatives claim "by helping people you're only hurting them!" and seem to only give a d**n about human beings until they get out of the womb - after which, hey, you're on your own!

Here's an example, guy. My wife was an illegal immigrant at one time. Thanks to Reagan's amnesty, she's a citizen today, and she's a small business owner providing jobs for other people. And thanks to the socialized health care system that we call the military health care system, she's alive and able to run that business. If not for Reagan, she'd still be an illegal immigrant helping nobody. If not for our military's socialized health care system, she'd be dead (and so, in all likelihood, would I).

You must realize that this utopia is unsustainable, it may be great for you and your wife and kids but eventually your grandchildren will be so far in debt that the system will completely collapse. Your only hope is that somehow someday some sort of austerity will prevent this. While I am happy for you, I gotta wonder how you rationalize the selfishness of this state of liberalism. Make no mistake none of these entitlements were passed by our government because they are helping people, they were passed to legislate profits for billionaires, banks and the corporations that end up with every last dollar taken from "the people" and spent on your behalf.

 

[blaxshep]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

We don't need to cap it but we sure could tax it. The top 5% have amassed a $40 Trillion nest egg mostly due to low taxes according to David Stockton.

People are incapable of self-limiting. Nothing good comes from wealth and power.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

You must realize that this utopia is unsustainable, it may be great for you and your wife and kids but eventually your grandchildren will be so far in debt that the system will completely collapse. Your only hope is that somehow someday some sort of austerity will prevent this. While I am happy for you, I gotta wonder how you rationalize the selfishness of this state of liberalism. Make no mistake none of these entitlements were passed by our government because they are helping people, they were passed to legislate profits for billionaires, banks and the corporations that end up with every last dollar taken from "the people" and spent on your behalf.

Which costs more? Death? Or life? Chronic illness? Or treatments or cures for those chronic illnesses?

The most important part of any economy is the infrastructure of that economy. If you have a weak infrastructure, you'll have a weak economy. Strong infrastructure, strong economy. I really don't think any conservative - no matter how far to the right he might be - would argue otherwise.

But what conservatives don't get is that the most important part of any economy's infrastructure is PEOPLE. If you're not making sure that the people are healthy, then you're not taking care of your economy's infrastructure. Why? Because sicker people are weaker and don't work as well or as long. Parents who die prematurely leave children for the state to care for. Keep your people healthy, and they'll do more and better work, and for longer...and the healthier someone is to begin with, generally speaking, the less it will cost to keep them healthy in the future...

...which is why almost every other non-OPEC first-world nation has a longer national life expectancy while spending FAR less in taxpayer dollars to maintain that national life expectancy.

RESULTS, blax. "It's all unsustainable" might be good rhetoric, but I believe in paying attention to the hard-and-fast RESULTS. Universal health care gives longer life expectancies for MUCH less in taxpayer dollars. How can you possible say that's a bad thing?

 

[blaxshep]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

RESULTS, blax. "It's all unsustainable" might be good rhetoric, but I believe in paying attention to the hard-and-fast RESULTS. Universal health care gives longer life expectancies for MUCH less in taxpayer dollars. How can you possible say that's a bad thing?

It's just rhetoric? We are $17T in debt now by the time Obama leaves office it will be $20T. There is no significant fix in the works so it is quite safe to assume that the next president will not be any different, especially since the dependent voter base will surely demand the entitlements keep coming so another 8 years will most likely be another $5 - 10T in debt so when will it no longer be rhetoric? $30T, $50T, $200T?

Obamcare will cost us far more than it cost us before it was implemented, the numbers are already in. You think legislating profits for private insurance corporations to take on millions more at tax payers expense will end up costing less? What planet do you live on? You want to cut health care costs eliminate insurance completely and allow people to subscribe directly to doctors and hospitals, keep the government out of it with the ONLY exception of being single payer for those that can not afford it.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

It's just rhetoric? We are $17T in debt now by the time Obama leaves office it will be $20T. There is no significant fix in the works so it is quite safe to assume that the next president will not be any different, especially since the dependent voter base will surely demand the entitlements keep coming so another 8 years will most likely be another $5 - 10T in debt so when will it no longer be rhetoric? $30T, $50T, $200T?

Obamcare will cost us far more than it cost us before it was implemented, the numbers are already in. You think legislating profits for private insurance corporations to take on millions more at tax payers expense will end up costing less? What planet do you live on? You want to cut health care costs eliminate insurance completely and allow people to subscribe directly to doctors and hospitals, keep the government out of it with the ONLY exception of being single payer for those that can not afford it.

Really? So we should go back to how it was before Obamacare and not have any Universal Health Care at all? And we should ignore the fact that ALMOST EVERY OTHER NON-OPEC FIRST WORLD NATION has national life expectancies longer than ours - meaning their OVERALL health care systems are better - while paying FAR less in taxpayer dollars than we already do in order to maintain those superior health care systems?

YES, America has the very best health care in the world - but ONLY for those who can afford it. For the rest, it's like Alan Grayson said: the Republican health care plan is "don't get sick, or if you do get sick, die quickly".

What part of "better overall national life expectancy while costing far less in taxpayer dollars" is so offensive to you?

 

[Lakryte]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

yeah, the taxes seem high, but when you go to third-world nations and spend some time there, you suddenly find out how incredibly difficult it is to COLLECT those taxes - there's often no way to track this or that person's identity, much less tax and income records. This is not something you'd expect, having grown up in America (assuming that you did), but in the poorer third world nations, a person carrying an identity card is the exception to the rule. Now if you're the local version of the IRS, how are you going to track down that person to make sure that they - or any business they may run, large or small - pay their taxes? Not so simple, is it?

I never said it was. But again, the point is taxation alone is not enough--not even the largest factor in fact--to determine the extent to which a market is free. So your continued focus on taxation is simply irrelevant.

And you'll find that markets in third-world nations are closer to the libertarian ideal than anything - there's no worker rights, no consumer rights, everything is caveat emptor - buyer beware. Most times, there's no receipts, no tracking of revenue, no requirements for worker safety, and don't even think of asking for your money back if you get poor service or a defective product. In the Philippines, workers are supposed to have health coverage if they work for at least six months...so it's normal there for all lower-level workers to get fired from their jobs after 5 months and 29 days - and a day or so later get hired back at jobs that might pay five dollars a day. Sure, the cost of living there is about half what it is here, but five dollars a day still isn't enough.

In other words, you can read all you want on the internet, but it's no substitute for actually spending time in such places and learning how things really are.

Markets in third world nations are not closer to the libertarian ideal. They are far, far from it. Free markets do not mean no rights, so right off the bat it is evident you don't understand what free markets actually are. Property rights are of utmost importance in free markets, and there are virtually no property rights in most of Africa. I offered you studies of those nations explaining in detail why each is not even close to a free market economy. Feel free to actually refute the studies rather than repeat the same unsupported assertions.

 

[Mach]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

Does this mean that we should all be government workers? Of course not!.... Where the profit motive should be, government should not be. Likewise, where the profit motive should not be, government must take the lead....

You have presented a (gigantic) false choice.

Where profit motive is, for profit should be.
Where no profit is motive, non-profits should be.

That you've attempted to present government as the only alternative to "not for profit" is absurd. You can trivially make the case that we need higher taxes, and smaller government, and be entirely consistent as long as you differentiate government spending, from government actually trying to be the employer, run the operations, service the public,etc, all things it's terrible at doing.

Government lacks by design most of the safeguards that allow private markets to function so efficiently and effectively, largely without the monstrosity of politics, federal or state or otherwise, impeding common sense solutions and changes. Government should largely be OUT of the goods/services altogether, and should primarily be in regulation (the referee, not the game player) of private solutions if at all possible, and those companies could be non-profits that function based on very strict government rules that prevent whatever evil things happens when a company is for-profit (namely, that it can fund it's own growth through people choosing it over alternatives rather than having to beg corrupt politicians for budget). It may fund them publically via taxes, that's a separate discussion.

 

[Lakryte]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

Really? You mean Australia - which has true universal health coverage (unlike the U.S.), mandatory pregnancy leave (unlike the U.S.), thirty days mandatory paid vacation (IIRC) (unlike the U.S.)...last I checked, to Republicans these are not much short of tyranny.

Look, guy, you're not proving anything against my OP. There are varying degrees of what you yourself term 'free-market' among all the socialized democracies...but ALL the economies of the socialized democracies are much more tightly regulated than the normal third-world economy where there's all too often no reliable systems to track revenue or personnel or income or even existence of small businesses.

And here's a question for you - in a nation that has a small, weak government, how do you propose to hold people - especially rich people - accountable? Yes, the rich get away with a lot in America...but they get away with a LOT more in third-world nations where they can buy all the law enforcement and judiciary they need. The lower-ranking police and other relatively low-level government workers are paid but little, and they have to feed their families.

In other words, you get what you pay for. If you want to live in a first-world nation, you have to pay the taxes required to do so. If you don't want to pay the taxes, then go live in a third-world nation where the local version of the IRS is toothless and emasculated.

You are completely cherry picking factors of the Australian economic system. Yes, Australia has some factors that are less free market. Yes, it has many more factors that are more free market. Australia spends less money as a percent of GDP than the United States. Australia also have significantly less debt as percent of GDP. The overall tax burdens of each country are basically the same.

Australia is also considered to have one of the most efficient and least expensive regulatory systems. In Australia, it takes no more than 2 days to launch a business. In the United States, starting a business takes anywhere between one month and an entire year.

I could offer many more examples, but I will let you chew on those first. As to your question: when government is grown in size and given more power, it is often the rich, historically the bankers, that end up controlling government and using it for their own ends. You worry that when given a lot of money people will be corrupt and need controlling...yet you for some reason thing they will effectively be controlled by people just like them who are given even more money and the legitimacy of the law to coerce people into doing what they want?

 

[sangha]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

Markets in third world nations are not closer to the libertarian ideal. They are far, far from it.

That's because the libertarian ideal is a myth that doesn't exist and never has and never will

 

[Lakryte]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

"Economically free" does not mean "small government, low taxes".

Didn't say that was all there is to it, did I?

Their economic "freedom" is the result of "big" government which can protect workers and small businesses.

Its the result of a better enforcement of property rights and a more efficient regulatory system. It takes 2 days to start a business in Australia. Good luck starting a business in less than a month in most US states.

And since there has never been a truly "free market" economy, no corporation has ever operated on free market principle. Corporations work within the system they find themselves in, not some mythical system that has never existed.

Of course there has never been a truly "free market" economy. But when the system is primarily free market-oriented, corporations operated on primarily free-market principles. When a system is less free market-oriented, corporations will operate less on free market principles.

 

[Lakryte]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

That's because the libertarian ideal is a myth that doesn't exist and never has and never will

Nobody is saying the ideal will exist. But some nations are closer to the ideal than others. Third world countries in Africa are about as far from as that ideal as you can get. First-world nations on average tend to be much closer.

 

[sangha]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

Didn't say that was all there is to it, did I?

Read the OP!

We're talking about Big Govt.

Its the result of a better enforcement of property rights and a more efficient regulatory system. It takes 2 days to start a business in Australia. Good luck starting a business in less than a month in most US states.

I've done it, thanks to our Big Govt.

Of course there has never been a truly "free market" economy. But when the system is primarily free market-oriented, corporations operated on primarily free-market principles. When a system is less free market-oriented, corporations will operate less on free market principles.

No company has ever operated on principles based on a system that does not exist, and never has.

 

[sangha]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

Nobody is saying the ideal will exist. But some nations are closer to the ideal than others. Third world countries in Africa are about as far from as that ideal as you can get. First-world nations on average tend to be much closer.

That's just nonsense.

While many third world nations are difficult to start a business in, many times it is due to factors other than govt regulation and Big Govt. Sometimes, the problem is the absence of a govt "big" enough to enforce property rights.

More importantly, there is not one example of a nation with a "libertarian-ish" small govt that is also prosperous. There are nations with small govts that are far from prosperous.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

I never said it was. But again, the point is taxation alone is not enough--not even the largest factor in fact--to determine the extent to which a market is free. So your continued focus on taxation is simply irrelevant.


Markets in third world nations are not closer to the libertarian ideal. They are far, far from it. Free markets do not mean no rights, so right off the bat it is evident you don't understand what free markets actually are. Property rights are of utmost importance in free markets, and there are virtually no property rights in most of Africa. I offered you studies of those nations explaining in detail why each is not even close to a free market economy. Feel free to actually refute the studies rather than repeat the same unsupported assertions.

Again, guy, all the stuff you read on the internet is no substitute for actually being there and finding out first-hand what comes from 'small-government' and 'low taxes'.

 

[Lakryte]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

Read the OP!

We're talking about Big Govt.

No kidding. Also implied by the OP is an argument against free markets. Hence why I had to explain free markets are much more than small government and low taxes.

I've done it, thanks to our Big Govt.

What state and what business? How long did it take?

No company has ever operated on principles based on a system that does not exist, and never has.

That is a wonderful platitude that completely ignores my post Systems that are closer to a free market have existed, and operate on principles closer to that of a free market. You are wrongly assuming that perfect free markets are necessary for free market principles to have any influence at all. Furthermore, the principles of supply and demand hold true regardless of the system.

 

[Lakryte]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

That's just nonsense.

While many third world nations are difficult to start a business in, many times it is due to factors other than govt regulation and Big Govt. Sometimes, the problem is the absence of a govt "big" enough to enforce property rights.

Ok, but that doesn't refute what I've been saying. Third-world countries are overwhelmingly less free than 1st-world countries.

More importantly, there is not one example of a nation with a "libertarian-ish" small govt that is also prosperous. There are nations with small govts that are far from prosperous.

How are you defining small government and big government?

The United States for most of its history is a pretty good example. A country can have an incredibly impressive government that prohibits certain social behaviors and the like, but still have a significantly free market. The size of government does not necessarily dictate the strength of the market. A libertarian government is one that protects property rights, enforces contracts, and provides security. Government only has to be big enough to do that depending on the conditions of the country.

 

[Lakryte]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

Again, guy, all the stuff you read on the internet is no substitute for actually being there and finding out first-hand what comes from 'small-government' and 'low taxes'.

If you want to make the case that those third-world nations are shining examples of free markets, go for it. Feel free to include your personal experiences.

 

[sangha]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

No kidding. Also implied by the OP is an argument against free markets. Hence why I had to explain free markets are much more than small government and low taxes.

You're right! Free markets are much more than small govt and low taxes. They're also a myth.

What state and what business? How long did it take?

That bastion of liberal Big Govt....New York

Selling bumper stickers and decals at rock concerts. It took longer to get them printed than it took to get a vendors license.

That is a wonderful platitude that completely ignores my post Systems that are closer to a free market have existed, and operate on principles closer to that of a free market. You are wrongly assuming that perfect free markets are necessary for free market principles to have any influence at all. Furthermore, the principles of supply and demand hold true regardless of the system.

Businesses aren't run on free market principles. They are run on the principle of maximizing profit.

Free markets are a myth. So is the idea of "free market principles". Supply and demand is not a "free market principle". It's an economic theory

 

[sangha]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

Ok, but that doesn't refute what I've been saying. Third-world countries are overwhelmingly less free than 1st-world countries.

But the OP is about big govt and high taxes, not "less free" or "more free". The only thing you're demonstrating is that economic "freedom" requires the intervention of a govt strong enough to ensure that it's interventions are effective.

How are you defining small government and big government?

The United States for most of its history is a pretty good example. A country can have an incredibly impressive government that prohibits certain social behaviors and the like, but still have a significantly free market. The size of government does not necessarily dictate the strength of the market. A libertarian government is one that protects property rights, enforces contracts, and provides security. Government only has to be big enough to do that depending on the conditions of the country.

The US has always intervened in the economy in many ways. The practice has even been enshrined in the constitution and the Framers spoke glowingly of a govt that promoted industry

We have never had a free market

 

[sangha]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

If you want to make the case that those third-world nations are shining examples of free markets, go for it. Feel free to include your personal experiences.

You continue to obsess over free markets when the issue in this thread is Big Govt and High Taxes, not the mythical free market

 

[Lakryte]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

You're right! Free markets are much more than small govt and low taxes. They're also a myth.

Nope, not a myth. Already explained why, not going to do it again if all you have to offer is repeating the same assertion.

That bastion of liberal Big Govt....New York

Selling bumper stickers and decals at rock concerts. It took longer to get them printed than it took to get a vendors license.

I was talking about business licensing, which is what the vast majority of businesses operate under.

Businesses aren't run on free market principles. They are run on the principle of maximizing profit.

How does the maximization of profit contradict free market principles?

Free markets are a myth. So is the idea of "free market principles". Supply and demand is not a "free market principle". It's an economic theory

More empty assertions. You are going to have to try harder than that.

 

[sangha]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

Nope, not a myth. Already explained why, not going to do it again if all you have to offer is repeating the same assertion.

Yes, they are a myth. Even the "non-perfect" versions of free markets have not existed. Nothing even close. The economic history of nations is a history of govt involvement and manipulation of the market.

I was talking about business licensing, which is what the vast majority of businesses operate under.

I have no idea what was in your hear when you said what you said, but here is what you actually said:

Good luck starting a business in less than a month in most US states.

I see no mention of licensing. You only talk about "starting a business".

And the business I started required a license. It was not difficult to acquire.

How does the maximization of profit contradict free market principles?

By being real, and not mythical.

More empty assertions. You are going to have to try harder than that.

Nothing empty about it. It is a fact that "supply and demand" is "economic theory" and not "free market principle", as proven by the fact that it applies to "non-free markets" just as much as it applies to those mythical free markets you keep talking about.

But since you like to talk about how they're not mythical, maybe someday you'll actually identify a nation that had a free market.

 

[Lakryte]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

But the OP is about big govt and high taxes, not "less free" or "more free". The only thing you're demonstrating is that economic "freedom" requires the intervention of a govt strong enough to ensure that it's interventions are effective.

By referring to developed countries as "social democracies" you are implying that less free (from a free market perspective) is better. You implied the debate of free markets vs socialism (or to put it more accurately, free-market-ish and socialist-ish since neither ideals exist) in the OP. If we are assuming government is necessary for economic freedom, then economic freedom requires only a government that protects property rights, and by extension contracts. A government that only does two things could hardly be considered large.

The US has always intervened in the economy in many ways. The practice has even been enshrined in the constitution and the Framers spoke glowingly of a govt that promoted industry

We have never had a free market

Of course, no perfect free market has ever existed. But the US was quite free-market oriented, more so than probably any other country prior to it.

The free market is a summary term for the array of voluntary exchanges that take place in society. Wherever such exchanges exist, free market principles are at work. The degree to which such exchanges are allowed without intervention is the degree to which an economy can be generalized as free.

 

[sangha]

Re: The Case in Support of HIgh Taxes and Big Government

By referring to developed countries as "social democracies" you are implying that less free (from a free market perspective) is better.

For one thing, I don't remember using the phrase "social democracies". For another, you only see it that way because you're obsessed with free markets, even though it is not the issue being discussed. Again, the issue is "big govt and high taxes"

And no one has said "bigger is always better"

You implied the debate of free markets vs socialism (or to put it more accurately, free-market-ish and socialist-ish since neither ideals exist) in the OP. If we are assuming government is necessary for economic freedom, then economic freedom requires only a government that protects property rights, and by extension contracts. A government that only does two things could hardly be considered large.

That is closer to the mark. However, there has never been a nation whose govt limited itself to protecting property rights and contracts. Again, that is a myth.

The US has always intervened in the economy in many ways. The practice has even been enshrined in the constitution and the Framers spoke glowingly of a govt that promoted industry

We have never had a free market

No one has. It's a myth