A Moral Argument for Progressive Taxes - David Cay Johnston

[luizcadu]

Capitalism has proven to be the most effective system in creating wealth and rising living standards. However, it's not perfect. One of its flaws is that it concentrates too much of the wealth created by everyone in the hands of the very few who own the means of production (the worker is easier to be replaced than the capitalist). A slightely higher tax rate for those on the top is, in my view, a moral way, not to soak or punish them, but to 'correct' this imperfection.

[brunomiit]

this is retarded shit. progressive tax is BULLSHIT. If you have a proportional tax, you have: person A makes 50.000$ a year, pays 5.000$ in taxes, person B makes 5 million $ a year, pays 500.000$ a year in taxes. There is no need whatsoever for an IMMORAL progressive tax.

[warriorprince1010]

1. Governments are corrupt and thus not to be trusted to spend peoples money.

2. People should keep the money they earn. This is civil and fair.

3. Obama spent the biggest stimulus in history, not one new school was built.

4. Greece was a world power long before any tax rules were brought in. Oh and they fought as many wars as the USA have if not more. So corrupt governments do not spend money on schools anyway, so pay limit what they can spend and thus the damage they can do.

[warriorprince1010]

1. Governments are corrupt and thus not to be trusted to spend peoples money.

2. People should keep the money they earn.

3. Obama spent the biggest stimulus in history, not one new school was built. So corrupt governments do not spend money on schools anyway, so pay limit what they can spend.

[bblokar1]

Status:

Told [x]

Not told [ ]



[doooobies332]

We essentially have flat tax now, that is why we are 14 trillion in debt. If you add all taxes (federal, state, local) then the percentage difference of tax rates among the separate income earner is less than 10%...

the 2nd 20% pay at about 23%, while the top 20% pay about 28%..... Not that much different from a flat tax. A progressive taxation system is the only tax system to ever produce a balanced budget and a high standard of living for a country's citizens.

[TheDukeljk]

@doooobies332 Yeah if you dont work you dont eat, the reason is because of free loaders, fuck off.

[tigerhop]

"Civilization makes wealth possible." Yes, but only if you have low taxes. This guy doesn't understand economics. The person who has more money in his pocket, instead of giving it to government, buys the wealth of everyone around him. He has more money to spend on productivity. This guy is a socialist: "duty"?! It is our God-given right, stated by the founders of the constitution, to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and property. Government is inefficient, corrupt, and fraudulent.

[nickr1992]

@tigerhop Frankly, I don't understand the logic of the right wing libertarian view that taxation is theft. But that's largely beside the point. Surely if, as you say, 'government is inefficient, corrupt and fraudulent' you should promote its abolition. The bottom line here is that I see no evidence of any such movement on the libertarian right, and further, I don't suppose that Thomas Jefferson, whom libertarian conservatives invoke so frequently, would have ever posited something so ridiculous.

[TombaFanatic]

To the contrary, Jefferson removed as much of the taxes as he could while still being able to fund the federal government.

A quick search of "Jefferson" and "taxes" gave me a nice quote which perfectly fits the libertarian view. All government grow oppressive, it starts with taxes and public greed.

[TombaFanatic]

@nickr1992 Thomas Jefferson may not have advocated the total abolition government, but he was okay with the idea of keeping it weak. Preferably by constantly keeping the government weak rather than letting it get strong and trying to start over.

Most libertarians seem to hold Jefferson's opinions.

A few radicals figure (logically imo), that removing the state would fix the problems if done right.

[nickr1992]

@TombaFanatic I'm not an American, so I guess I'm not exposed to this same fanatical belief in freedom, but I do think that, although there may be a nobility to the libertarian cause, it does privilege a particular definition of freedom - ie. one in many ways directly proportional to the size of government. That seems to me to be a consequence of a dichotomy that has its roots in the Cold War, and is now conveniently exploited by the right.

[nickr1992]

@TombaFanatic Now don't get me wrong, I believe wholeheartedly in freedom, in fact, I think it's an inviolable right. But consideration must always be given to the ability of individuals to exercise that freedom. Freedom from government intervention does not imply equality of opportunity. This is where you and I disagree, in order for people to exercise their freedoms to the full, they need access to things like healthcare and education.

[nickr1992]

@TombaFanatic These are things that, for the economically disadvantaged, are simply not adequately provided for by the market, and even if they were, would in many cases be inaccessible for those of lesser fortune.

[TombaFanatic]

@nickr1992

What is? You say "these" like you listed examples, which neither our chain of posts or video show. Perhaps you meant "there"?

To that point, I would argue there is nothing necessary for living that a free market, in this already wealthy nations, would not provide to people cheaply. Of course the poor won't have luxury, but I doubt that is what you are talking about.

[nickr1992]

@TombaFanatic I had to split the post up. Refer to the ones before that. You'll be able to find them on your email account.

[nickr1992]

@TombaFanatic But look, ultimately your position amounts to unfounded dogma. There are very few things that I disagree with you on, I think freedom is incredibly important, and I also believe the market should by and large be left to its own devices. What I don't believe is that we should have zero taxes. That would be utter lunacy, particularly in a country like America where the top 5% of income earners earn 75% of total income. That should alarm even you.

[TombaFanatic]

@nickr1992

I doesn't alarm me. Mostly because that bottom 95% sharing the combined 25% of the wealth are actually pretty well off. You could say the rich are getting richer (which supposedly has been happening for at least a century now) and the poor are getting poorer (yet quality of life constantly improves). Inequality of wealth just doesn't equal poverty in my mind.

That being said, I don't think we'll ever see no taxes. I'd be okay with a revised tax code and more free market reforms.

[nickr1992]

@TombaFanatic All I can say is I hope you're not one of these libertarians who conveniently ignores the fact that the main overextension of government in recent times has been of a military nature. Whenever I hear this populist tea party clap trap about small government or lower taxes on Fox News, I think, if they really were concerned about debt ceilings and government spending, they'd be supporting a staged withdrawal from all military engagements - basically, a return to pre WWI Isolationism.

[TombaFanatic]

@nickr1992

Nope. I implied earlier I was a radical libertarian who would appreciate even some moderate libertarian reforms. The four wars the US is involved (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and the Drug War) in at the moment is causing nothing but financial burden and increasing the problems the government is trying to fix.

[perdondaris]

Rich people are the government. Check out the private fortunes of every member of Congress and the connections to big business every congressman has. Taxes have always had one purpose--to pay for wars. Revolutions have two inspirations: a lost war and tax hikes. Before the French and Russian Revolutions only the poor paid taxes.  The rich and the clergy paid NO taxes. War=Money, soldiers don't fight because of patriotism, soldiers fight because soldiers get paid.

[perdondaris]

In a truly just society (socialism) taxes are unnecessary as there is no privileged group (the State and the plutocratic oligarchy) leeching off the rest of society. In America the Republican Party represents the do nothing capitalist class (GOP--Government of Plutocracy) and the Democratic Party represents the middle class. As an anarchist i oppose all taxes because only the workers pay taxes, fight the wars, and do all the work. (e.g. during the Ancien Regime before the French Revolution)

[nocturnezero]

@perdondaris I wouldn't oppose taxes because they are a burden on workers (they are, you're right); I oppose them because it's an unjust seizure of wealth by the government. However, as long as private institutions hold incredible influence over society and the only entity that restricts their power is the state, I approve of some progressive taxation as long as it's used to dismantle private power. If we lived in a just and classless society, government (and taxes) would become unnecessary.

[nnlamb25]

Ok I don't get your question.  Are for or against flat tax?

[nnlamb25]

It's funny how progressive tax arguments are that it makes people feel good and happy, and if you think about it for 2 seconds then it makes sense. While the flat tax arguments actually show how it works and how it's world better to other countries and in history

[jshjamaarify]

@nnlamb25 How much do you get paid in salary? Think about it for a second.

Now, how much do you have left after those taxes?

[nnlamb25]

@jshjamaarify lol ok i thought of it, whats your point

[theAYSays]

Problem is, once the Athens did progressive taxation, it fell soon after.

[ezmoney5150]

@theAYSays Athens fell because of taxes?????? How laughable.

[theAYSays]

@ezmoney5150

Taxes greatly exacerbated Athens' social problems by making it harder on families, and discouraged the masses from working hard and saving up. Why save up when most of your money will go to the government? So much of the youth partied, drank, womanized... kind of like what's going on right now ._.

[ezmoney5150]

@theAYSays So you're saying that we are taxed too high and nobody wants to work? Wow! the top tax bracket is 39% for the richest of rich. Under that great liberal Dwight Eisenhower it was somewhere around 80%. Those years were some of the best economically. I guess that theory doesn't hold water.

[theAYSays]

@ezmoney5150

You're mistaking causation with correlation. The market takes time to adjust. After Eisenhower was a slow decline into the economic malady of the 70s. Also, your sarcastic tone isn't appreciated.

[ezmoney5150]

@theAYSays This isn't exactly a Lincoln Douglas debate here. Its a back and forth on Youtube. Sarcasm is expected. Believe it or not there is no right or wrong answer here. Just opinions. Which are worth about.........nothing.

[nocturnezero]

@theAYSays "Why save up when most of your money will go to the government?" Earning more will still yield you with more wealth. Unless the tax rate is >100%, earning or saving more money, even with the burden of taxation, will yield you with more money. Working harder and longer hours will make you wealthier. Just because you're obliged to use some of that money to fund the state doesn't make it so you lose money for working harder.

[theAYSays]

@nocturnezero

It's not so simple. At some point, people are going to be thinking that it's not worth the extra effort for a marginal gain after taxes. Furthermore, you forget to take into account the interdependency of economic transactions. When you tax someone, that wealth could have gone somewhere else. A corporation could have given that same money to higher wages, better products, lower prices on their products, toward more research, etc.

[nocturnezero]

@theAYSays When they are so wealthy as to be making only a marginal gain, their social contribution will likely be minimal to detrimental.

The motivation driving all economic exchanges is to derive the most from the exchange while spending the least. The executive power in a company - managers, property owners - aren't going to waste time improving the conditions of workers or bettering products when they could be taking surpluses for themselves.

[nocturnezero]

@theAYSays You're right, that money could've hypothetically gone to improving worker conditions and products, but it seems unlikely that it would. It doesn't do much better in the government's treasury, but it's at least nice to know maybe a dime or two will be going to public agencies that enforce bearable working conditions, ecological sustainability, and consumer protections.

[theAYSays]

@nocturnezero

There's a built in incentive to provide a better product for less cost; more people will buy the product, and you'll remain competitive. Prices lower, quality rises, and whenever someone saves money on one transaction, that money could go somewhere else. The majority of public agencies are unnecessary because consumers and workers are capable of choosing what's best for themselves, and companies can be sued through tort law if they damage others.

[nocturnezero]

@theAYSays If you are being challenged by a growing, smaller enterprise, yes (which isn't a very frequent situation in the current monopolostic market). There is motive to improve products, but the means by which this ability is attained often leads to environmental damage, doing harm to worker welfare, and clandestine consumer harm - these are far easier than actually researching and innovating goods and services.

[theAYSays]

@nocturnezero The reason why there are monopolies is because of the government's corporatist policies. Regulations, tax structures, subsidies, bailouts, printing money are all tools that promote large powerful corporations over competitors who would otherwise challenge them if there weren't government intervention.

[nocturnezero]

@theAYSays The idea that monopolies can't form in unregulated markets is a bit fantastical. Companies can still provide products for low prices of some quality without government assistance - some advocates of markets call these natural monopolies. The problems that arise from their external damage to environment, workers, and future society remain the same.

[theAYSays]

@nocturnezero These "natural monopolies" you're talking about are fine. Basically these are rare, and when they happen, it's because they produce a good product at a good price so well that no one else competes with them. These are also naturally short lived, so I don't think it's a concern.

[nocturnezero]

@theAYSays Consumers are capable of sorting their own interests, but they are provided with no information about a) possible undisclosed effects the product may have on them or b) what social costs on the environment and the labor that the product incurred. Workers have very few options, only the array of top-down corporate hierarchies that dominate the current market. They have no self-empowerment alternative because markets demand corporate divisons of labor.

[theAYSays]

@nocturnezero Again, it is up to consumers to learn about the product they are buying. We all do this, anyway. When I bought a car, I didn't just go grab the closest one, or even the cheapest one. I took my time and considered many factors. Workers have few options because our government policies frequently chase away many companies into foreign lands, as promote a few strong, well-connected corporations at the expense of smaller businesses who would be good competitors.

[nocturnezero]

@theAYSays Why? If a toy has lead in it, for example, and this isn't disclosed in the advertising but was published in an independent study, how is the consumer's responsibility to dig that up? Shouldn't it be the obligation of the salesman to disclose any and all dangers to the consumer?

[theAYSays]

@nocturnezero Your toy example would proceed in the following way in a free market society. One, independent organizations would warn about these problems, such as with Consumer's Report or Consumer's Digest. Two, the seller of those toys would be liable to be sued for personal injury (tort law) or breach of contract, as the consumer never agreed to buy a toxic toy. These two factors cost the seller enough money to prevent him from selling in the first place.

[theAYSays]

Toys don't have led these days these days not because of a certain law (I mean, try to find it) but rather because of these two forces in the free market.

[nocturnezero]

@theAYSays Companies can be sued for directly harming an individual, but a) isn't an economic structure where companies doing damage and then individuals seeking reparations is a built-in facet something deplorable? and b) nobody represents the future - that is to say, nobody monitors what effect private action will have on the environment, evaluates what effects those will have on future generations, and then brings companies to trial for those effects. It's too much work.

[theAYSays]

@nocturnezero "a) isn't an economic structure where companies doing damage and then individuals seeking reparations is a built-in facet something deplorable" How is this different from any law? If you break a regulatory law, you get a punishment. If you commit an action that harms consumers and get sued, you get a punishment. "b) considering that lawyers take on insane cases, I don't think it's too difficult to find lawyers who will sue these companies"

[nocturnezero]

@theAYSays a) It seems like there should be a built-in prevention that prevents the harm in the first place, especially where the harm may be irreparable. b) The trouble isn't finding lawyers, it's finding someone willing to closely monitor and evaluate what externalities companies incur in their day-to-day practices.

[theAYSays]

@nocturnezero Again, there's nothing preventing a company from saying "okay, this is against the law, but we're going to do it anyway and hope we won't get caught." In fact, that's what happened with the BP oil spill. They ignored tons and tons of regulations. Same with the nuclear reactors in Japan. But what do both companies have in common? The government shields them from proper liability damages via law.

[MaudsPas]

Americans have no idea that the wealth distribution (defined in terms of "net worth") is as concentrated as it is. When shown three pie charts representing possible wealth distributions, 90% or more of the 5,522 respondents -- whatever their gender, age, income level, or party affiliation -- thought that the American wealth distribution most resembled one in which the top 20% has about 60% of the wealth. In fact, of course, the top 20% control about 85% of the wealth

[MaudsPas]

Wealth has been redistributed from the middle class to the super rich for 40 years. That's the main reason we are in another great depression.

[MrSteveParr]

@MaudsPas Under Carter 1977s CRA stated that banks have an “affirmative obligation” to meet the credit needs of the poor. 1989 congress amended the HMDA forcing banks to collect racial data on mortgage apps. On the basis of racial discrimination when in fact it was financial discrimination. 1992 DHUD pressured Freddie and Fanny to purchase or securitize large bundles of risky loans to diversify the risk and make more money available for more risky loans.

[MrSteveParr]

@MaudsPas 1995 Clintons Treasury Dept. issued regulations tracking loans by neighborhood, income level and race to rate a banks performance. these reports were used to determine if banks would be allowed to merge/acquire/expand. It also made billions in tax dollars available to banks for down payment assistance for these loans. This in turn gave groups like ACORN and NACA leverage on banks to lend to those with bad credit and low income.

[MrSteveParr]

@MaudsPas 1999 Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall. This is how the $4.5 trillion “sub prime” loan industry was born. A by-product of which was the derivative market that turned the mortgage market into a time bomb that would magnify the housing bust by orders of magnitude. All of this lead to the credit markets drying up and the ensuing stagnation and recession of our economy and quickly spread to global markets.

[MaudsPas]

@MrSteveParr It wasn't just one piece of legislation. It was many in combination. It was 40 years of deregulation culture being nurtured by the revolving door relationship with Wall Street. All Championed by the radical right wingers. Glass-Steagall was repealed in parts and the most important measures were repealed under Bush 1.

[MaudsPas]

Like how republicans repealed critical regulation put in place after the last Great Depression, that is what caused the current crisis. Government undoing something the people had to fight for over 80 years ago.

[MaudsPas]

We don't even have a light progressive income tax. We have a highly REGRESSIVE income tax. Not to mention income tax is just one tax, for other forms of tax the rich pay next to nothing..

Income tax rates have been cut on the rich for 50 years, while they have gone up on middle class and working families, its time to stop the REGRESSIVE taxation policies of the republicans.

[TheMethadoneParty]

PROGRESSIVES ARE EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ezmoney5150]

@TheMethadoneParty Please!!!!!

[1RationalMind]

The logic of "the more assets you have to defend, the more you ought to provide for their defense" is sound, rational logic- as long as the taxes go pay for actual defense- the military, police & courts. It's the acts of redistribution- welfare, etc., that are not clearly morally supportable by this argument. These actions of government setup a scenario where the haves pay for the have-nots via government force. The common justification is "they have plenty". True- but that's no moral argument.

[MaudsPas]

@1RationalMind You have clearly never worked a day in your life. Some people are born poor, they shouldn't get welfare? Learn about the real world before you spout off hannity talking points\propaganda. These are important times, we don't need more ignoramuses like you around gumming up the works.

Wealth has been redistributed from the middle class to the super rich for 40 years. That's the main reason we are in another great depression.

[MaudsPas]

@1RationalMind More of the same isn't going to work.

[sinistar99]

@1RationalMind "government setup a scenario where the haves pay for the have-nots via government force. " Youremissing the fact that the Havs got their money FROM the have-nots VIA GOVERNMENT FORCE! Who do you think provided the roads their products were shipped? Educated their workforce? protects their property? gave money via a thousand forms of corporate welfare... You think the rich just pulled their money magically from their asses? It came from workers, concumers and tax payers.

[sinistar99]

@1RationalMind What do you think the defense of their property is? It's redistribution of wealth. What do you Who builds the roads they ship stuff on? Who educates their workforce and consumers not to mention literally gives them money in corporate welfare? Subsidies, grants... think about how Verizon makes money with GPS in their phones.. did they build the space program and put those satellites up? Wealth gets distributed... as long as it's to rich people conservatives are happy.

[sinistar99]

@sinistar99 Oops I thought you were somebody else... didn't have to tell you twice! heheh

[mwb5010]

@ MrSteveParr, Completely agree with you. No one, even the IRS "experts" completely understand that 9million word abomination. What is lost in this message is that thru our current system the rich are paying regressive taxation, Warren Buffet has a team of experts managing his investments, charitable giving etc, and he claims to only pay near 14% yearly in taxes, versus the 35%+ middle america pays. Flat tax is the only fair and just means of taxation. Hong Kong shows the rewards of it.

[MrSteveParr]

Progressive taxation is like climbing a ladder with each rung spaced a little farther than the rung before. A progressive tax system only makes it harder for people like myself in the middle class to reach and pull myself to the upper class. If a person making $50,000 at tax rate of 10% in taxes he/she pays $5,000 in taxes. A person that makes $500,000 at a tax rate of 10% he/she pays $50,000. that’s as progressive as it needs to be.

[sinistar99]

@MrSteveParr You've got it completely wrong. A progressive tax system actually creates more economic activity and gives more people more opportunities to succeed. Someone who makes 500,000 benifits more than 10 percent from the society. No one creates or produces their wealth all by themselves. A hedge fund manager makes millions and creates nothing.

[sinistar99]

THere's a certain point where you're making more money but not really creating or benefiting anything. At that point you're actually hurting the economy and society you live in. Hence the last 30 years of the shrinking middle class and unstable economy.

[MrSteveParr]

@sinistar99 And what point is that? How have you been adversely effected by Bill Gates personal wealth accumulation?

[MaudsPas]

@MrSteveParr Its the collective effect of shifting the tax burden onto the middle class. Not just bill gates. Anytime you lower taxes on the super rich, the middle class and poor have to pay more taxes in order to be revenue neutral.

We are moving toward slavery and tyranny by moving to the right, now you want to jump off the cliff?

[sinistar99]

@MrSteveParr YES! Absolutely a lot of businesses have been squashed byt it. In the 90s they did the equivalent of Ford Motor Company buying all the parking lots and making them such that only Fords could park there. It's anti-competition which takes away all the benefits of a "free market." Also the more concentrated wealth is, the less economic activity and opportunities for everyone else. There are plenty of very pure capitalist countries. Singapore is a good model. Check that out.

[sinistar99]

@MrSteveParr Also... Bill gates could not have accumulated his wealth without a LOT of help from our government and our society. Here's a quote from Bill Gates' father: "Most of the things that have generated the enormous advances in our economy are things that started on some campus or in some laboratory, ...And most of those are because the government financed it."

[MrSteveParr]

@sinistar99 Collective law that attacks the life, liberty or property of the individual is in opposition to its self. Life, liberty and property do not exist because man has made law. Life, liberty and property predate law and are superior to it. Protection of individual law is the justification for the existence collective law.

[sinistar99]

@MrSteveParr . Life, liberty and property predate law? Property is a fairly new concept. The only reason you "own property" is because an imaginary boundary is on a piece of paper in a government building. And the people who own the property upstream of yours can't build a parking lot on it and create surface stormwater flow without creating a detention pond that will mitigate the impervious area. Thanks big government!

[sinistar99]

@MrSteveParr My point with that is that because of this aweful government you are free to persue what you want and not have to get your degree in hydrology to figure out why your place is flooding. The government has people that have done that for you. I used to be one. A little earlier I didn't even know the science existed. Nor do you have to test your food for bochelism. The government is "us" and it's not separate from the free market. They are one big thing.

[unintent]

This guy is confusing flat tax, pole tax, and progressive tax. What he IS describing is when the Greeks went from a pole tax to a flat tax. The Greek did not have a progressive tax back then.

[scooter10747]

The progressive income tax kills the incentive to work harder and make more. Why is it that if you make more money then you should have a higher tax bracket? If you make more then logically, you will spend more. When we are taxed on consumption then the incentive is there, not stymied. And remember, there is NO taxation with the Fair Tax on used items....like cars, because the tax was paid when it was new. Rich people don't want "used cars"...the rest of us are fine with them.

[SirPwn4lot]

@scooter10747 Fair tax also results in the rich paying orders of magnitude less percentage of their income in tax, which results in massive tax rises on the poor, who spend a large chunk of their income.

[MrSteveParr]

@SirPwn4lot Not to mention that the “poor” would be able to pay their rent, child care, and all of their utilities before paying any taxes to the federal government.

[sinistar99]

@scooter10747" The progressive income tax kills the incentive to work harder and make more." No it doesn't. That sounds good but in reality it's ridiculous. If you make more you actually spend less as a percentage. 1000 people with a thousand dollars spend a LOT more than 1 person with a million dollars. Pretty soon all the economic activity that would otherwise be creating incentive and innovation gets hoarded in Swiss bank accounts and fake subsidiaries off shore.

[sinistar99]

@sinistar99 If that were true then the Bush Tax cuts which vastly disproportionately benefited the very rich should have stimulated the economy and created more jobs right? When was that supposed to start happening?

[m3RacerBitch]

I like this guy I'm going out to buy the book.

[wotmot223]

Obfiously most posting here haven't a clue what he is talking about or what his books are about. Sounds great to talk about his lack of knowledge, ya'll might try to improve your own knowledge on the subjects he speaks on. Or do you actually think everyone should pay say, 2,000 dollars a year in taxes, same amount regardless of income?

[1911emp]

Then he starts ascribing life to a mystical "civilization". Civilization is just individual behavior toward one another. People may elect to pay for certain services, build and maintain roads together (by choice, privately), but they need not be forced to do so. Economic gain comes from work and risk. Civilization gives everyone opportunity, but the collective has no claim on a person's output. This is not democracy; this is theft.

[MaudsPas]

@1911emp If you had to run around and worry about basic things like roads, sewers, drinking water, electricity, safe food, etc all things government has a role generating, you wouldn't have time to talk on your blackberry because no one would be a engineering, (specialist)

Without specialists you can't have a strong economy. Without progressive taxation there is no division of labor and specialization which leads to low efficiency, low output economies. Fox is wrong. Reality is right.

[1911emp]

@MaudsPas All those things can be done voluntarily. Just because government does some of them now and extorts people to pay for them doesn't mean that's the only way such things can be provided. People would still be engineering and doing all manner of specialized things. You might as well say computers won't be made because the government doesn't build them. Nobody said anything about Fox. Taxation is not connected to division of labor, an economic concept that does not require forcible theft.

[MaudsPas]

@1911emp No one is being extorted, stop dramatizing. How could people be engineers without a supporting society..?? Think about it. The closest model we have to the libertarian hell hole you describe, and which we are quickly approaching, is countries like Haiti and Afghanistan. It has never worked. We need to end the trickle down slavery that has been destroying our economy and middle class for 40 years.

[1911emp]

@MaudsPas I have no problem with a supporting society, just with compulsion. Actually, Haiti is a constitutional republic and Afghanistan is also a republic; neither make any pretense to libertarianism. Freedom has always made people and nations better off. Your model? The Soviet Union. You can read all about it at your local library.

[sinistar99]

@1911emp "Your model? The Soviet Union. You can read all about it at your local library.

1911emp 1 week ago " Why the Soviet Union? Why do people always bring up cuba or the USSR or China when they want to talk about socialism?" Why not oh say Denmark? Germany? Japan? France? Italy? Holland? better schools better health care the people live longer have less enfant mortality rate less crime and fewer people in prison... Maybe they're doing something right. That we're not.

[1911emp]

@sinistar99 The Soviet Union is a better example of a more complete socialism. Sure, some of those countries have elements of socialism, but they also have elements of freedom too.

[sinistar99]

@1911"emp have elements of socialism, but they also have elements of freedom too." Socialism and Freedom can be both together just fine. Capitalism goes really well with Fascism. I can't remember the quote exactly, "Capitalism has defeated communism in the Soviet Union.  And In America Capitalism has defeated Democracy."

[MaudsPas]

@sinistar99 What is your model? Haiti. Get real.

[MaudsPas]

@1911emp You have no clue how much you rely on the government.

Food safety, roads, electricity, potable water, sewers, dams, clean air, the list goes on and on. Like I said, turn of Faux news and learn about the real world, not the opposite of the real world.

[1911emp]

@MaudsPas I understand the government does many things now, usually because they promise to harm or even kill anyone competing with them. What I am saying is that there is a better way that doesn't involve extorting and forcing people.

And quit being an idiot with the Fox/Faux news thing. I don't watch it. But even if I watched it 24 hours a day it would be absolutely irrelevant to the education I'm trying to provide you.

Consider picking up an economics book - you may learn something.

[MaudsPas]

@1911emp You didn't talk about the economy at all you dolt.

If I wanted your opinion I would turn on Fox news.

[1911emp]

@MaudsPas Run off and crawl under a bridge with the other trolls.

[sinistar99]

@1911emp No one is being forced or extorted. There is no Iron Curtan here. You can leave pretty much any time you want. I would love to see Libartarians do that. Go take all the wealth you made in this horrible society pool it together with all the other libartarians and buy an island and start your own government-less paradise with no "extortion." It will never happen because it doesn't work. I'd love to be proven wrong about that though.

[1911emp]

@sinistar99 A person being robbed is under no obligation to leave, and states tend to claim (by force if not by right) all habitable territory on earth. So we do our best to educate people about possibilities of a free society, and there are some movements like the Free State Project and Southern Liberty Project that aim to collect liberty supporters in one area, with some limited success.

[sinistar99]

I wouldn't necessarily say Haiti or Afghanistan but certainly those and other 3rd world countries are examples of smaller less intrusive government. None of that pesky communist entitlement programs or liberal socialist protections for workers and consumers. Very low taxes too.

[sinistar99]

@1911emp "All those things can be done voluntarily." Sure they can... Go get together with all the other libertarians and move to an island and have your government-free paradise. See how fast boat refugees start coming back here... Good luck.

[sinistar99]

@MaudsPas ...Not to mention that blackberry is bouncing signals off satellites put up there by the government space program and it was easy for the makers of the blackberry to define the microwave frequencies because of the FCC and billions of dollars in grants. Oh but we're all against re-distribution of wealth! heheh

[MaudsPas]

@1911emp He was talking about Athens retard... Nothing mystical about that, turn off Fox news and read a book.

[sinistar99]

@1911emp "Economic gain comes from work and risk. Civilization gives everyone opportunity, but the collective has no claim on a person's output. This is not democracy; this is theft.": Wow none of that is true at all. You have it completely back asswards. You think that "opportunity" comes for free? Did Verizon put up the satelites that they make money from with their GPS phones? No we the society did. Who builds the roads they ship their products on?

[1911emp]

@sinistar99 Verizon either put them up or paid to lease them and generated more value than the cost to lease them - in effect creating wealth. There is no "society". And who builds the roads is entirely irrelevant because the state forcibly excludes competition and forces people to pay for their projects.

[sinistar99]

@1911emp Verizon doesn't pay a single dime for the use of GPS satelites. Never has. Nor has Verizon put up a single Sattelite. They do pay fee for communication "packages" but not for GPS at all. Nor did they pay anything for the space program all the science research that went into making any of that in the first place. They are disproportionately benefiting form the commons and they and their shareholders and owe a disproportionate amount back to it. Why is that so hard to understand?

[1911emp]

@sinistar99 Good for Verizon; they got a heck of a deal then. Of course all that public research was a gift anyway, so they owe nothing. Why is that so hard to understand?

[sinistar99]

@1911emp It's not "mystical" it's reality. And of course the collective has a claim to your output because the collective put a lot of money and work into your output. It's not theft at all it's the deal you make when you use the roads, system of commerce police fire and thousand other things you take for granted. To say you did it all by yourself is ridiculous and Not to give back IS theft.

[1911emp]

@sinistar99 Sorry, no magical unsigned contracts.

[sinistar99]

@1911emp "Sorry no magical unsigned contracts." It's not "magic" if you go into a store and take a bite of a candy bar you just agreed to pay for it or else you're stealing it. You took a bite of the candy bar by enjoying all the benefits and opportunities of this free society that didn't get here by "magic" we all paid for them. If you don't want to pay then you're stealing them. But it's not a forced contract. There's no "Iron Curtain" here --feel free to leave any time!

[1911emp]

@sinistar99 The store owner owns the store and the candy bar, and ownership does not transfer without a mutual exchange. However, anything in a public (unowned, generally owned) setting can be taken by anyone. Morally, nobody has to leave, except the bandits - the state.

[sinistar99]

@1911emp If anything is "Mystical" it's the "magical unseen hand" of the "free market" that is supposed to sprinkle free market fairy dust on everything and make it work better. Less government power = more corporate power. You're just trading one extortion for another. I'm picking the one that has a bill of rights and I can vote for people in it and stuff.

[1911emp]

@sinistar99 Less government power = more individual liberty. Corporations can't extort people; they have to persuade them to trade. Governments extort and use force against peaceful individuals. Naturally, corporations (just, after all, voluntary groups of individuals) are superior in every way.

[nocturnezero]

@1911emp Corporations inherently extort by directing wealth that is derived from goods and services created by the workers of the lower tiers, in large part, to the people who enjoy ownership of vast tracts of land, manufacturing plants, and tools by which goods are produced. The corporate structure allows for (and encourages) unjust extortion of wealth from who you may call the "creators" of wealth (though they only collect it) by those who own the instruments of labor.

[1911emp]

It's fascinating how without a government suddenly this jungle appears. That's when he begins to go off the rails. If one did build a house in a stateless region, one could still hire people to protect it. If a group built houses in that region, they could decide not to infringe on each others' property and some might choose to hire others to defend them against aggressors; or the entire group would resist outside invaders.

[sinistar99]

Without a government the jungle is there. It doesn't "appear." That's why your plan has never worked EVER.  I make money --some of that money I didn't really earn because it pays for the society I live in --It's actually a really good deal. Competition with roads would be absurd. Competion with water? Judges? give me a break. the "free market" is not the best model for everything. Some things are done better as a society than as individuals get over it.

[1911emp]

@sinistar99 Without a government, individuals are free to invent, to create, to build, to trade. Whenever freedom is tried - even in limited ways - prosperity follows. You may like your deal, and be happy with your chains and to lick the hands that feed you; not everyone is. Competition with anything would be sensible; judges especially. There is nothing done as "a society": some oligarchs are exercising force, that's it. A free market would allow for individual choice.

[MaudsPas]

@1911emp HA you're 12. How cute.

[austenbosten]

My god...FINALLY!!!! a YouTube video that actually is not in favour of a flat or "fair" tax

[actualizeU]

The current healthcare debate is a perfect case in point. Clearly reform which will end the monopolies of the big insurance companies and establish an affordable public insurance program is in the interest of the vast majority of citizens

[actualizeU]

It seems to me this key fact is the sickness of our me first age. We think it is ok to lookout for me and my family, and to ignore the millions who are hungry, sick and living in poverty.

This needs to change but, until we stop legalized bribery via PACs and Lobbyist, our political system will continue to serve the interests of the top 1% at the expense of the rest of us.

[actualizeU]

I am concerned with the guy making $30K with 4 kids. If we dont create an adequate education and healthcare system to give his family the means to become productive members of society, we have failed him, his children and our moral responsibility to care for others as we would have them care for us.

It seems to me this key fact is the sickness of our me first age. We think it is ok to lookout for me and my family, and to ignore the millions who are hungry, sick and living in poverty.

[sinistar99]

@actualizeU Actually you're more right than you probably know. It's actually beneficial to us as individuals to take care of people who are less fortunate, because once their basic needs are met (which is very cheap to do) people become net producers and generally give back more than they take. It's cheaper to give someone housing and food than give them housing and food in prison. Not to mention the cost of whatever put them there.

[actualizeU]

A graduated tax system is moral and ethical. It is also necessary, because the top 1% of the population has more wealth than the bottom 95%.

If a CEO makes $10, million and the tax rate is 70% he still has $3 million to live on. Now, if this is not an incentive for him to work as hard, then he could work less and spend more time with his family, or giving something back to the society which enables him to become so prosperous. Either way, its no hardship to live on $3 or 1.5 million.

[policydynamics]

He doesn't mention anything about the rate of progressive taxation -- i.e. the extent to which your taxes go up as you move up the income scale (i.e. the "marginal" tax rate). For example, if for every additional dollar you make, 70 percent of it has to go toward taxes, then there's little or no incentive to work harder. That doesn't go hand in hand with democracy. It destroys democracy. The speaker needs to specify what he thinks the optimal marginal tax rate is.

[sinistar99]

@policydynamics "70 percent of it has to go toward taxes, then there's little or no incentive to work harder" Frankly I don't give a rats ass about a billionaire's incentive to make another billion. At that point they're really not contributing anywhere near proportional to thier income so who cares? The specifics on the numebrs are a whole huge complex discussion but we have to first understand why there needs to be a progressive tax system and why it works.

[psionicman]

marxbitesall raises an interesting point, the only way a money commodity can ever become devalued relative to other commodities is if it is a fiat currency printed by a strong central government. it's a well known fact that all the gold in the universe had been discovered by the late 1500s and there's nothing that might make a metal based money commodity unexpectedly change in value. therefore anyone out there thinking that marxbitesall is just an elaborate, overwrought troll is surely mistaken

[marxbitesall]

As for inflation, there is only one source and it always has been and will be a function of the quantity of the money supply; the printing of additional unbacked paper money receipts which lowers the purchasing power of all of them. Even Freidman capitulated on this; as Bernanke even quotes when HE takes responsibility for 1929 in his apology to Milton & Anna.

You were gyped in your education cuz you got the govt's lie packed version like I once was the dupe of too.

[marxbitesall]

Plus you refuse to answer even one direct question - guess you can't eh?

Real money keeps govts honest - and we no longer have neither thanks to Lincoln, Wilson, FDR & Nixon. All puppets of the money powers behind them just like Hamilton & good job Aaron Burr!!!

In America less than 1% of history or economics falculties consider themselves Republicans or Libertarians. They are almost wholely staffed w/big govt leftists on purpose.

[side1981]

can you cite that number?

[marxbitesall]

Well that's all well and good too. However, I have found that my public educrats, the UofF, govt & media are big fat liars and have been since the progressives created the Gen'l Education Board to install Marxists & Keynesians to get the Euro-dictator style mercantilism they all were drooling after.

Jackson reprehensible actions against native Americans has NOTHING to do with private for profit banks charging the people interest and issuing money receipts in excess of specie on deposit.

[marxbitesall]

Explain how specie has ever been to blame for ANY financial problems when after 1000's of years free markets chose the metals as being the best commodity money to eliminate the problem of double coincidence of wants w/barter?

Name one "govt" that didn't debase their money, or print more from nothing, IOWs, steal from the people their money's purchasing power, when they could get away with it.

Bankers have done this w/govt's sanctions - 1st overseas, the people NEVER wanted fiat scrip

[marxbitesall]

The THREE branches are a collusion of oligarchic despots now thanks to Lincoln, TR, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Nixon......

ALL the central banks have been private for profit fiat cartels.

WhyTF should I pay a "FED" interest for using my own money? That's how Jackson pd the debt.

Waddya think Ron Paul is trying to do? The ONLY legislator that upholds his sworn oath.

[ourearthhome]

Unearned incomes you ask? All economists agree that income from labor and capital (tools of production) are earned. They all agree but will not talk about the fact that all incomes from ownership of land and natural resources is wholly unearned. Taxing unearned incomes from land via royalty or land value taxes automatically produces a progressive tax system since land is highly concentrated in ownership. Untaxing labor and capital eliminates the legitimate complaints about unjust taxation.

[ourearthhome]

Progressive taxation is a nice half baked idea. The problem, aside from the fact that it has been never been achieved, is that its modern proponents refuse to make any distinction between earned and unearned incomes and happily think that taxing any and everything is totally appropriate since money in your pocket from any source means you have the "ability" to pay. The whole loaf would be to tax unearned incomes heavily which would automatically be progressive and untax earned incomes/wealth.

[marxbitesall]

a) 100% self ownership & b) property rights in first appropriation of previously unowned resources.

Protect a & b with laws - and the result is peace.

MadBam likes $4.00 gas, $1000 gold, 200k houses.

I bought a NEW '72 VW for $1,989.00.

Inflation hurts the aged & fixed incs worse, its criminal robbery same as when kings debased coins & pocketed the profit.

The FED is an unconstitutional cartel w/all 3 branches colluding in it's special interest birth.

[marxbitesall]

Yeah right keep shoveling.

Ole Hickory killed the cartel monopoly bank, balanced the budget, and PAID OFF ALL the debt. Never been done since.

Now please fess up and admit who told you all those lies you bought hook line and sinker. I know who used to have me fooled.

[MadBam163]

First, understand what I'm saying. No where do I say that the Fed does not cause inflation -- it does, just not all or most of it. The Fractional Reserve System causes most inflation through loans, a central bank causes some by printing money, and prevents catastrophic money creation through a reserve ratio. I never said the Fed is doing a good job at such prevention. Also, the Fed may well be unconstitutional -- so take it to the Supreme Court -- that's what its there for.

[MadBam163]

Second, know ALL the history. The BUS was a terrible central bank -- it was basically a tool of the Whig Party -- and, therefore, should have been replaced. Jackson believed that ALL banks were bad and that a giant bank must then be awful, so he eliminated it. This is what caused the problem, not the debt elimination or balancing of the budget -- although if done recklessly those could theoretically cause other problems.

[MadBam163]

Thirdly, Jackson is the President who intentionally disregarded a Supreme Court ruling to send an entire people into genocide. The Trial of Tears was an intentional act that was designed to forcibly remove and, therefore, destroy in whole or in part the Cherokee nation -- Jackson ordered it.

Lastly, my source of information is an Economics course, several history courses, and my own independent scholarship. I have sought out my own information and come up with my own views based on all facts.

[marxbitesall]

Just another court historian this guy.

How about the ultra wealthy who's fortunes live forever tax free in trusts and foundations too many of which agotate for bigger govt. Leave the common millionaire alone, get the big bucks from the assholes DCJ writes to protect. Trust me, socialism is NEVER about the little guy, it's about taking your power and freedom by dictation.

[marxbitesall]

Abolish America's sole source of inflation, the Fed, it's printing press of debasement, and the interest charged us for each dollar it creates from nothing.

W/no Fed there's no interest, ergo no taxes or IRS. Easy! Just as it was when America followed it's constitution as it was intended, versus what it could be contorted into for re-election and crony "capitalism" which is fascist mercantilism like KGIII's was. Paper money returns to it's intrinsic value - zero!

[MadBam163]

The Fed does not have total control of the money supply, even though it print $ most money is, in fact, created by banks when they lend out assets to people. A bank gives a person a loan that they can now spend to buy what they need, yet the loan is still the banks property. The bank still has the money and the person also has the money, money is created through loans. The Fed through the Fractional Reserve Ratio is what limits a banks capacity to lend meaning it keeps the value of the $ stable.

[MadBam163]

The system by which banks create money through loans is called Fractional Reserve System and has been in existence for over 200yrs. -- obviously longer than the Fed has been around. The System was invented by banks when they realized people didn't take out all their money at any one time. They realized that they could make loans using depositor money and, moreover, were able to lend out more than half the money to increase profit margins on the loans.

[MadBam163]

The Fractional Reserve System existed when gold backed the $ and the only thing that prevented the gold backed $ from collapsing was a central bank like the Fed. For example, when Andrew Jackson eliminated the B.U.S. their was a massive increase in banks' ability to lend and wanting to make a profit they exploited it. This led to the panic of 1837 and many subsequent economic/monetary collapses. A central bank is the best stabilizer of money value in Fractional Reserve System.

[MadBam163]

Correction to 2nd comment: Federal Reserve Ratio not Fractional.

[marxbitesall]

You are completely wrong in every respect. Name one fiat currency that didn't go bust? Name one instance when it wasn't ALL in the King's financial interest to debase? Inflation is purely debasement via printing.

Greenspan prefers gold as he stated in a 1966 Rand article, and as well today, as the only way to keep govt honest. The lying banker whore was a traitor to the constitution that contemplated only specie (metals). For fame, power and fortune he betrayed his own & founding beliefs.

[marxbitesall]

Blow your fedspeak out ur shorts.

ALL the banking failures were due to govts touch. Otherwise banks, like ALL MF'g biz's, only survive when the people trust them w/their money. Fract'l banking = printing from thin air = inflation.

Ever held much real gold or silver?? U just know its the best money man ever discovered; it and free markets are the greatest boons mankind ever had.

Gold guards against govt predations just like our guns do. We've been losing liberty for 100yrs. I'm done.

[putittogether]

"Author David Cay Johnston discusses the history of progressive taxation, and argues that these policies are inherent to a democratic government."

But not in a REPUBLIC. Democracy is MOB rule. A democratic republic is something completely different.