The real reason for today's economic problems

[Aimless]

No, not tax the hell, a 20% tax. I pay far more than 20% tax already.

The issue is that I pay far more than that, but its still not enough for what they spend.

Well, yeah, but you have to put it into context. To paraphrase Lewkowski, being a commoner in Ancient Egypt sucked compared to being poor and old in today's West.

I get Joseph's wisdom, but perhaps his wisdom would be better applied to/by individuals and companies.

How much would a govt. need to hold in reserve in its warchest, and what would the returns be?

[CitizenCain]

Why don't you address the topic, instead of making up new tangents as you go along?

Here, here. Back to how the j00s moved on from stealing Egyptian grain in the olden times to stealing American jobs today.

Are you and Cain are trying to make the same argument about taxes as the GOP? That they're always bad, evil, punitive, etc. That all we have to do to spur growth in the US economy and create new jobs is.....cut taxes and cut public spending! To quote aggie---prove it.

Wrong again. You fools are the ones proposing the change, you fools need to prove it's a good idea. Letting people keep the money they've earned requires neither proof nor justification, as it is the natural order of things. On the other hand, forcibly taking those earnings from people does require justification or proof, or in the modern case, a populous of drooling morons who'd fall over and die without the constant supervision and instruction of mommy and daddy Uncle Sam.

[Aimless]

You fools are the ones proposing the change, you fools need to prove it's a good idea. Letting people keep the money they've earned requires neither proof nor justification, as it is the natural order of things.

Well that's a bit of a reach. Money is about as natural as taxation and we've had both at the same time for, like, a long time

[Nessus]

Letting people keep the money they've earned requires neither proof nor justification, as it is the natural order of things.

Citation needed!

[Loki]

You're a history buff, so you know our Gilded Age had incredibly high taxes on the upper classes, and there was still profit and incentives to invest. It's also known that even Reagan raised taxes, and the Clinton era had some higher rates, too.

Try again. There wasn't even an income tax until 1913.

[CitizenCain]

Well that's a bit of a reach. Money is about as natural as taxation and we've had both at the same time for, like, a long time

Money is merely an abstraction of work product. A common medium so we don't have to compare 12 bushels of wheat with 8 pounds of beef with 17 ball bearings with 643.7 debugged lines of Perl with 12% of an iPod. Unless you want to do those conversions by hand, of course. But regardless of how you calculate things, the natural order is that you keep the fruits of your labor, (or give it to that hot female baboon for sekzing) not that you get shot unless you give up ~half of it.

Citation needed!

Nature, human history prior to the 1900's.

[Aimless]

Try again. There wasn't even an income tax until 1913.

In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an “inheritance” tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation's 90-year history—more than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911.

Read more: History of the Income Tax in the United States — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A00059...#ixzz1YbsdUpDw

Of course, hardly what you'd call high rates

[Nessus]

Nature, human history prior to the 1900's.

"Because I say so"? Okay, Billy!

[Aimless]

Money is merely an abstraction of work product. A common medium so we don't have to compare 12 bushels of wheat with 8 pounds of beef with 17 ball bearings with 643.7 debugged lines of Perl with 12% of an iPod. Unless you want to do those conversions by hand, of course. But regardless of how you calculate things, the natural order is that you keep the fruits of your labor, (or give it to that hot female baboon for sekzing) not that you get shot unless you give up ~half of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax#History

I'm pretty sure people have been forced to give up some or much of the fruits of their labour--in various forms, including bushels of wheat--since long before the 1900s. It's a good thing the govt. makes it so much easier for you to exchange wheat for beef though, not to mention cheat college dropouts blind

[Loki]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax#History

I'm pretty sure people have been forced to give up some or much of the fruits of their labour--in various forms, including bushels of wheat--since long before the 1900s. It's a good thing the govt. makes it so much easier for you to exchange wheat for beef though, not to mention cheat college dropouts blind

Of course, hardly what you'd call high rates

They were later ruled unconstitutional. And as you say, 3% isn't exactly a high tax.

[CitizenCain]

"Because I say so"? Okay, Billy!

Fine by me. Then again, I'm knowledgeable enough to know I'm right, and you can't find an example of gross taxation rates even nearing 50% before Marxism took off starting in the 1900's. Nor, of course, do animals generally pay taxes or have governments to pay those taxes to, but by all means, do feel free to call these politically inconvenient historical facts "because I said so"-assertions for all the difference it makes to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax#History

I'm pretty sure people have been forced to give up some or much of the fruits of their labour--in various forms, including bushels of wheat--since long before the 1900s. It's a good thing the govt. makes it so much easier for you to exchange wheat for beef though, not to mention cheat college dropouts blind

"that you get shot unless you give up ~half of it."

The bolded/underlined part would be the qualifier you seem to have ignored. I know that all governments levy taxes. However, even back in the days of serfdom, when nobles OWNED serfs (for all intents and purposes), the serfs didn't pay anywhere near 50% taxation (10-25%, depending) like we do now. Hell, the entire country of America was founded in large part because of the unreasonably high taxes Britain levied on the colonies, which amounted to around 5% of income per year. 5%, the horror. I'd personally kill 100,000 people for that outrageous tax rate that we rebelled against Britain for.

The ridiculously high tax rates in the socialist Western World are an anomaly, and historically unprecedented, contrary to how proponents of big government (like Col-Q and Nessie) like to portray things with graphs and cartoons that only go back as far as the historically recent rise of Marxism. And as far as I can see, the world's worse off for it, not better, so before giving up any more ground to the adherents of a widely discredited economic/political theory, we should really get some evidence that there's a benefit to be had, or assurances that it won't work out like it did last time with ~a quarter billion deaths.

But, I'm a crazy nutter like that, I guess, not wanting to give up half my money to finance a very expensive way to kill off a quarter billion people I have no problem with, asking counter-revolutionary questions like why we don't do it cheaper, treasonous questions like why we're doing it all and other related insanity.

[Nessus]

Fine by me. Then again, I'm knowledgeable enough to know I'm right, and you can't find an example of gross taxation rates even nearing 50% before Marxism took off starting in the 1900's. Nor, of course, do animals generally pay taxes or have governments to pay those taxes to, but by all means, do feel free to call these politically inconvenient historical facts "because I said so"-assertions for all the difference it makes to me.

If you're not interested in having a dialogue, why are you here?

More to the point, most of human history consisted of societies revolving around some manner of slave labour. I'm honestly unsure what kind of point you're trying to make with "nature" and "human history" here. I guess you can't be taxed if you can't own anything, and in fact are property yourself? *shrug*

It's not like property laws/rights are somehow "natural", that boar will tax you for a literal pound of flesh if you don't bash its head in.

Racism is probably far more natural than the concept of property, but I doubt you'll be attending KKK meetings any time soon?

[Khendraja'aro]

Nessus, he doesn't let little historical things like serfdom or even slavery come into the way of his war against reality.

I mean, those guys were required to work their liege's farm first and pay taxes for whatever they raised on their own lands!

[Nessus]

Another argument in favour of their second amendment, huh?

[CitizenCain]

If you're not interested in having a dialogue, why are you here?

You're the one who shut down any chance at dialogue right out of the gate.

"Because I say so"? Okay, Billy!

Or are you claiming you expected that to start a dialogue?

Nessus, he doesn't let little historical things like serfdom or even slavery come into the way of his war against reality.

Moron. If you're going to claim to have me on ignore, then ignore me. Don't be a bigger, more ignorant asshole than usual by trying to address me. Case in point:

However, even back in the days of serfdom, when nobles OWNED serfs (for all intents and purposes), the serfs didn't pay anywhere near 50% taxation (10-25%, depending) like we do now.

Zomg, serfdom! Whaddaya know, I did mention it after all.

[Lewkowski]

At least in America we were massively over leveraged. If you are in too much debt (government *and* private) how do you get out of it? Well you have to spend less or inflate your debt away. Its one or the other. And to politicians it seems like spending less is heresy.

[Lebanese Dragon]

Racism is probably far more natural than the concept of property, but I doubt you'll be attending KKK meetings any time soon?

You don't think the concept of property is natural? something in your possession being yours? I think this idea even exists in the animal kingdoms, whether, it's territory with lions, or some ape has a rock they are not willing to share.

Taxes I agree is not natural, at least not directly... Property, I think is a fairly common development. Conciously I don't know in what terms a lion is thinking of the food they just killed, but it's a situation we'd humans would conciously associate with ownership, or being the property of.

The more I think about it property is very fundamental, because ultimately even your own body, and brain must be viewed as in a sense your property, what you are entitled, to this.. this is "my arm" it's wrong for you to take it. There is a sense of owernship. Granted you don't beleive in morality property has little meaning, but I do think it's a fundamental and natural concept.

[Nessus]

You're the one who shut down any chance at dialogue right out of the gate.

"Because I say so"? Okay, Billy!

Or are you claiming you expected that to start a dialogue?

Given your usual demeanour, I didn't expect such a small amount of sarcasm to ruffle your feathers. I'm sorry if this upset you more than I initially estimated. So, what I failed to illustrate:

There's really nothing wrong with this line of conversation?

Racism is the natural order of things.

How do you figure?

Nature. Human history.

Oh. well okay then! *walks away*

What was illustrated here, exactly? About the nature of racism and its goodness, I mean.

[CitizenCain]

Given your usual demeanour, I didn't expect such a small amount of sarcasm to ruffle your feathers. I'm sorry if this upset you more than I initially estimated. So, what I failed to illustrate:

It didn't ruffle my feathers so much as strike me as another one of your deflections to avoid a socialism vs freedom discussion. And since it seemed like you didn't actually want a dialogue (for that reason), it seemed like the logical conclusion that you were just trying to get off a cheap shot and blame me for your lack of interest in a dialogue.

There's really nothing wrong with this line of conversation?

Racism is the natural order of things.

How do you figure?

Nature. Human history.

Oh. well okay then! *walks away*

What was illustrated here, exactly? About the nature of racism and its goodness, I mean.

Nothing. Racism may or may not be the natural order (probably not, though similar clan/tribe-based prejudice would be), which doesn't speak to its morality or utility much, except to put the burden of proof on the proper side in the "debate" over whether or not racism should be encouraged/present/tolerated in our societies. So to bring this back to the topic at hand, a lack of taxation and governance in the "natural order of things" would put the burden of proof (as to why we should/if it's a good idea/etc) on the folks who want government to regulate everything and tax half our stuff, not the folks who want to keep what is rightfully theirs to begin with.

Or said shorter, you (well, GeeGee and Aggie anyway) are the ones who have to justify their belief that they're entitled to half of everyone else's stuff and explain why it's a beneficial idea. The people who want to keep what they own and earn are just doing the natural thing, and thus, require no justification for believing they are entitled to the fruits of their labors.

[RandBlade]

Given your usual demeanour, I didn't expect such a small amount of sarcasm to ruffle your feathers. I'm sorry if this upset you more than I initially estimated. So, what I failed to illustrate:

There's really nothing wrong with this line of conversation?

Racism is the natural order of things.

How do you figure?

Nature. Human history.

Oh. well okay then! *walks away*

What was illustrated here, exactly? About the nature of racism and its goodness, I mean.

History doesn't demonstrate racism to be the natural order, it shows xenophobia to be. Significant difference.

[GGT]

Baylor Religion Survey reveals many see God steering economy

About one in five Americans combine a view of God as actively engaged in daily workings of the world with an economic conservative view that opposes government regulation and champions the free market as a matter of faith.

"They say the invisible hand of the free market is really God at work," says sociologist Paul Froese, co-author of the Baylor Religion Survey, released today by Baylor University in Waco, Texas.

"They think the economy works because God wants it to work. It's a new religious economic idealism," with politicians "invoking God while chanting 'less government,'" he says.

"When Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann say 'God blesses us, God watches us, God helps us,' religious conservatives get the shorthand. They see 'government' as a profane object — a word that is used to signal working against God's plan for the United States. To argue against this is to argue with their religion."

Most (81%) political conservatives say there is one "ultimate truth in the world, and new economic information of cost-benefit analysis is not going to change their mind about how the economy should work," Froese says.

At the opposite pole, another one in five Americans don't see God stepping in to their daily lives and favor reducing wealth and inequality through taxation.

"So they're less likely to see God controlling the economy. Liberal economic perspectives are synonymous with the belief that there is no one 'ultimate truth,'" Froese says.

This is a distinctly American cultural finding and specific to this point in history. It was different in the past, it might be different in the future and it's different now in Western Europe, Froese says.

The survey of 1,714 U.S. adults, conducted by Gallup in fall 2010, was funded by Baylor, the National Science Foundation and the John Templeton Foundation. The margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

It finds nearly three in four Americans (73%) say "I know God has a plan for me." Within this group:
•49% say "the government in Washington is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and private businesses."
•79% say "able-bodied people who are out of work shouldn't receive unemployment checks if they are passing up jobs they can do."
•92% say "anything is possible for those who work hard."

But people who weren't working (32% of those surveyed) answer differently, says another Baylor co-author, sociologist Kevin Dougherty.
Working people, paid or volunteer, were more likely (45%) to say the government does too much than those who weren't working (37%). They were also more likely (81% to 72%) to say healthy people don't deserve unemployment benefits.

The idea of interwoven religious and economic views dates back decades to sociologist and economist Max Weber, says Chris Christopher, a principal economist with IHS Global Insight, a economic forecasting firm. "Weber's classic work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, explores this. I'm not saying everything Weber says is correct. But there's a correlation — and a big debate over which causes which."

http://www.usatoday.com/money/econom...omy/50470304/1

[Nessus]

It didn't ruffle my feathers so much as strike me as another one of your deflections to avoid a socialism vs freedom discussion. And since it seemed like you didn't actually want a dialogue (for that reason), it seemed like the logical conclusion that you were just trying to get off a cheap shot and blame me for your lack of interest in a dialogue.

I wasn't aware of such deflections; the last time this came up I came off thinking we agreed our past experiences demonstrate the futility of the exercise? Either way, motivation understood if not agreed upon!

Nothing. Racism may or may not be the natural order (probably not, though similar clan/tribe-based prejudice would be), which doesn't speak to its morality or utility much, except to put the burden of proof on the proper side in the "debate" over whether or not racism should be encouraged/present/tolerated in our societies. So to bring this back to the topic at hand, a lack of taxation and governance in the "natural order of things" would put the burden of proof (as to why we should/if it's a good idea/etc) on the folks who want government to regulate everything and tax half our stuff, not the folks who want to keep what is rightfully theirs to begin with.

Or said shorter, you (well, GeeGee and Aggie anyway) are the ones who have to justify their belief that they're entitled to half of everyone else's stuff and explain why it's a beneficial idea. The people who want to keep what they own and earn are just doing the natural thing, and thus, require no justification for believing they are entitled to the fruits of their labors.

Then I return to my original complaint; I don't think history shows that "everyone keeping what is rightfully theirs" is the natural status quo. First of all, the definition of rightful is pretty fluid when one romps around history!

I can certainly agree to the idea that might makes right in the natural world, ergo a rudimentary concept of rights to property and personal rights such as inviolateness of one's body to the extent one is capable of enforcing by themselves can be argued. But in organized societies, that organization existed from and partly for redistributing property and labour, right? The God-Emperor of your culture could use your grain, your soil, your animals and your very body when they so chose. Of course, we can debate the ability to dodge taxes and protection fees in the olden days due to low-tech solutions on part of the tax men, but that's not really what you mean, now is it?

History doesn't demonstrate racism to be the natural order, it shows xenophobia to be. Significant difference.

Spoiler:

I am not convinced that history demonstrates that property rights are the natural order, either

[Lebanese Dragon]

Spoiler:

I am not convinced that history demonstrates that property rights are the natural order, either

I don't think it's NECCESSARY, I think society could function without the concept/use; however, I do think it's a natural occurance, and definitely logical concept to develop whether or not your society chooses to use it. I think it's clearly natural, animals do it on small scale, majority of known indepenantly developed societies do it, but I admit it's not neccessary.

[RandBlade]

I am not convinced that history demonstrates that property rights are the natural order, either

When you go beyond the basic instincts of eating, drinking and sex I can think of few things that history and science show to be more natural actually.

In relatively recent history, property rights have been one of the first and foremost people have - even before voting, suffrage was first granted in most early democracies to the propertied classes first. Going both even further back and forwards, there are few things more jealously guarded and enforced than rights to property. Wars are fought over it.

Its not just humans though, even animals mark their territory. I don't know of any natural occurances of an income tax in the animal kingdom.

[Aimless]

Yeah they don't have much in the way of money or stock markets either.

[Nessus]

When you go beyond the basic instincts of eating, drinking and sex I can think of few things that history and science show to be more natural actually.

In relatively recent history, property rights have been one of the first and foremost people have - even before voting, suffrage was first granted in most early democracies to the propertied classes first. Going both even further back and forwards, there are few things more jealously guarded and enforced than rights to property. Wars are fought over it.

Its not just humans though, even animals mark their territory. I don't know of any natural occurances of an income tax in the animal kingdom.

This sounds exactly like something someone'd try out with a lab full of monkeys somewhere

However, I'm not really interested in the discussion enough to do a literature romp, so. I guess we could wring hands about how the mating behaviour in mammals resembles social structures and taxation (females are a property that are withheld and so forth), but that's not really interesting.

What might be more interesting is a look at the meta-argumentation. Just like Marxists explain everything (or so I'm told) with dialectical materialism and the class war, you as an avowed Free-hander explain the phenomena you encounter via the idea of property rights. As a physicist, to me it's simply a question of energy (and some chemicals, but let's stay on a very general level here); there is a limited amount of energy in the system and each gene line wants it for itself. Like the old (and untrue) adage about how ants made communism work; the individual animal isn't terribly concerned about food or its own existence, but the gene line is the "individual" struggling with other "individuals" over who gets the most energy (and chemicals). It's kind of difficult to neatly place that in the property rights narrative, and personally I find the physical explanation more elegant, but I'm a scientist and you're a banker so there we go

Although come to think of it, wars have been fought for the property rights of kingdoms/empires/whatever and their respective ruling classes....Maybe you have a point there. But that has scant little to do with the property rights of a single individual; the idea of personal freedoms for all is a very new idea in the history of mankind, as you surely remember.

[RandBlade]

What might be more interesting is a look at the meta-argumentation. Just like Marxists explain everything (or so I'm told) with dialectical materialism and the class war, you as an avowed Free-hander explain the phenomena you encounter via the idea of property rights.

Actually I believe in human nature. I think the free hand works as it assumes people are self-interested. Other systems don't rely upon that assumption so fail.

As a physicist, to me it's simply a question of energy (and some chemicals, but let's stay on a very general level here); there is a limited amount of energy in the system and each gene line wants it for itself.

Energy in a system may be limited, but as we've discussed on countless occasions, that does not hold in economics. Malthusian economics fails precisely because its not a closed system with bounded and limited amounts that can't be changed.

It's kind of difficult to neatly place that in the property rights narrative, and personally I find the physical explanation more elegant, but I'm a scientist and you're a banker so there we go

It works in discussions of property too. For as long as we've hand land-ownership we've had inheritance.

Although come to think of it, wars have been fought for the property rights of kingdoms/empires/whatever and their respective ruling classes....Maybe you have a point there. But that has scant little to do with the property rights of a single individual; the idea of personal freedoms for all is a very new idea in the history of mankind, as you surely remember.

For all yes, but that is true for all rights. It was never just the king who had rights though.

[Nessus]

I may be wrong here, but doesn't it assume rational self-interest?

And I'm not going to drag up the question on whether the Universe is finite or not in this discussion if you won't, OK?

[Loki]

All you have to do is look at the number of societies that didn't allow a place for personal property that could not be arbitrarily seized. If it's such a new concept, such societies shouldn't have existed until fairly recently. And yet the opposite is true: there are very few societies in the last several thousand years where all property was public or could be confiscated without a just cause.

[Nessus]

And as mentioned above, the definition of "just cause" is rather loose, if we're looking at all of history.