Dutchy wrote:

That is far to easy.

It is, which is why it's baffling and sad that people genuinely think they should be able to take other people's stuff to use how they please.

Dutchy wrote:

Companies and individuals whom has wealth as their main income, are paracitering on society.

First, what is parasitic about it? Which one of your rights has been violated by a wealthy corporation or individual? Has any such entity forced you into an economic transaction against your will? Did a Walton pull a gun on you? Ever been carjacked by Warren Buffett?

Secondly, when you say "wealth as their main income" what exactly do you think happens in the period between "wealth" and "income"? Do you believe it's a printing press churning out dollars and Euros? Or just a magical black box?

Dutchy wrote:

They take (infrastructure, security, rule of law, education etc. etc.), but don't contribute in the form of taxes.

First of all, they benefit the same as the rest of us. The difference between a billionaire who sits all day in an opulent office and the janitor who cleans it has nothing to do with the road they drive on to get there. The police don't ask for your tax return when you call 911 either.

Second, they do contribute in the form of taxes. Quite a bit actually.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pa ... taxes.html
https://taxfoundation.org/new-irs-data- ... axes-2014/

Dutchy wrote:

Since the '70-ish almost all the gains in the economy - in real terms - has gone to the top, not the middle class.

First, you'd have to be a moron to be surprised by that. Second, why do you think that is wrong? Of course the returns on investments go to people to those who invest. That doesn't make them a target to be plundered, it makes them an example to be emulated.

wingman wrote:

As per the chart you linked to the Reagan years saw nearly the greatest relative decline of the middle class in all the decades posted, it also saw the greatest absolute increase in the top bracket AND an increase in the very bottom bracket.

Let's do the numbers. We'll use 1981 to 1991 as a proxy for the Reagan years. In 1981 you had 26% (17+9) of people below middle class, 59% middle class, and 15% (12+3) above middle class. In 1991 the chart shows 27% (18+9) sub-middle class, 56% middle class, and 17% (12+5) doing better than middle class. The middle class lost 3% and of those 2% went up and 1% went down. It's disingenuous to say the middle class was doing worse because more of them left the middle class by moving up.

seb146 wrote:

They just need to pay taxes like the rest of us if they are, indeed, people.

That is the diametrically wrong conclusion. Corporations are people, therefore there is no reason to tax corporations and only people should be taxed. That's a big part of why FairTax should be enacted, it would cut corporations out entirely and only tax people. A company would be able to buy raw materials or inventory, do whatever manufacturing or other work they do and then export their products all without paying a dime in taxes. And since they'd not have to pay taxes, they would no longer have the cost of accountants and lawyers that has to be incorporated into the cost of their products. Same for all of the infrastructure involved with calculating and withholding income and payroll taxes.

Aesma wrote:

At the end of the day our economies consume natural resources, and those belong to everybody.

No they don't. They have owners just like everything else. Natural resources belong to whomever holds the rights to them, period. Treating it any other way is a violation of property rights. That said, I'm all in favor of the government deriving revenue by selling or leasing natural resource rights for publicly owned lands.

LMP737 wrote:

You conveniently left out what was going on in 1942 and why that law was passed.

I left it out because market forces do not give a shit what was going on in 1942 or any other time.

First, consider what the government actually did. That law took money out of the pockets of American workers by decree because the government didn't want to pay what it actually costs to execute a war. For as much as Democrats complain about the costs associated with the War on Terror what do you think they'd say if Republicans had taken the same steps to control costs as the Democrats did (twice)?

Second, because the administration attempted to fix the market and botched it horribly it is very likely that the country spent more money than it would have had it just paid what the market would bear during WWII.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... -spending/

Had wages not been artificially capped during WWII, we can safely assume that the big red defense spike during WWII would be somewhat higher (but not wider). But the government totally messed up the entire healthcare system in the process which introduced a massive amount of new spending over the future decades.

Scroll down a bit to the "Entitlement Spending as Share of GDP" chart and look at the dark blue portion for healthcare. All that spending was effectively caused by the unintended consequences of the Stabilization Act of 1942, and remember that this is counting the area under the curve. So doing some Windows calculator app calculus; figure 2.5% from 1970 to 1980, 3% from 1980 to 1990, 4% from 1990 to 2000, and 5% from 2000 to 2010 which gives you 145 GDP%*years spent on healthcare (and counting...). If you consider the American WWII period to be 1940 to 1945 (ignoring that wage controls didn't start until 1942), for the Stabilization Act to have paid off it would have had to save 29% GDP in defense spending per year.

The American government saved a few bucks for a few years and in doing so broke the system and introduced costs that have steadily grown and have no cap.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Actually, strike that. The rich do invest their tax cuts...directly into the coffers of the politicians to ensure they're kept in place or made larger.

Please explain why that is different than any other investment. Do media buys, jet charters, catering for excessively fancy dinners, etc. not contribute to the economy?

BMI727 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

That is far to easy.

It is, which is why it's baffling and sad that people genuinely think they should be able to take other people's stuff to use how they please.

Wow, each and every point. You are pulling our legs, right? Just trolling a bit. I would say well done. If you are serious, wow, just wow. Don't know where to start.

Dutchy wrote:

Wow, each and every point. You are pulling our legs, right? Just trolling a bit. I would say well done. If you are serious, wow, just wow. Don't know where to start.

No. I genuinely want to know what it is that you (and others like you, though I don't necessarily expect you to speak for them) believe makes you so special that you deserve the power to take other people's property. Like I said, I was always taught to respect other people's things.

I have an idea of why you don't know where to start too, but I'm interested in your thoughts on the matter.

seb146 wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

wingman wrote:

Are you reading the chart? If so you're clearly not understanding it because it answers the question definitively in my favor and contrary to the claim made by DFW, who said that the Reagan years were the glory years of the middle class. They were not. As per the chart you linked to the Reagan years saw nearly the greatest relative decline of the middle class in all the decades posted, it also saw the greatest absolute increase in the top bracket AND an increase in the very bottom bracket.

Then I suggest reading the text next to the chart.

Also, where did I say the Reagan administration "were the glory years of the middle class?" By all means, tell me where I said that. I'll wait.

What I said was "more middle class families are now upper class families." The data shows that is objectively true. The share of upper-class and upper-middle-class families grew from 15% in 1981 to 21% in 2015. Furthermore, upper-class households are growing faster than lower-class households. For every one additional lower-class household, two households became upper-class. In other words, more people are advancing than not.

Lastly, you are approaching this from the static view that a.) an additional lower-class household means someone fell from the middle-class and b.) that being lower-class in 2015 is remotely comparable to being lower-class in 1981. On the first point, some middle class households have certainly fell, but that's also true of some upper-class households. We live in a dynamic country. We have also welcomed over 20 million immigrants since the mid-1980s, many of whom arrive in the United States at lower economic status than average Americans. Those people do so willingly and enthusiastically because being a lower-class American is still absolutely better than living at any class in some parts of the world. On the latter point, living standards at all income levels has vastly improved in the last 30 years. Lower-class Americans today can enjoy products and services that didn't exist at any income level in the 1980s.

Meaning the goal posts have been moved and not by the working class people. People can not afford to live near high paying jobs anymore because the market is out of reach. Look at how much a studio apartment sells for in cities. People don't want to move because there are no good paying jobs and crumbling infrastructure in rural America.

It's true the "goal posts" have moved. But that's always been true.

The most significant indicators for whether people are enjoying economic success (or not) are education attainment and professional skills, not proximity to affordable housing. Real estate in the U.S. is generally quite affordable. There has also been massive internal migration within the United States in the last 25 years that has spiked around periods of economic recession. In other words, millions of people are willing and able to move where the jobs are. But, if you don't have the skills to fill those jobs, then you're in trouble.

BMI727 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Wow, each and every point. You are pulling our legs, right? Just trolling a bit. I would say well done. If you are serious, wow, just wow. Don't know where to start.

No. I genuinely want to know what it is that you (and others like you, though I don't necessarily expect you to speak for them) believe makes you so special that you deserve the power to take other people's property. Like I said, I was always taught to respect other people's things.

I have an idea of why you don't know where to start too, but I'm interested in your thoughts on the matter.

Quite simply put, in order for companies to grow, certain conditions have to be met, those conditions need to be paid for. As simple as that. And we all need to contribute to that. And yes, everyone needs to contribute, big businesses and small (currently only small businesses pay, big international companies pay almost nothing, so unfair competition), people whom "earn" fortunes need to pay, as well as someone whom earning less. Like Waren Buffet said, why does he pay less (percentage) than his secretary.
If nobody contributed, no society, no companies.

Don't know the percentages in the US, but in The Netherlands, the taxes on wealth went down quite a bit and on labor went up, that doesn't seem fair to me.

But let me turn the question around, why should ordinary people pay for big companies and rich people? The government - we all - needs a certain amount of money, so if those two groups don't pay, the balance is taken from the rest.

So unless you don't want a government anymore, then there are taxes and then the question becomes, how do you take a fair amount from everyone.

seb146 wrote:

People can not afford to live near high paying jobs anymore because the market is out of reach. Look at how much a studio apartment sells for in cities.

Then you should be railing against government housing programs, rent controls and zoning regulations. Why should the taxpayer subsidize the service workers who work for highly paid urbanites? Dump those programs and make the businesses and people hiring workers in expensive places pay a price that will enable the workers to either live near where they work or make the commute worth it.

Dutchy wrote:

Quite simply put, in order for companies to grow, certain conditions have to be met, those conditions need to be paid for.

Few of those conditions are the responsibility of the government. If companies need something to grow then they will figure out a way to do it.

Dutchy wrote:

Like Waren Buffet said, why does he pay less (percentage) than his secretary.

Because he pays most of his taxes through the income taxes of companies he owns. He pays his income taxes to the same tax code as the secretary does. This is a reason to switch to FairTax and cut companies out of it entirely.

Secondly, it's important that you put "percentage" in parentheses but it begs the follow up: why does percentage matter? If taxes exist primarily to fund the government, what does the government buy that is priced in terms of a percentage of a surgeon's salary? Or a percentage of the dividends of Berkshire Hathaway? How is talking about taxes in terms of percentages anything other than a form of class warfare?

It's also worth noting that you failed to answer any of the other questions in my first reply. Particularly about why part of the pot should go to people not sitting at the table?

Dutchy wrote:

If nobody contributed, no society, no companies.

Society and economics existed before taxes did.

Dutchy wrote:

But let me turn the question around, why should ordinary people pay for big companies and rich people?

Because those big companies and rich people deliver products and services ordinary people want. I like buying food at Walmart and I like my Samsung phone. And in terms of taxes, the ordinary people aren't paying for that much of anything.

Dutchy wrote:

we all - needs a certain amount of money

Then you should do something worth paying for and you'll get a certain amount of money.

Dutchy wrote:

So unless you don't want a government anymore,

Who is suggesting that?

Dutchy wrote:

how do you take a fair amount from everyone.

FairTax.

BMI727 wrote:

As a decent American (decent human really)

You're a sociopath, sir.

BMI727 wrote:

Do you? Why the hell should I pay for your healthcare? What return do I see on my investment if I pay for you to get a band-aid or a bypass? I'm sure someone thinks it's important that you're healthy. They should pay the bill for it.

My Oath forbids it, but I really would love to just leave you writing in pain on an ED bed one day until you cough up the money for treatment.

Either way, you should pay for my healthcare because I can save your life, or in my specific case, that of your kids. And I can't do that if I'm dead or disabled.

DocLightning wrote:

You're a sociopath, sir.

How much do you expect to be paid for that diagnosis? And what medical text do you have that says that respecting property rights makes one a sociopath? What would those medical texts say about people who want to coercion to take other people's property?

DocLightning wrote:

My Oath forbids it, but I really would love to just leave you writing in pain on an ED bed one day until you cough up the money for treatment.

You taking an oath that says you have to work for free is your problem.

But, oaths aside, why would you be wrong to do so? Keeping me alive isn't free so the resources have to come from somewhere. Whomever wants me alive and healthy should pay the tab, not random taxpayer.

DocLightning wrote:

Either way, you should pay for my healthcare because I can save your life, or in my specific case, that of your kids. And I can't do that if I'm dead or disabled.

You have patients and they have a stake in you being healthy and able to work. Therefore, it is in their best interests to make sure you are both able to continue helping them and should pay you at a level that ensures you will be both able and incentivized to continue.

I, however, am not your patient nor do I have children. I could send you every nickel of my paycheck and I would not see any return on that investment, so why would I do so? I should be paying the people whom I need.

BMI727 wrote:

But, oaths aside, why would you be wrong to do so? Keeping me alive isn't free so the resources have to come from somewhere. Whomever wants me alive and healthy should pay the tab, not random taxpayer.

Ah, a nihilist *and* a sociopath. Lovely.

BMI727 wrote:

You have patients and they have a stake in you being healthy and able to work. Therefore, it is in their best interests to make sure you are both able to continue helping them and should pay you at a level that ensures you will be both able and incentivized to continue.

I, however, am not your patient nor do I have children. I could send you every nickel of my paycheck and I would not see any return on that investment,

One of the children who I care for could (heaven forbid) become your employee. Perhaps a valuable one. Or perhaps he will come up with a cure to a disease you have or design a machine that will change your life.

Your little Randian fantasy seems to forget the fact that we live in a civilization of interconnected people.

BMI727 wrote:

I, however, am not your patient nor do I have children. I could send you every nickel of my paycheck and I would not see any return on that investment, so why would I do so? I should be paying the people whom I need.

And there you have it. Only willing to pay for something if it directly benefits you. "damn all" principale.

Looked at fairTax, and that will not work.

BMI727 wrote:

I, however, am not your patient nor do I have children. I could send you every nickel of my paycheck and I would not see any return on that investment, so why would I do so? I should be paying the people whom I need.

And there you have it. Only willing to pay for something if it directly benefits you. "damn all" principale.

Looked at fairTax, and that will not work.

Somehow, I want a political that can cut my taxes without adding to the national debt.

DfwRevolution wrote:

wingman wrote:

I would seriously question the comment about middle class families and innovation. Is it true that under Reagan the percentage of middle class families fell and that the percentage of upper middle class or upper class families grew?

Yes.

wingman wrote:

Are you reading the chart? If so you're clearly not understanding it because it answers the question definitively in my favor and contrary to the claim made by DFW, who said that the Reagan years were the glory years of the middle class. They were not. As per the chart you linked to the Reagan years saw nearly the greatest relative decline of the middle class in all the decades posted, it also saw the greatest absolute increase in the top bracket AND an increase in the very bottom bracket.

Then I suggest reading the text next to the chart.

Also, where did I say the Reagan administration "were the glory years of the middle class?" By all means, tell me where I said that. I'll wait.

What I said was "more middle class families are now upper class families." The data shows that is objectively true. The share of upper-class and upper-middle-class families grew from 15% in 1981 to 21% in 2015. Furthermore, upper-class households are growing faster than lower-class households. For every one additional lower-class household, two households became upper-class. In other words, more people are advancing than not.

Lastly, you are approaching this from the static view that a.) an additional lower-class household means someone fell from the middle-class and b.) that being lower-class in 2015 is remotely comparable to being lower-class in 1981. On the first point, some middle class households have certainly fell, but that's also true of some upper-class households. We live in a dynamic country. We have also welcomed over 20 million immigrants since the mid-1980s, many of whom arrive in the United States at lower economic status than average Americans. Those people do so willingly and enthusiastically because being a lower-class American is still absolutely better than living at any class in some parts of the world. On the latter point, living standards at all income levels has vastly improved in the last 30 years. Lower-class Americans today can enjoy products and services that didn't exist at any income level in the 1980s.

wingman wrote:

And what do you mean by innovation.. the personal computer, the stealth bomber? Not being a jack-ass, just wondering what kind of innovation you would attribute specifically to Reagan's economic policies.

The tax and regulatory reforms passed from 1981-1986 made it significantly easier to start-up, invest, and profitably sell a small business. In particular, changing the ownership rules and tax treatment of S-corps, accelerating depreciation schedules, and reducing capital gains rates paved the way for huge amounts of capital to flock to the technology sector in the 1990s.

Aesma wrote:

At the end of the day our economies consume natural resources, and those belong to everybody. So the economy should work out for everybody in return.

Nope. No way. Totally wrong.

1. The United States respects natural resources as a form of private property.

2. Natural resources are a minority of economic inputs. The vast majority of economic input comes from human labor and financial capital. In the United States, both of those are - again - private property.

3. As the economic inputs in the United States are generally private, it follows therefore that the economic outputs are private property, too.

The implications of your statement are grotesque. Attempting to proportion economic outputs "for everybody" is an affront to the strong private property rights necessary for a capitalist market economy to function. If the individual lacks private ownership of their own economic inputs and outputs, then the don't exist as individuals. They belong to the state. And that's exactly what has transpired in the socialist economies of the USSR, China, Cuba, Yugoslavia, and now - tragically - Venezuela. Those dreary, dystopian, hungry, and soul-crushing societies with no human rights, no culture, no innovation, no environmental protection, and no hope. But hey, they are equally miserable.

Oh please. Norway is a prime example of such a dreary, dystopian, hungry, and soul-crushing societies with no human rights, no culture, no innovation, no environmental protection, and no hope. But hey, they are equally miserable. Those semi-communist put all their oil wealth into a fund which benefits all of the Norwegian society. Or to a lesser extent, my home country, part of the gas will go to the state, not the person whom happens own the land. No, you are absolutely right, private ownership is much better. See Texas as a prime example. Water drained from a well, will influence everything around it, but damn all, then they should have come up with the same idea. I was first so I have the right to.
Luckily for the world and especially for America, we now have a president who understands. One penstroke and the environment protection is gone. And you know the great thing! The rest of the world tries to make the Paris agreements and the US won't have to. The best model ever. Damn the world. We are going to pollute and the rest of the world pays! America first, America first! (nice reference to the '30, btw). Or the brilliant scheme to open up the North Pole for oil exploration. High risk, but heck that doesn't matter, if something goes wrong, the environment is paying for it, not the person whom get the benefits. Or another thing. Relaxing the banking laws. What could go wrong? 2008? Well sure the banking industry has learned from that, right? The American way, privatize profits, public losses.

DfwRevolution wrote:

Returning to the topic at hand, the only ethical purpose for collecting tax revenue is to pay for those things which have diffuse public benefit and cannot be privatized. For example, national defense, law enforcement, and certain public works.

So no health, no education, no social security. Public works? Even less public works? No diplomacy? No investment in innovation? And why stop at those things. Why not go all the way, and say no government is needed. If someone thinks they need a national defense, they should pay for it, right?
Like I said before. You're "damn all" policy. We have a nice proverb for you in the Netherlands: "ikke ikke en de rest kan stikken". I leave the translation to Google translate .

11725Flyer wrote:

Somehow, I want a political that can cut my taxes without adding to the national debt.

Don't we all. Then you have to make a list where the government can cut spending to give it back to its people in the form of tax cuts.

Hillis wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Flighty wrote:

Entitlements need to go down.

Your main concerns are Medicare/Medicaid, VA benefit cost..

The ole "entitlements" buzzword. Did you ever look up the definition of "entitlement"? It's something that you earned. You pay into SS/Medicare your entire working life. It's not a freebie. There are plenty of other programs that need to be cut before you come after them.

In other words, you want the poor and middle class to pay for the windfall for the wealthy and corporations, correct? You can deny that all you want but that's what you're suggesting. Mash up health care, educational programs like school lunches and after-school programs, etc etc etc, so the rich and powerful can have more dominance over our lives.

And who will make out like a bandit with this plan if it were enacted? Why, 45 and his plutocratic kids.

No, I deny this. The current system is a windfall for large corporations, which get your Medicare Medicaid and Pentagon dollars. A lot of this activity is waste, fraud and abuse. The government tracks "waste, fraud and abuse" without benchmarking to peer activities in other countries. When doing that, we can see the real waste fraud and abuse is enough to balance the budget and probably cut taxes on small businesses, which is where it should be cut.

I actually think we should incentivize trade with poor countries such as Haiti to help them out, too. I worked in the federal government before and also within corporations including airlines, which tend to be very efficient... there is NO comparison between efficiency and waste fraud abuse... you could cut 70% of all government departments and probably get better performance. They are jobs programs. The vendors they mismanage are robbing taxpayers and not providing services. Nobody cares.

DocLightning wrote:

Ah, a nihilist *and* a sociopath. Lovely.

Another stellar diagnosis.

DocLightning wrote:

One of the children who I care for could (heaven forbid) become your employee. Perhaps a valuable one.

When they do it would be smart for me to provide them with health insurance or a high enough salary to pay for their medical expenses since it would become in my best interest to not only make sure that they are healthy and able to work but also to make sure nobody else comes along and offers them a better deal.

DocLightning wrote:

Or perhaps he will come up with a cure to a disease you have or design a machine that will change your life.

If that's the investment plan I'm better off just buying lottery tickets.

DocLightning wrote:

Your little Randian fantasy seems to forget the fact that we live in a civilization of interconnected people.

First, I'm not forgetting that. Second, that's a reason why it works, not a reason why it doesn't.

Dutchy wrote:

And there you have it. Only willing to pay for something if it directly benefits you. "damn all" principale.

The government's only purpose is to protect people's rights. Determining for people what it or is not a good investment is not part of that.

Dutchy wrote:

Looked at fairTax, and that will not work.

Why?

Dutchy wrote:

The rest of the world tries to make the Paris agreements and the US won't have to.

If you want to limit yourself economically go ahead.

Dutchy wrote:

Relaxing the banking laws. What could go wrong? 2008? Well sure the banking industry has learned from that, right?

The housing crisis was the culmination of bad liberal policies which, by the way, is now playing out with student loans.

Dutchy wrote:

So no health,

Privatize it. I don't need everyone to be healthy, only some people. If you need someone healthy, then pay for it.

Dutchy wrote:

no education

There should be publicly funded K-12 education, but it could use some reforms.

Dutchy wrote:

Public works? Even less public works?

You'll have to be more specific. But in general, "public works" with federal funding should always have a significant local component to funding as well to ensure funds are used efficiently.

Dutchy wrote:

No diplomacy?

Who has suggested that?

Dutchy wrote:

No investment in innovation?

That's a pretty broad statement. First of all, Americans do not and never have needed the government to invest in innovation. Second, investing in innovation for government purposes is great but government investment in innovation should be limited to those government purposes.

Dutchy wrote:

If someone thinks they need a national defense, they should pay for it, right?

Ideally yes, but it's not something that is possible without them just being hired bands of thugs. I'd love the idea of different military forces competing for people's business but it just isn't practical unfortunately.

Dutchy wrote:

Why not go all the way, and say no government is needed.

Find me one person who thinks that.

BMI727 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Why not go all the way, and say no government is needed.

Find me one person who thinks that.

Then it is a sliding scale, on one hand, no government and on the other communism. And I think you are more towards the side of no government than me. If you concede that some services the government provides, have no direct impact on you, but you still pay via the taxes. So where do you draw the line? I am not quite sure about that.
- Social security? --> for the elderly? For unemployment?
- Social programs? Disadvantages children? What about the homeless (even families)? Low-income housing?
- Healthcare? For the elderly? For low-income families?
- Public security? Police force? Military? Justice system?
- Education? Primary, secondary, college, universities? What about NASA and all other research facilities?
- Infrastructure? Electricity? water? internet? What about dikes, protection against water? Dams? Roads?
- Environment protection? National parks, all kind of laws against waste, pollution etc.
- Fundamental research? The kind that universities do and in the end companies can use to build a business case on. In your iPhone, there is very little that Apple really researched itself, most of it was done in government laboratories.
- Culture? No role for the government there?

I am generally interested where you see a role for the government and where not.

Dutchy wrote:

Then it is a sliding scale, on one hand, no government and on the other communism.

In other words, you're lying and you're just being disingenuous by rebutting an argument nobody is making.

Dutchy wrote:

Social security?

It's a scam and should be phased out in an orderly way before it turns into a much bigger problem.

Dutchy wrote:

Social programs? Disadvantages children? What about the homeless (even families)?

Really only need a foster program for children, and even that should leverage as heavily as possible on non-government charities.

Dutchy wrote:

Low-income housing?

...is a market just like any other, not a government concern. There is a reason why Walmart is much bigger than Nordstrom.

Dutchy wrote:

Healthcare? For the elderly? For low-income families?

Only for veterans and government workers.

Here's how to unravel the mess: Take the list of fees the government pays for each treatment and set a drawdown over the course of 10-20 years. Basic procedures would get slashed immediately, while reimbursements for more complicated procedures would be phased out more slowly. Eventually, all reimbursements will be zeroed out and the government pays nothing. What this would mean is that providers who want to continue to profit from serving Medicare/Medicaid patients will have to figure out ways to serve them at lower cost. These providers would then of course have an advantage in the post-reimbursement market having already figured out how to efficiently deliver care. At the start, or on the way down through the phase out, providers that do work with a sufficient quality and price will have their patients (or their insurance) pay directly and can drop out of the Medicare/Meicaid market.

Dutchy wrote:

Public security?

What do you mean by this? I will say that the Coast Guard could use a decent bump in capability.

Dutchy wrote:

Police force?

They need to do policing and not violate anyone's rights while doing it.

Dutchy wrote:

Military?

It needs work. First, the military is now pushing two decades of continuous war so there needs to be a significant renewal in a number of aspects.

First, the military needs to invest even more heavily in cyber capabilities and it should become American policy that cyber attacks may be met with kinetic retaliation.

Second, from a technology/procurement standpoint there needs to be more doing and less planning. This is tightly entwined with the unreasonable demands of ignorant politicians and the ignorant public that elects them who believe they are being ripped off even if they aren't. There is a direct line from Eisenhower's false caution in his farewell speech to the JSF debacle. The military and their contractors bought into failing fast and iterating way before Silicon Valley did and then abandoned it with some very poor results. As a side note, I do fear that some positive work done under the Obama/Carter administration will be wiped out by Trump. The military needs to try more things and work faster at replacing systems that were built in the 1980s and conceived in the 1970s because upgrades only go so far. Systems specialized for certain environments, particularly the arctic, should be included in the next generation.

Third, the country as a whole needs to understand and acknowledge that the new Cold War is here and maybe has another player. Russia should be held responsible for the chemical attacks in Syria and heavily sanctioned accordingly. Eastern Europe should be fortified now just as West Germany was during the Cold War. The Navy and Air Force should both be prepared to fight more modern threats. For the Air Force special attention should be paid to extending the reach of tactical aircraft and weapons. For the Navy, one particular idea would be to pursue a high-low strategy for both aircraft carriers and attack submarines in order to increase quantities of assets.

Fourth, in terms of people, the pay and benefits of servicemen should be re-examined. Pay should be increased closer to private sector equivalents and medical benefits should be phased based on length of service rather than promised for life to everyone (obviously, injuries suffered in service are an exception). Pensions should also be re-examined to be more in line with the modern landscape, both competitively and fiscally. Commanders should be given more power to retain good people as well. Overall there's a lot that could change for the better to both get and keep smart people, make them better off, and be more efficient for taxpayers.

Dutchy wrote:

Justice system?

End the War on Drugs for starters, but this goes along with getting the government out of healthcare. I don't care what you shoot in your veins, but I'm not interested in paying for the results.

Dutchy wrote:

Education? Primary, secondary,

A lot could be improved here, but I'd start with two major, related federal reforms:
1. No school district shall have the power to levy taxes.
2. All tax derived revenue for funding education shall be distributed on a per student basis.

Dutchy wrote:

college, universities?

Get the government out of it. It is the same dynamic as the pre-2008 housing market where the government pushes the idea that everyone needs one and wants everyone to be able to finance it. Banks don't win when loans default. If Gender Studies majors do poorly in the economy then let banks price that risk into the student loans. If graduates from one program are highly sought after by industry and graduates for another are viewed as less desirable, the interest rates for each should reflect that. Universities that have a combination of cost and quality such that students will have a tougher time paying for it will have a hard time finding students and get the message. Students who see that a degree in computer science is much more affordable than one in anthropology will likewise get the message.

Eventually the demands of industry will work their way back to colleges and their students to help tune the labor supply.

Dutchy wrote:

What about NASA and all other research facilities?

They should be working for government purposes only. Also, much of it should be privatized, at least as FFRDCs and ideally sold off to industry or academia. The government needs information, they don't need to be managing these large programs and facilities. All of the necessary government work can still be done at these places as CRAD.

Dutchy wrote:

Infrastructure?

Privatize as much as possible. A lot of infrastructure is in high enough demand that it would be attractive to private investors and could be removed from the taxpayer books entirely.

For new projects, there should always be required to be a significant fraction of local funding to avoid any "bridges to nowhere" situation. Also, end EAS immediately.

Dutchy wrote:

Electricity? water? internet?

Utilities at the consumer level should be private but regulated as they are now, but the ultimate source of the power should be left purely to the free market. Competition should be allowed as much as possible, though many rural places won't attract multiple providers. Same goes for energy in general, so tax credits for electric cars should be ended immediately. I am equally opposed to HOAs harassing people with solar panels as I am to CAFE.

The government should invest in alternative energy and fuel efficiency for government purposes. There is a legitimate return to running an armored division on half the fuel. Fuel economy standards for postal vehicles are great, fuel economy standards for consumer vehicles are a breach of basic freedom.

I do believe in net neutrality and that internet providers should be regulated as other utilities. Just as the water company doesn't distinguish between showers and laundry and the power company doesn't distinguish between computer and microwave, data providers should not distinguish between websites.

Dutchy wrote:

What about dikes, protection against water? Dams? Roads?

Treat it similar to other infrastructure. Privatize where possible and make sure the actual beneficiaries pay as much as possible.

Dutchy wrote:

Environment protection? ..., all kind of laws against waste, pollution etc.

These are matters of personal choice rather than government policy. If you've suffered damages because of recklessness or pollution, we have a functioning court system able to remedy it.

Dutchy wrote:

National parks

I don't see why they shouldn't be able to pay for themselves.

Dutchy wrote:

- Fundamental research?

There's plenty of research the government should be doing in order to do its job. But there's also a lot that doesn't serve a government purpose and is just waste.

Dutchy wrote:

- Culture? No role for the government there?

Nope. As far as I'm concerned people can do what they want.

BMI727 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Then it is a sliding scale, on one hand, no government and on the other communism.

In other words, you're lying and you're just being disingenuous by rebutting an argument nobody is making.

Huh? What am I lying about? I was just trying to assess where you stand on this.

So if I understand correctly, you feel that the government has a role in the following subjects:

Social security: no.
Social programs: only foster programs and that should be left to charities as much as possible.
Healthcare? Only for people whom are current employees of the government and in the case of vets ex-employees (why are vets exempt?)

BMI727 wrote:

Here's how to unravel the mess: Take the list of fees the government pays for each treatment and set a drawdown over the course of 10-20 years. Basic procedures would get slashed immediately, while reimbursements for more complicated procedures would be phased out more slowly. Eventually, all reimbursements will be zeroed out and the government pays nothing. What this would mean is that providers who want to continue to profit from serving Medicare/Medicaid patients will have to figure out ways to serve them at lower cost. These providers would then of course have an advantage in the post-reimbursement market having already figured out how to efficiently deliver care. At the start, or on the way down through the phase out, providers that do work with a sufficient quality and price will have their patients (or their insurance) pay directly and can drop out of the Medicare/Meicaid market.

Why would this work? What prevents doctors from just raising their rates as soon as it is a free marked? Health care is a necessity not a luxary, so they can ask whatever they want. And isn't this going back to the days before Obamacare with millions of unsecured people and on top of that million and millions more if Medicare/Meicaid is gone? What would it accomplish for society?

Public security? Coast Guard: yes, increase spending even. Also for search and rescue? Or just "water policing?"
Police force? Yes.
Military? Yes, even expand spending
Justice system? I guess yes, not exactly sure.
Education? Primary, secondary: yes
College, universities? No.
What about NASA and all other research facilities? Only for government purposes.

BMI727 wrote:

They should be working for government purposes only. Also, much of it should be privatized, at least as FFRDCs and ideally sold off to industry or academia. The government needs information, they don't need to be managing these large programs and facilities. All of the necessary government work can still be done at these places as CRAD.

How would you determine what is government purpose? Only direct? So no more space?

Infrastructure? Only the infrastructure which can't be privatized? What is local funding? Local government or private companies?
Electricity? water? internet? No role, except regulating.
What about dikes, protection against water? Dams? Roads? Privatize where possible and make sure the actual beneficiaries pay as much as possible.
Environment protection? ..., all kind of laws against waste, pollution etc.? No standards, if damage occurs, then you can go to the person/companies whom did it.
National parks: no role
Fundamental research?
"There's plenty of research the government should be doing in order to do its job. But there's also a lot that doesn't serve a government purpose and is just waste." let's see, about some subjects: Archaeology? Law? Medical research? Cosmos?
Culture? No

So a vey small role for the government.

Dutchy wrote:

Huh? What am I lying about?

The fact that there are serious anarchists out there. You haven't found one yet.

Dutchy wrote:

Healthcare? Only for people whom are current employees of the government and in the case of vets ex-employees (why are vets exempt?)

Government employees should get pay and benefits that makes those jobs competitive with private industry. Veterans are exempt because they signed a contract saying they get healthcare benefits for life, though the taxpayers should probably refrain from giving out such deals in the future.

Dutchy wrote:

What prevents doctors from just raising their rates as soon as it is a free marked?

Potential loss of patients when they, or their insurance providers, decide that the cost is not justified by the quality of care and they can get a better deal elsewhere.

Dutchy wrote:

And isn't this going back to the days before Obamacare with millions of unsecured people and on top of that million and millions more if Medicare/Meicaid is gone?

No, this is going back to 1941 before liberals broke the whole thing.

Dutchy wrote:

What would it accomplish for society?

Where "society" is considered to be the American taxpayer, it would force healthcare providers to be accountable for the cost and quality for the care they provide as well as cutting off a large and growing portion of federal spending.

Dutchy wrote:

Public security? Coast Guard: yes, increase spending even. Also for search and rescue? Or just "water policing?"

The security aspect is what has grown much more over the last couple decades, but additional search and rescue capacity may be necessary as well.

Dutchy wrote:

Education? Primary, secondary: yes

To be clear, the government does not need to expand spending on education. If you look at the statistics, American spending on education is at or near the top compared to other countries. The idea that education funding has been strangled by conservatives is an outright lie.

Dutchy wrote:

How would you determine what is government purpose? Only direct? So no more space?

Ultimately the government's purpose is to protect the rights of individual citizens so that is the ultimate test of whether or not something should be undertaken by the government. This does not mean no more space.

I neglected to mention it in my previous post, but establishing and maintaining space dominance should be a key objective for the American military over the next several decades.

Dutchy wrote:

Only the infrastructure which can't be privatized?

Why should the taxpayer pay for something when someone else will?

Dutchy wrote:

What is local funding? Local government or private companies?

Let's suppose there is a need for a new stretch of road in some town somewhere in America. Local funding means that making sure that the town and/or the county (maybe also the state, depending on what the project is) should be paying in a significant amount of money to the project (enough to be a bit painful) before receiving federal money. If the locals who will actually use the new road believe it's necessary enough to sacrifice their own money towards it then it is much more reasonable for the federal taxpayer to help too. People spend the money of others' differently than they spend their own money.

Dutchy wrote:

Archaeology?

Why would the government need to do archaeology?

Dutchy wrote:

Law?

The government should enforce the laws, but also have a lot fewer of them.

Dutchy wrote:

Medical research?

Only that which is for a government purpose. The government practically invented emergency medicine for example.

Dutchy wrote:

Culture? No

Not the government's business. On this subject I would add that there should be a federal law banning all federal dollars going to aid cities or counties that commit tax revenues to sports, concert or convention venues.

BMI727 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Huh? What am I lying about?

The fact that there are serious anarchists out there. You haven't found one yet.

Huh? Where do I say that? And yes, I know a couple whom go much further than you, so almost anarchists in that sense.

Based on your answers, I would say you are in favor of a more Victorian society, 19th century.

Dutchy wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

wingman wrote:

I would seriously question the comment about middle class families and innovation. Is it true that under Reagan the percentage of middle class families fell and that the percentage of upper middle class or upper class families grew?

Yes.

wingman wrote:

Are you reading the chart? If so you're clearly not understanding it because it answers the question definitively in my favor and contrary to the claim made by DFW, who said that the Reagan years were the glory years of the middle class. They were not. As per the chart you linked to the Reagan years saw nearly the greatest relative decline of the middle class in all the decades posted, it also saw the greatest absolute increase in the top bracket AND an increase in the very bottom bracket.

Then I suggest reading the text next to the chart.

Also, where did I say the Reagan administration "were the glory years of the middle class?" By all means, tell me where I said that. I'll wait.

What I said was "more middle class families are now upper class families." The data shows that is objectively true. The share of upper-class and upper-middle-class families grew from 15% in 1981 to 21% in 2015. Furthermore, upper-class households are growing faster than lower-class households. For every one additional lower-class household, two households became upper-class. In other words, more people are advancing than not.

Lastly, you are approaching this from the static view that a.) an additional lower-class household means someone fell from the middle-class and b.) that being lower-class in 2015 is remotely comparable to being lower-class in 1981. On the first point, some middle class households have certainly fell, but that's also true of some upper-class households. We live in a dynamic country. We have also welcomed over 20 million immigrants since the mid-1980s, many of whom arrive in the United States at lower economic status than average Americans. Those people do so willingly and enthusiastically because being a lower-class American is still absolutely better than living at any class in some parts of the world. On the latter point, living standards at all income levels has vastly improved in the last 30 years. Lower-class Americans today can enjoy products and services that didn't exist at any income level in the 1980s.

wingman wrote:

And what do you mean by innovation.. the personal computer, the stealth bomber? Not being a jack-ass, just wondering what kind of innovation you would attribute specifically to Reagan's economic policies.

The tax and regulatory reforms passed from 1981-1986 made it significantly easier to start-up, invest, and profitably sell a small business. In particular, changing the ownership rules and tax treatment of S-corps, accelerating depreciation schedules, and reducing capital gains rates paved the way for huge amounts of capital to flock to the technology sector in the 1990s.

Aesma wrote:

At the end of the day our economies consume natural resources, and those belong to everybody. So the economy should work out for everybody in return.

Nope. No way. Totally wrong.

1. The United States respects natural resources as a form of private property.

2. Natural resources are a minority of economic inputs. The vast majority of economic input comes from human labor and financial capital. In the United States, both of those are - again - private property.

3. As the economic inputs in the United States are generally private, it follows therefore that the economic outputs are private property, too.

The implications of your statement are grotesque. Attempting to proportion economic outputs "for everybody" is an affront to the strong private property rights necessary for a capitalist market economy to function. If the individual lacks private ownership of their own economic inputs and outputs, then the don't exist as individuals. They belong to the state. And that's exactly what has transpired in the socialist economies of the USSR, China, Cuba, Yugoslavia, and now - tragically - Venezuela. Those dreary, dystopian, hungry, and soul-crushing societies with no human rights, no culture, no innovation, no environmental protection, and no hope. But hey, they are equally miserable.

Oh please. Norway is a prime example of such a dreary, dystopian, hungry, and soul-crushing societies with no human rights, no culture, no innovation, no environmental protection, and no hope. But hey, they are equally miserable.

I think it would be foolish to say Norway doesn't have real issues because of their soceio-economic framework. I spend about 2-3 months a year in Norway. They are kind and friendly people, but the work ethic sucks and I've never been impressed by their technical engineering skills. Do they self-report as happy? Sure, but they also have no individual ambition. It's easy to say you're happy when you don't want anything.

And Europeans in general have some terribly misguided notions about individual ethics and human rights. God forbid you're conceived with an extra 21st chromosome in the Netherlands.

Dutchy wrote:

Those semi-communist put all their oil wealth into a fund which benefits all of the Norwegian society.

I'm just wondering what other disastrous and oppressive systems a country can "semi" integrate and still function in the long-run. Semi-apartheid? Semi-theocracy?

Dutchy wrote:

Or to a lesser extent, my home country, part of the gas will go to the state, not the person whom happens own the land.

That's a matter of royalties and operating taxes, not a matter of ownership.

Dutchy wrote:

No, you are absolutely right, private ownership is much better. See Texas as a prime example. Water drained from a well, will influence everything around it, but damn all, then they should have come up with the same idea. I was first so I have the right to.

Yes. Correct. Private ownership is the only means to hold people liable for their actions. Governments will inevitably hold themselves immune from their own mistakes and accidents. This is why countries with strong private property rights are both richer and cleaner than countries with no such rights.

Dutchy wrote:

And you know the great thing! The rest of the world tries to make the Paris agreements and the US won't have to. The best model ever. Damn the world. We are going to pollute and the rest of the world pays! America first, America first! (nice reference to the '30, btw).

You and your Paris Agreement.

The U.S. is one of the leading nations at reducing it's environmental footprint in the last 10 years and we did so with no meaningful legislation or national policy. Technological innovation made it economical to produce vast amounts of natural gas located on private land in the U.S. Thousands of private landowners and private energy firms worked together to bring that gas to market. Natural gas prices plummeted and now coal is rapidly being replaced by a cleaner burning fuel. Europe has tons of shale gas, too, but there's scant private ownership of mineral rights. So, the ability to do anything with that clean gas is left in the hands of bureaucrats. Bureaucrats who, in Germany, decided to decommission safe and reliable nuclear plants with no base load replacement available except for coal.

Dutchy wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

Returning to the topic at hand, the only ethical purpose for collecting tax revenue is to pay for those things which have diffuse public benefit and cannot be privatized. For example, national defense, law enforcement, and certain public works.

So no health, no education, no social security. Public works? Even less public works? No diplomacy? No investment in innovation? And why stop at those things.

So you are construing the phrase "for example" to be a complete and exhaustive listing?

Dutchy wrote:

Why not go all the way, and say no government is needed. If someone thinks they need a national defense, they should pay for it, right?
Like I said before. You're "damn all" policy.

That's a flaming reductio ad absurdum.

American government is predicated on the notion of limited and enumerated powers. You're counter-argument is apparently, "if government should be limited, then why have one at all?" Get real.

DfwRevolution wrote:

And Europeans in general have some terribly misguided notions about individual ethics and human rights. God forbid you're conceived with an extra 21st chromosome in the Netherlands.

I am happy to debate abortion (and Euthanasia practice in The Netherlands) in relation to ethics and human rights with you, certainly in a general debate to human rights and the right of governments to kill. And I will defend the current practice in The Netherlands and let me say it does have a personal link, I was born with a cheiloschisis, one of the thinks frequently named as an example of a moral dilemma. But no need to say it like that.

Statistics
America: 2011 was 13.9 abortions per 1,000 (www.operationrescue.org/about-abortion/ ... n-america/)
The Netherlands: 2010, the abortion rate was 9.7 abortions per 1000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_ ... etherlands)
Global: The global annual rate of abortion, estimated at 35 abortions per 1,000 (https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/i ... -worldwide)

Dutchy wrote:

And you know the great thing! The rest of the world tries to make the Paris agreements and the US won't have to. The best model ever. Damn the world. We are going to pollute and the rest of the world pays! America first, America first! (nice reference to the '30, btw).

You and your Paris Agreement.

The U.S. is one of the leading nations at reducing it's environmental footprint in the last 10 years and we did so with no meaningful legislation or national policy. Technological innovation made it economical to produce vast amounts of natural gas located on private land in the U.S. Thousands of private landowners and private energy firms worked together to bring that gas to market. Natural gas prices plummeted and now coal is rapidly being replaced by a cleaner burning fuel. Europe has tons of shale gas, too, but there's scant private ownership of mineral rights. So, the ability to do anything with that clean gas is left in the hands of bureaucrats. Bureaucrats who, in Germany, decided to decommission safe and reliable nuclear plants with no base load replacement available except for coal.[/quote]
The Paris agreement is essential and a historical agreement. So yeah, why not me and the Paris Agreement. We need to go fosile free, fine natural gas, but that needs to go also.

DfwRevolution wrote:

That's a flaming reductio ad absurdum.

Do you know what that means? https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

DfwRevolution wrote:

American government is predicated on the notion of limited and enumerated powers. You're counter-argument is apparently, "if the government should be limited, then why have one at all?" Get real.

No, I was trying to get at where you draw the line. If you feel taxes is robbery, why then have taxes at all? But no taxes, no government. Not a counter argument, just a check on consistentcy on your part. And there afther I tried to assess where your line is.

Dutchy wrote:

Huh? Where do I say that? And yes, I know a couple whom go much further than you, so almost anarchists in that sense.

You're creating a larger spectrum that apparently actually exists to make yourself seem less like a crazy person.

Meanwhile, DocLightning is miraculously able to deliver diagnoses based on the internet, with no citations to back them up, while simultaneously failing to deliver a substantive argument.

Dutchy wrote:

Based on your answers, I would say you are in favor of a more Victorian society, 19th century.

What is Victorian about it?

BMI727 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Huh? Where do I say that? And yes, I know a couple whom go much further than you, so almost anarchists in that sense.

You're creating a larger spectrum that apparently actually exists to make yourself seem less like a crazy person.

Meanwhile, DocLightning is miraculously able to deliver diagnoses based on the internet, with no citations to back them up, while simultaneously failing to deliver a substantive argument.

Lol, so Freud, what is crazy about my answers? I think that you interpreted my answers and questions wrong. So many questions:
- which larger spectrum?
- what actually exists
- what was crazy first
- what is less crazy now

And yes an ad hominem from you, while you more or less blame Doc for given you an internet diagnosis based on your answers and now you are doing exactly the same without any medical training, hypocritical to say the least, don't you think.

BMI727 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Based on your answers, I would say you are in favor of a more Victorian society, 19th century.

What is Victorian about it?

The much bigger difference between rich and poor, many social aspects of live taken care of by private charities. The difference is that before that, it was even less and you want to go from a higher level of government to a lower standard.

Dutchy wrote:

- which larger spectrum?

The one that includes anarchists, whom you can't seem to find.

Dutchy wrote:

And yes an ad hominem from you, while you more or less blame Doc for given you an internet diagnosis based on your answers and now you are doing exactly the same without any medical training, hypocritical to say the least, don't you think.

No because making a dumb point isn't a medical condition.

Dutchy wrote:

The much bigger difference between rich and poor, many social aspects of live taken care of by private charities.

It would only qualify as Victorian if you ignore everything else which has changed quite a lot. People still live in buildings made with stone but that doesn't make it the stone age.

Dutchy wrote:

The difference is that before that, it was even less and you want to go from a higher level of government to a lower standard.

Define what you mean by "level" and "standard."

BMI727 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

- which larger spectrum?

The one that includes anarchists, whom you can't seem to find.

I was trying to assess where you are on that scale.......

BMI727 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The difference is that before that, it was even less and you want to go from a higher level of government to a lower standard.

Define what you mean by "level" and "standard."

I mean lower government involvement in society.

BMI727 wrote:

Interesting you mention Sweden:
https://www.libertarianism.org/publicat ... weden-rich

Thank you for the chuckle.... liberalisation always works fine if you start of from a good bases. Takes time for those policies ruining a country, it took decades for Reagan to murder your middle class and sending the US on the way to its demise.

Dutchy wrote:

No, I was trying to get at where you draw the line. If you feel taxes is robbery, why then have taxes at all? But no taxes, no government. Not a counter argument, just a check on consistentcy on your part. And there afther I tried to assess where your line is.

TWA772LR wrote:

Yeah it is. The largest portion of US government spending actually isn't on defense, but the redistribution of income, which the gini coefficient represents. Lower gini = more equal income distribution. Higher gini = less equal income distribution.

You skipped the part where the government has no business redistributing income. The only redistributing of income the government should do is when someone's rights are violated and we have a court system to do that.[/quote]

That part only exists only in your head. Property ain´t a human right unless we make it one, property rights don´t exist in nature and therefore we are entirely free to define any rule regarding property as we see fit. No one forces you to pay taxes, having income is your free choice.

Dutchy wrote:

Yeah. What I don't understand is that people defend it, while they will never ever benefit from it. They are among the 99%

Basic human decency. I was taught to keep your hands to myself and not touch things that don't belong to me.

you only had to be taught that, because property is a invented concept.

bhill wrote:

and ALL income....wages and / or capital gains, etc needs to be taxed the same, if a corporation has the same rights I do, they need to be treated as such.

1. How many times do you want to tax a given dollar?

How often do you want to use water? Every time you drink a sip of water, you are drinking molecules from the sweat of your parents from the night you where conceived. That is how circular systems work. Unless you want to limit the government to only spending freshly printed money, you will have to tax the same US$ again and again and again.

I personally think that only profits and not income should be taxed, after all i pretty much have to work if i want to eat and have a place to life, but i can spend every single cent i have between paychecks. Income is mandatory, profit is optional..... so, it would make sense to only tax the optional part, at least much, much more that taxing income.

2. Do you agree that there are ultimately people behind any company?

there are. And guess what, people ARE people. You can´t change being human, but no one forces you to work for profit. Hence taxes on profits a contribution to the states expenses that you agree to by your own free will.

See above. It's just good manners.

If your parents told you it is good manners to violate peoples human rights, they raised you fairly bad.

best regards
Thomas

Dutchy wrote:

Wow, each and every point. You are pulling our legs, right? Just trolling a bit. I would say well done. If you are serious, wow, just wow. Don't know where to start.

Dutchy apparently BMI is

BMI727 wrote:

a decent American (decent human really)

Which made me LMFAO, I'm sure his parents wonder where they went wrong.

DfwRevolution wrote:

[I think it would be foolish to say Norway doesn't have real issues because of their soceio-economic framework. I spend about 2-3 months a year in Norway. They are kind and friendly people, but the work ethic sucks and I've never been impressed by their technical engineering skills. Do they self-report as happy? Sure, but they also have no individual ambition. It's easy to say you're happy when you don't want anything.

Isn't the a major component of happiness, being comfrtable enough not to need anything or worry about your future??

I'd like to know what some of these real issues are, not a lot of crime, good healthcare and education, high salaries, short working week, 5 weeks annual leave, plenty of people are embitious here and if you apply yourself the skys the limit. As for technical engineering skills the company I work for is the market leader globally in it's field, we are better than everyone else in what we do.

If you said the food was shit and supermarkets in general sucked then I'd ber in agreement with you.

Kiwirob wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

[I think it would be foolish to say Norway doesn't have real issues because of their soceio-economic framework. I spend about 2-3 months a year in Norway. They are kind and friendly people, but the work ethic sucks and I've never been impressed by their technical engineering skills. Do they self-report as happy? Sure, but they also have no individual ambition. It's easy to say you're happy when you don't want anything.

Isn't the a major component of happiness, being comfrtable enough not to need anything or worry about your future??

Yes, and to be able to better yourself / develop your skills and as a person, have influence on what you do. And a fair difference in salaries, enough to have an incentive to move along the social ladder, not too much which makes it perceived as unfair, CEO whom earns 300times what an average worker earns.

In general, North-western Europe seems to be the best place to live, because of these things.

As far as work ethics go, don't exactly know what he means, and I don't know the work ethics in Norway since I never worked there myself. If it is anything as in The Netherlands, I would say, the productivity is extreme high, but it is all cramped in relatively few hours and it might be far less hierarchical, professionals are much more self-guided within the framework of the companies. As far as technical engineering skills: the average worker in Europe is far better trained/educated than in America.
Norway is even first on this list: http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/education-index
America: fifth so not too bad.

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/education/

Dutchy wrote:

Norway is even first on this list: http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/education-index/

i don´t think that particular Index very helpful, since "Average number of completed years of education of a population" doesn´t mean all that much if you compare different systems. So when some German states cramped 13 years of school into 12, the Index got lower...... I couldn´t find any proper definition on Education for it....

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Thank you for the chuckle.... liberalisation always works fine if you start of from a good bases.

Please tell us which parts of that article are factually wrong.

tommy1808 wrote:

Takes time for those policies ruining a country, it took decades for Reagan to murder your middle class and sending the US on the way to its demise.

First, the numbers clearly show that shrinkage of the middle class has been more due to people moving up into the upper middle or upper classes than people moving down into the lower middle and lower classes.

Second, which specific policies of the Reagan administration led to the "Murder of your middle class and sending the US on the way to its demise"?

tommy1808 wrote:

Property ain´t a human right unless we make it one, property rights don´t exist in nature and therefore we are entirely free to define any rule regarding property as we see fit.

Violence and cannibalism certainly do exist in nature, so surely the right to life is also, in your estimation, a figment of our imagination. Furthermore, as long as people require resources to continue living there will be property. Property and economics existed long before there was any sort of government, let alone welfare.

tommy1808 wrote:

No one forces you to pay taxes, having income is your free choice.

Continuing to exist is a choice as well, and since it is you must then concede that life, like income, can be taken or utilized by "society" as they see fit.

tommy1808 wrote:

How often do you want to use water? Every time you drink a sip of water, you are drinking molecules from the sweat of your parents from the night you where conceived. That is how circular systems work. Unless you want to limit the government to only spending freshly printed money, you will have to tax the same US$ again and again and again.

The difference is that there is no "use" of a dollar between it being obtained by a corporation and sending that dollar to the shareholders who own it. It is no different that me moving money from a checking to a savings account.

tommy1808 wrote:

I personally think that only profits and not income should be taxed, after all i pretty much have to work if i want to eat and have a place to life, but i can spend every single cent i have between paychecks.

That's a fair stance, but it disincentivizes a key part of the economy. You would further see taxation shift towards the top and discourage investing, particularly investing in the US. It would be a disaster.

Something like FairTax would be much better in that it taxes neither, so people with regular income are not penalized while not disincentivizing investment either (actually quite the opposite).

tommy1808 wrote:

Income is mandatory, profit is optional.....

You just said that having income is a free choice.

tommy1808 wrote:

If your parents told you it is good manners to violate peoples human rights, they raised you fairly bad.

They also taught me that it is good to help people, but doing something because you want to and feel it's right is not the same as doing something because someone is making you. And being acting spoiled and entitled is really off-putting.

Kiwirob wrote:

So you feel that you should receive money and property simply for continuing to exist, right? What do you deliver to your countrymen that provides them a good return on their investment in your existence? Assuming not everyone has their life equally enriched by your very existence, shouldn't those who benefit from you the most foot the bill for your care and feeding? If you feel it is your right to draw on the income generated by others' labor in the form of state benefits, what is it that you believe qualifies you to be a slave owner?

It's called society BMI, if you were the decent human being which you claim to be you'd understand that. At the moment I give far more than I take but as I get older and eventually retire it will be the other way round.

BMI727 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Thank you for the chuckle.... liberalisation always works fine if you start of from a good bases.

Please tell us which parts of that article are factually wrong.

It isn´t. The art of lying works by lying by just putting spin on facts.

Second, which specific policies of the Reagan administration led to the "Murder of your middle class and sending the US on the way to its demise"?

Those that exploded the national debt by 190% of course, i think the by far largest increase under any president outside of war time.

Violence and cannibalism certainly do exist in nature, so surely the right to life is also, in your estimation, a figment of our imagination.

You are so predictable, one only has to give you a weak argument along your line of thought and you go and debunk it, yourself included..... you do realize that you line of argument is in my favor, right? I have no problem accepting all human rights as a creation of the human mind, mine still work if that is true, while your whole argument explodes. If there are no truly natural right and mankind as a whole decides human dignity is a human right and taxing everybody a lot if fine, then it is fine.....

Oh wait, that did happen. But great to see that you finally agree, since you just did.....

Furthermore, as long as people require resources to continue living there will be property.

Life tooled along very nicely for billions of years without the concept of property, 4 billion years of that life on earth didn´t even know what a concept is.
Your liberalism seems more and more like a fundamentalist religious view, unable to see the gaping holes in the theory, but holding on fast to counter-factual believes like that one.
In a sense you are not different from a bible thumper that claims earth is 6000 years old and the bible has only the science anyone ever needs....

Continuing to exist is a choice as well, and since it is you must then concede that life, like income, can be taken or utilized by "society" as they see fit.

Thanks again for finally agreeing with my point in total.

The difference is that there is no "use" of a dollar between it being obtained by a corporation and sending that dollar to the shareholders who own it. It is no different that me moving money from a checking to a savings account.

you are "using" money whenever you decide what to do with it. Paying out shareholders is such a use.

That's a fair stance, but it disincentivizes a key part of the economy. You would further see taxation shift towards the top and discourage investing, particularly investing in the US. It would be a disaster.

funny how high-taxing countries have no problem attracting investments, nor being competitive with the US economy. Heck, with higher effective corporate taxes, high wages, 35 hour working week, 6 weeks paid vacation with 70% of a monthly income as vacation money, high social security costs, high environmental standards and high energy costs can still undercut US steel mills apparently........

It is one of the many fundamentalist religious views you display here.You repeat the mantra despite it flying flat into the face of the world around us.

Something like FairTax would be much better in that it taxes neither, so people with regular income are not penalized while not disincentivizing investment either (actually quite the opposite).

Exactly, you do seem to get it, when you think of it in your religious context. Since there is no return on spending, but only returns on investments, high taxes can not impede investments. But fair tax is fine, how about 80% on everything above a level defined by the fiscal needs of running a nation in a way acceptable to a majority of citizens and in accordance with human rights as they are commonly understood.

tommy1808 wrote:

Income is mandatory, profit is optional.....

You just said that having income is a free choice.

I think you are smart enough to know that i used it differently depending on the context you provided. If you participate in the system, income is mandantory unless you want to starve, or end up in prison because you break the rules of the system you participate in on your own free will. But living in that system still doesn´t force you to make a profit, no matter how much you play by the rules.

They also taught me that it is good to help people, but doing something because you want to and feel it's right is not the same as doing something because someone is making you. And being acting spoiled and entitled is really off-putting.

A good person agrees to taxes.

Kiwirob wrote:

So you feel that you should receive money and property simply for continuing to exist, right?[/quote]

unless we provide people with the option not to participate in the system at all, yes, you have to get paid to just exist. Having a government and not having comprehensive social security is somewhere in the triangle between murder, blackmail and protection racket.

If you feel it is your right to draw on the income generated by others' labor in the form of state benefits, what is it that you believe qualifies you to be a slave owner?

A slave holder needs enforcement. Labor in a nation without comprehensive social security is just as much slavery as your example. I guess the only "fair" option is to make companies employee owned by law.

best regards
Thomas

BMI727 wrote:

So you feel that you should receive money and property simply for continuing to exist, right?

If you want to put it like that. Yes, I believe every fellow countryman has the right to a decent life, no matter what happened in their lives, no matter their education level, no matter what they can and willing to contribute to society. I am happy to pay my taxes towards that goal. Because I believe - and studies have shown over and over again - that this will benefit all. So in the big picture, I am being selfish, if it goes well with the group, it goes well with me.

Might not surprise you, I think a basic income is a great idea and will probably be introduced in a western country in the next 10 years.

You have raised the point of abortion practice in The Netherlands and its morality. I feel this is also a moral point. We have a saying in The Netherlands: "ieder voor zich en God voor ons allen" Every man for himself and God for us all. I don't subscribe to that point of view. Firstly I don't believe in God and secondly, human beings are social creatures. We survive in groups and in that way we created complex societies in about 200.000 years. That way of thinking needs to continue to tackle problems in our society, not every man for himself mentality, or like I said before: "damn all" mentality.

BMI727 wrote:

If you feel it is your right to draw on the income generated by others' labor in the form of state benefits, what is it that you believe qualifies you to be a slave owner?

I don't really want any slaves myself, but if I did have a few knocking around my property it would be in my best interest to feed them, cloth them, provide some form of housing, and if I'm feeling generous even educate a few of them. A well educated and healthy slave would get more money should I decide to sell off a few if they ever became surplus to my needs.

BMI727 wrote:

[

I left it out because market forces do not give a shit what was going on in 1942 or any other time.

First, consider what the government actually did. That law took money out of the pockets of American workers by decree because the government didn't want to pay what it actually costs to execute a war. For as much as Democrats complain about the costs associated with the War on Terror what do you think they'd say if Republicans had taken the same steps to control costs as the Democrats did (twice)?

Second, because the administration attempted to fix the market and botched it horribly it is very likely that the country spent more money than it would have had it just paid what the market would bear during WWII.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wh ... -spending/

Had wages not been artificially capped during WWII, we can safely assume that the big red defense spike during WWII would be somewhat higher (but not wider). But the government totally messed up the entire healthcare system in the process which introduced a massive amount of new spending over the future decades.

Scroll down a bit to the "Entitlement Spending as Share of GDP" chart and look at the dark blue portion for healthcare. All that spending was effectively caused by the unintended consequences of the Stabilization Act of 1942, and remember that this is counting the area under the curve. So doing some Windows calculator app calculus; figure 2.5% from 1970 to 1980, 3% from 1980 to 1990, 4% from 1990 to 2000, and 5% from 2000 to 2010 which gives you 145 GDP%*years spent on healthcare (and counting...). If you consider the American WWII period to be 1940 to 1945 (ignoring that wage controls didn't start until 1942), for the Stabilization Act to have paid off it would have had to save 29% GDP in defense spending per year.

The American government saved a few bucks for a few years and in doing so broke the system and introduced costs that have steadily grown and have no cap.

You keep talking about free markets as if the United States actually has one. Hate to break the news to you but it does not.

tommy1808 wrote:

BMI727 wrote:

Furthermore, as long as people require resources to continue living there will be property.

Life tooled along very nicely for billions of years without the concept of property, 4 billion years of that life on earth didn´t even know what a concept is.
Your liberalism seems more and more like a fundamentalist religious view, unable to see the gaping holes in the theory, but holding on fast to counter-factual believes like that one.

In a sense you are not different from a bible thumper that claims earth is 6000 years old and the bible has only the science anyone ever needs....

There should be no need to invoke bible thumping or religious fundamentalism.

Anyone who has studied biology or natural sciences should be familiar with the concept of the pyramidal nature of territoriality with respect to the food chain.

In nature's pyramid, top predators (mainly terrestrial animals) "own" and defend the largest territories. What they really "own" is the natural resources necessary to afford them a living. This rule also applies to non-predatory animals such as many species of birds and herbivores. In many cases the "ownership" extends to, and primarily involves, male domination of breeding-age females and breeding territories.

Even early human societies employed the concept of territoriality with respect to the spacing out of social clans, tribes, etc., even though in these cases the "ownership" of the land was communal rather than individual.

By the way, those persons who think they own their own bodies ought to read a modern book about microbes. An interesting recent book is I Contain Multitudes: The Microbes Within Us and a Grander View of Life by Ed Yong, 2016, Harper Collins. We are each host to billions of microbes, without many of whom we could not live. It is not inappropriate to think that they own us.

Of course, from the human viewpoint of economics in a capitalist system, individual property and property rights are central to our well being and must be enshrined in our laws. We also need laws bearing upon contracts, ownership, overt greed and criminal behaviour. In any system where "rights" are valued, responsibilities must be recognized and wrongs prevented (or punished).

Dutchy wrote:

As far as work ethics go, don't exactly know what he means, and I don't know the work ethics in Norway since I never worked there myself. If it is anything as in The Netherlands, I would say, the productivity is extreme high, but it is all cramped in relatively few hours and it might be far less hierarchical, professionals are much more self-guided within the framework of the companies. As far as technical engineering skills: the average worker in Europe is far better trained/educated than in America.

I'm not certain this is what OP is referencing, but a lot of Americans have been taught to believe that working no more than 40 hours per week, having 5 weeks of paid vacation, and having good work/life balance makes on lazy and unproductive. It's been beaten into a lot of people here that long, crazy hours and no vacation time makes you a good, happy worker. It's quite sad really.

OA412 wrote:

I'm not certain this is what OP is referencing, but a lot of Americans have been taught to believe that working no more than 40 hours per week, having 5 weeks of paid vacation, and having good work/life balance makes on lazy and unproductive. It's been beaten into a lot of people here that long, crazy hours and no vacation time makes you a good, happy worker. It's quite sad really.

It's also an American habit to vote against one's self interest.

LMP737 wrote:

It's also an American habit to vote against one's self interest.

Boy, it most certainly is. Ugh!

OA412 wrote:

It's been beaten into a lot of people here that long, crazy hours and no vacation time makes you a good, happy worker. It's quite sad really.

Can you provide examples of industries in the USA where this is the case?

I'm particularly interested in learning about industries offering career fields, not businesses hiring part-time or entry-level workers.

See above. It's just good manners.

In the current context, it's more like sociopathy.

Kiwirob wrote:

At the moment I give far more than I take but as I get older and eventually retire it will be the other way round.

Why couldn't you just save that portion that you pay in and have it for later?

tommy1808 wrote:

It isn´t. The art of lying works by lying by just putting spin on facts.

So you must concede that the conclusions are valid given that there is nothing factually wrong. You don't believe it just because you don't want to.

tommy1808 wrote:

Those that exploded the national debt by 190% of course,

Which ones are those? Which pieces of legislation and executive orders are responsible for this?

Furthermore, please explain how these policies and resulting national debt resulted in the "Murder" of the middle class. And, if this really concerns you that much, you shouldn't be a leftist. You should be decrying Reagan as being a RINO.

tommy1808 wrote:

I have no problem accepting all human rights as a creation of the human mind, mine still work if that is true, while your whole argument explodes.

Then explain why I, if I buy into your premise, should be outraged by something like the Holocaust. What about slavery? Or Sharia law?

tommy1808 wrote:

Life tooled along very nicely for billions of years without the concept of property, 4 billion years of that life on earth didn´t even know what a concept is.

It very much did. There are all sorts of examples in nature of competition to gain and control resources. Economics is not voodoo made up to subjugate people, it is a direct result of biology and the laws of thermodynamics.

tommy1808 wrote:

Your liberalism seems more and more like a fundamentalist religious view, unable to see the gaping holes in the theory, but holding on fast to counter-factual believes like that one.

Which facts are untrue?

tommy1808 wrote:

funny how high-taxing countries have no problem attracting investments, nor being competitive with the US economy.

Then where is the European Google?

tommy1808 wrote:

Since there is no return on spending, but only returns on investments, high taxes can not impede investments.

They indeed can because 1) There is almost always an alternative use for the capital and 2) Those taxes will be priced into investments in order to provide a competitive return to investors, so you would see things like rent and loans become more expensive.

tommy1808 wrote:

I think you are smart enough to know that i used it differently depending on the context you provided. If you participate in the system, income is mandantory unless you want to starve, or end up in prison because you break the rules of the system you participate in on your own free will.

You just drew a sneaky distinction. You do need income, but not necessarily yours. You could snatch someone else's which is derived from their labor, e.g. by collecting welfare benefits. You're demanding the benefits of someone else's labor without compensating them, which sounds a lot like slavery because it is a lot like slavery.

tommy1808 wrote:

A good person agrees to taxes.

Taxes to fund the government to do those duties which the government must do. Providing an income, healthcare, and other things do not fall in that scope.

Government is an involuntary association, everyone must do business with the government and for that reason government must be as limited as possible. The basic tenets of human rights demand that as many interactions as possible, economic or otherwise, are voluntary on the part of the individual.

tommy1808 wrote:

A slave holder needs enforcement.

We have the IRS and legislation like FATCA.

tommy1808 wrote:

Labor in a nation without comprehensive social security is just as much slavery as your example.

No it isn't. Save your money and leave. Or don't save your money and leave.

Dutchy wrote:

Yes, I believe every fellow countryman has the right to a decent life, no matter what happened in their lives, no matter their education level, no matter what they can and willing to contribute to society. I am happy to pay my taxes towards that goal. Because I believe - and studies have shown over and over again - that this will benefit all. So in the big picture, I am being selfish, if it goes well with the group, it goes well with me.

See this is where all of the leftist ideas fall flat on their face. You say that you think it's worth it and have no issue with putting your money towards social programs, which I respect because it's your money. And you say that "society" (that is, lots of people) agree with you. But if so many other people agree, then there is no need for it to be done via taxes or government policy and people will freely contribute to such a system. But the dark truth is that you really want to be able to use other people's property for your purposes. It's either the will of the people or you're trying to use tyranny of the majority to violate people's rights.

Dutchy wrote:

Firstly I don't believe in God and secondly, human beings are social creatures. We survive in groups and in that way we created complex societies in about 200.000 years. That way of thinking needs to continue to tackle problems in our society, not every man for himself mentality, or like I said before: "damn all" mentality.

You're providing the rebuttal to an argument nobody is making. Societies, in the sense of groups of people acting together, existed before governments did and before anyone used laws to force them to do so. I'm not against people working together on anything and everything, but participation in all of those things but one should be completely voluntary and the involuntary one, government, should be limited to only what is absolutely necessary. That which the individual cannot choose for themselves should have as little power as possible to choose for them.

Kiwirob wrote:

I don't really want any slaves myself, but if I did have a few knocking around my property it would be in my best interest to feed them, cloth them, provide some form of housing, and if I'm feeling generous even educate a few of them. A well educated and healthy slave would get more money should I decide to sell off a few if they ever became surplus to my needs.

Given that you believe that people do not have the right to the fruits of their labor, which slaves did not receive, and believe that people do have the right to provision of their basic needs, which slaves did receive, why do you believe slavery is wrong?

LMP737 wrote:

You keep talking about free markets as if the United States actually has one. Hate to break the news to you but it does not.

I said nothing about the free market, I said "market forces." Is it your contention that a massive new demand for materiel and loss of potential labor force do not constitute market forces? It's also worth noting that you offer no substantive counterargument to what I wrote.

OA412 wrote:

It's been beaten into a lot of people here that long, crazy hours and no vacation time makes you a good, happy worker. It's quite sad really.

I do it because I like to and it will make me more capable in the end. I consider it a worth investment.

johnboy wrote:

In the current context, it's more like sociopathy.

Can you find a medical text that says that? Apparently Doc can't.

BMI727 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

At the moment I give far more than I take but as I get older and eventually retire it will be the other way round.

Why couldn't you just save that portion that you pay in and have it for later?

Because there will always be people less fortunate than me, I don't have any issue with the govt using my tax money to provide them with assistance. I save additional funds for my pension above an beyond what the govt and my employer save for me, but not everyone else has the ability to do this so the govt offering a pension for everyone is fair.

BMI727 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

I don't really want any slaves myself, but if I did have a few knocking around my property it would be in my best interest to feed them, cloth them, provide some form of housing, and if I'm feeling generous even educate a few of them. A well educated and healthy slave would get more money should I decide to sell off a few if they ever became surplus to my needs.

Given that you believe that people do not have the right to the fruits of their labor, which slaves did not receive, and believe that people do have the right to provision of their basic needs, which slaves did receive, why do you believe slavery is wrong?

Because a slave doesn't have the freedom to pack up and leave whenever thay want to.

BobPatterson wrote:

There should be no need to invoke bible thumping or religious fundamentalism.

I didn´t mean to invoke it in a strict sense, just describe the mindset in terms most people are familiar with.

By the way, those persons who think they own their own bodies ought to read a modern book about microbes. An interesting recent book is I Contain Multitudes: The Microbes Within Us and a Grander View of Life by Ed Yong, 2016, Harper Collins. We are each host to billions of microbes, without many of whom we could not live. It is not inappropriate to think that they own us.

.... and imagine how shocked they would be if they realized how little something and how much nothing we are made of. If you enlarged a diamond to a point where the carbon nucleus is about as big as a football, the spacing between those footballs would be about 10 miles ..... with a few electrons buzzing around in a vast, boiling quantum foam...

Of course, from the human viewpoint of economics in a capitalist system, individual property and property rights are central to our well being and must be enshrined in our laws. We also need laws bearing upon contracts, ownership, overt greed and criminal behaviour. In any system where "rights" are valued, responsibilities must be recognized and wrongs prevented (or punished).

Exactly, we gave us rules for how this society should work, i would just hope we would focus on what works and stop doing what doesn´t.

best regards
Thomas

BMI727 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Your liberalism seems more and more like a fundamentalist religious view, unable to see the gaping holes in the theory, but holding on fast to counter-factual believes like that one.

Which facts are untrue?

Bollucks. You are missing the point. Facts are just facts, but it can lead to the wrong conclusions, as it is with this case.

BMI727 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

funny how high-taxing countries have no problem attracting investments, nor being competitive with the US economy.

Then where is the European Google?

Bollocks. Anecdotal evidence at best. But let me give American society a compliment: I admire the risk-taking and how much more easy it is to valorize knowledge. In Europe, we are much more risk-adverse, which indeed hinders innovation.
The EU as a whole has a surplus, America has a deficit. Is the EU for this reason more successful than America?

BMI727 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

A good person agrees to taxes.

Taxes to fund the government to do those duties which the government must do. Providing an income, healthcare, and other things do not fall in that scope.

Bollocks. You make it absolute. The government is a human construct. So there is no absolute need for government at all. Some failed countries defacto don't have a working government but continue to exist and their population survives. But since we live in quite a complex society, so that some tasks are outsourced to a governmental body is quite handy. And that's the point you fail to grasp. You say you are against all kind of taxations, but even you are for some governmental tasks. If you want a government, then you are all for taxation, otherwise, governments don't exist. So all rhetoric of slaves etc. fails. Then it is just a matter to debate which part of society are subjected to being taxed, how to divide the burden and what is the scope of government, but not the existence of tax.

BMI727 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Government is an involuntary association, everyone must do business with the government and for that reason government must be as limited as possible. The basic tenets of human rights demand that as many interactions as possible, economic or otherwise, are voluntary on the part of the individual.

Bollocks. Really? Living in a group, we are a group animal, means that you automatically give up some freedoms in favor of the group. So I could argue exactly the opposite. Could you give us your train o thought about this?

BMI727 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Yes, I believe every fellow countryman has the right to a decent life, no matter what happened in their lives, no matter their education level, no matter what they can and willing to contribute to society. I am happy to pay my taxes towards that goal. Because I believe - and studies have shown over and over again - that this will benefit all. So in the big picture, I am being selfish, if it goes well with the group, it goes well with me.

See this is where all of the leftist ideas fall flat on their face. You say that you think it's worth it and have no issue with putting your money towards social programs, which I respect because it's your money. And you say that "society" (that is, lots of people) agree with you. But if so many other people agree, then there is no need for it to be done via taxes or government policy and people will freely contribute to such a system. But the dark truth is that you really want to be able to use other people's property for your purposes. It's either the will of the people or you're trying to use tyranny of the majority to violate people's rights.

In a democracy, people decide. So most people are in favor of this system. If people were objecting to paying taxes, then they would vote into power those people whom radically would slash taxes and governmental task with that. In Europe they don't, so the people must agree with it. Yes, I say that I think it's worth. But you don't have to believe me, my opinion is just that, just an opinion. Academic studies are not, they are all about getting to the truth. They all point to a strong government with less inequality are better for by far the most people, but still, have all the freedoms to express themselves and have all the opportunities to them to develop themselves in the way it suits them best. The funny thing is, you are more for the tyranny - to use that world once - of banks and economy. You said it yourself, certain courses at universities should be priced more because there are fewer job opportunities available, so more risk to the banks, so more interest and the object is to steer students away from those courses which you perceive less economical relevant. But you have no problem with slashing the freedom to study whatever suits you best and develop yourself in the direction you want. But if the government redistribute some of the money available, you cry for violation of wealth.

And there you go again "violate people's rights". So a bit of taxation isn't violating people's rights, but lots is? That doesn't make any sense at all. So 10% tax is no violation, but 30% oh men huge human right violation. It's complete and utter bollocks.

BMI727 wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Firstly I don't believe in God and secondly, human beings are social creatures. We survive in groups and in that way we created complex societies in about 200.000 years. That way of thinking needs to continue to tackle problems in our society, not every man for himself mentality, or like I said before: "damn all" mentality.

You're providing the rebuttal to an argument nobody is making. Societies, in the sense of groups of people acting together, existed before governments did and before anyone used laws to force them to do so. I'm not against people working together on anything and everything, but participation in all of those things but one should be completely voluntary and the involuntary one, government, should be limited to only what is absolutely necessary. That which the individual cannot choose for themselves should have as little power as possible to choose for them.

I put it in some context. I am not arguing anything. Group of apes enforces laws, just not written down. Social creatures have lots of rules, written down in laws or otherwise and they carry consequences if you don't follow them, social or otherwise.

BMI727 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

funny how high-taxing countries have no problem attracting investments, nor being competitive with the US economy.

Then where is the European Google?

And where are your legal prostitutes with health insurance and full employee protections?
There is no European google or Facebook due to the fact that the human rights situation is vastly better here, and their business model is to a good degree illegal.

You just drew a sneaky distinction. You do need income, but not necessarily yours.

Wrong. Again. No surprise coming from you... if you have a way out of the system, you don´t need income.

Taxes to fund the government to do those duties which the government must do. Providing an income, healthcare, and other things do not fall in that scope.

That is your point of view and yours only, and there is no logical way to arrive at that point in a generally acceptable way. On the other way it is very easy to argue that the government has to provide for my living, unless they give me the option to leave the system, i.e. hand me the 80th millionth part of Germany and let me provide for myself without any official ever bothering or helping me.
While i think police can be useful, never needed them in over 40 years, i don´t think that every cop has to be armed. That is taxpayers money wasted.... most Prisons, certainly in Prison nation USA, are also wasted tax payers money. Having them run by private companies is effectively theft, since even if the prison is considered needed, providing them with profit is no government task. Talk about entitlements....

Government is an involuntary association, everyone must do business with the government and for that reason government must be as limited as possible. The basic tenets of human rights demand that as many interactions as possible, economic or otherwise, are voluntary on the part of the individual.

Yes, they are. Interactions only made possible by the existence of said Government however have rules they are completely free to define as they see fit.

We have the IRS and legislation like FATCA.

Yup, among other things the IRS is crucial to forcing people to work, involuntarily.

No it isn't. Save your money and leave. Or don't save your money and leave.

It is, because people living there decide it is. If you don´t like to live in a country where the vast majority of people think that is the governments job, why don´t you pack up and leave instead of trying to force a minority opinion onto them? Especially if you use bogus made up property rights, we only have by convention, to be natural rights.....

best regards
Thomas

BMI727 wrote:

Do you? Why the hell should I pay for your healthcare? What return do I see on my investment if I pay for you to get a band-aid or a bypass? I'm sure someone thinks it's important that you're healthy. They should pay the bill for it.

Ah yes, that conservative value of "I got mine so screw you". Of course someone with this attitude is ignoring the fact that something catastrophic could happen in their life.