Trump Brings Back Keynesian Economics

I was referring to taxation when I spoke of taking my neighbor's property. Since I hold it's wrong to take the property of others, I'm not going to advocate taxing him either, since it's pretty much the same thing.

 

I think government has a broader role than merely provision of a few basics.

 

Much larger - but you are preaching to a people who haven't the foggiest notion of what (for instance) a "fair" National Health System and free Tertiary Education can do for a country.

They think its all socialist BS and therefore anathema ...

 

More than half the discretionary National Budget goes to the DoD, and is a boondoggle (F-35 being a prime example of soooo many the kind) ...

 

I begin from the position that it is immoral to take the property of others, unless they have committed some tort for which they owe legal compensation.

Since taxes are taking the property of others, I must oppose them on that basis.

However, others insist that we could not have a viable society without taxes, because then we could have no national defense, no courts, and no police. When I suggest that a society could provide these via voluntary means, I'm told it is impossible.

If we need taxes to provide these things which could not exists without taxes, this does not make taxes morally acceptable. It simply makes them a necessary evil. Nor does it mean that they should be levied to pay for things that the people could otherwise provide for themselves.

Transportation, education, and medical services can be provided by any number of people in a society. There is no need for the government to rob people in order to provide these services.

The size of government, and therefore the amount of taxes levied, should be only as big as is necessary to provided the services the could never be provided by anyone other than government.

 

Is Keynesian the one where your existence is defined by your debt, and equates zero debt with zero existence?

 

Worse - don't want to know. Due to - as you have identified - the socialism stigma. Good trick that. The ruling elite like it.

 

Thanks - that clearly makes your position.

 

And yet most people would rather identify with Robin Hood than the Sheriff of Nottingham..... why is it so? (Hint: something to do with "morality"...)

In other words, when at a minimum everyone has access to basic necessities, and equality of opportunity, including equal access to education (to the fullest extent of their capacity), use of necessary infrastructure (roads, schools, transport, *whether public or private*), regardless of personal or family wealth

*and* universal access to paid employment at above poverty level wages, which no economic system on the planet has yet devised....

and yet such a system *is* possible, because all the materials - resources, technology, labour and know how - *are* available (and Keynes (at Bretton Woods conference 1944) was clever enough to devise a scheme to deal with these issues as they relate to international trade, a scheme rejected out of *unmitigated self interest* by the Americans - there's that pesky issue of "morality" again)

when these things are in place, I will be happy to agree unreservedly with your opening proposition.

 

If you think that I consider the Sheriff of Nottingham to be moral, you're quite mistaken. So am I correct in assuming that you think it's morally acceptable for you to take the property of your neighbor?

 

Nope, and are you ever clueless ...

 

You are confusing the word property. You income is property only when it is employed to purchase goods/services. (The "services" part being the mortgage you more than likely pay in order to buy habitational premises.)

Before that happens, your income is ... uh, just capital. And in the context of National Taxation, you are expected to contribute (from that capital) to the provision/upkeep of services to the country's citizens. Now, if you think that by the "provision of services" you stop at the DoD, then there others who think you aren't going far enough.

I happen to believe that the "provision of services" in this Brave New World of ours includes a National Health Service and a free Tertiary Education - because both are the provision of key services that have become critically central to our way-of-life. And both are wildly out of control cost-wise, meaning only a privileged group of people obtain them.

(Given that we all work hard to generate a Market-economy that employs us, it is difficult to see why some people obtain the privilege of exaggerated wealth and most others do not. You will tell me that they "work hard for it", and I will respond that they are just "lucky ones" in a Market-economy that has no or very little guaranteed income. Besides, luck is by no means any guaranty of fairly sharing the nation's GDP that we all contribute to generate.)

No, I don't think that your "personal wealth" is worth the lives of my children fighting in some foreign land for god-knows whatever reason (aka the "DEFENSE OF THE NATION"). And most kids join the armed-services because - if they survive it - they get a free education. Which they know intuitively is an absolute necessity to succeed in life.

That "free education" they should get from kindergarten up to an including a university degree free, gratis and for nothing ...

(I'm sure you disagree, and am waiting with bated breath ...)

 

Property. Capital. Equivocate all you wish. It's still things that are owned by my neighbor, and I think it's morally wrong to take what is his. I understand that you find nothing wrong with taking what others own, so therein lies our fundamental difference.

Sure, if you feel entitled to the property of others, I could certainly see that you would feel good about providing goodies to make yourself feel good about yourself. Myself, when I wish to provide goodies, I spend my own money or time to do so, rather than steal from others.

 

Equivocating, am I?

Whose equivocating when they insist that Income (upon which taxation is based) is also "property" for which there should be "special consideration".

There is NO "special consideration", except in the US were all those families earning above $100K a year have a "special flat-rate tax" that is set at 30% - but most often is (be means of various boondoggles) between 15/25%.

That's a taxation rip-off or the poor and lower middle-class by the very fortunate upper-classes who pay nowhere near their fair-share for their astronomic revenues ...

You are confusing everything on purpose. Property is obtained/acquired/bought (if desired and if possible) only AFTER taxation of income. We are discussing, I thought, net income taxation - which is a mess in the US ...

 

We are discussing taxation. Taxation is when the government demands that one turn over his property (in the case of taxation, his money) under threat of violence. As I don't think I have any moral right to coerce anyone to turn over their property (including their money) to me, I oppose the idea of taxation.

 

Deficit spending has been going on most every year the country has been in existence.
Those who whine about it are hypocrites.

 

He is from Australlia. So I don't know why he cares about anything the USA does in it's borders.

- - - Updated - - -

Then have Australlia do what ever you want.
As for the USA, we have a large country and an interstate system to make the flow of goods faster. It needs to be maintained.

 

It should be maintained by those that use them. Pay for what you use.

 

Hence the gas taxes.
License fees, etc.

 

Then you are prepared for the higher prices due to increased transportation costs?

Besides, these are (for the most part) interstate roads that are built, paid for and kept by the Federal government. That is, everybody benefits with easier and lesser costs deliveries of goods, mostly parts that are made elsewhere for incorporating into final-products somewhere else. They are key to "interstate trade".

So, what is it that are you complaining about now with your one-liners ... ?

 

Yes, I am prepared to pay for the benefits I receive. And those that don't ought not need to pay to subsidize me.

If is hasn't been clear, I'm complaining that it's wrong to forcibly take the property (including money) of one's neighbor. Therefore, the government should not do so.

 

Justify your benefits instead of stating your claims.

Your wanting them is just not enough - given the fact that the intent of interstate highways was precisely to provide efficiencies in the transport of goods and services (cars, buses). These were the real, tangible benefits that - I gather - you prefer to be rid of.

You might want to live in Alaska where there are damn few interstate highways - just four, and in reality only two ...

 

The only reason the Feds do it is because the states did not want to undertake the costs originally.

Besides interstate transportation is just that inter-state and on a national scale it the Federal government that should undertake the construction and maintenance costs.

Moreover the benefits are real and tangible.

Try to remember this: Even geographically, you live in the United States ...

 

I just hope Trump can bring us more than a bunch of short-term construction jobs. Some good skilled labor that doesn't involve working outside from dawn til dusk, and maybe beyond, would be nice.

 

If you want efficiencies of transport, then pay for what you want. Don't rob others to pay for something that benefits you. It's wrong to rob other people, even if you rob them with then intention of building roads. Roads can be built without robbery, so they should be built that way.