good point!! Programs should be taxed and administered by the individual states. That way you have 50 experiments or 50 competitions going on all the time and thus the opportunity to see what works and what doesn't The Great Society programs were federal monopoly programs which amounted to a near genocide against American blacks. If a few states had experimented first, the liberal tragedy might never have happened.
This is actually incorrect on numerous counts. We know that the working lifespan of the person is roughly 45 years (age 20-65) and then they can no longer perform the intellectual and/or physical tasks required for employment. During that 45 years the employer is profiting from the labor of the person but they employer's obligation must also cover the costs of the employee once they're no longer able to work. It's an "overhead cost" to the employer. By way of analogy we can compare this overhead cost to the costs imposed on the logging company that clear-cuts the forest for profit and has to replant the forest once their done profiting from it or the strip-mining company that has to restore the natural habitat once it's profited from the minerals it's extracted. Of course many companies do accept this financial "overhead cost" by providing a pension to employees. I'm retired and collecting two pensions from corporations I worked for previously. The problem is that many enterprises don't accept this financial overhead costs for their employees that they profit from. That can be fixed in a number of ways but in the 1930's the Congress decided to split the "costs" by having the employer directly pay half and then indirectly pay half that was taken from the employee's paycheck. The problem was that Social Security was a tax and spend welfare program that didn't build any assets. Instead it merely provided income based upon current taxes to fund current benefits. It didn't build wealth, it spent wealth. Under the law we're still on the "gold standard" but the laws aren't being enforced and because of the Federal Reserve creating so much currency (most of which is digital today) and deficit spending by the US government, the value of the gold reserves would have to be recalculated to cover the national debt. It's not hard to do because I've calculated that already. Instead of a $50 American Eagle containing one ounce of pure gold we'd need a $5,000 one ounce gold coin to return to the gold standard. This isn't hard to do and was last done in 1985 with the Gold Bullion Coin Act. Then all we need to do is enforce the current law that requires Federal Reserve notes to be redeemable on demand in lawful money (gold and silver coinage). That law already exists but is not enforced by the government. Of course the "money" is not about wealth and money only represents the circulation of a limited amount of wealth for exchange in commerce. Most of the transactions today are digital and require no actual money (gold coinage) at all. I'm not sure exactly how much wealth there is in America today but based upon the GDP, that only represents a single year of wealth creation where most is consumed, I'd have to put the total wealth of America around $200 trillion to $500 trillion but that's just a WAG (Wild Ass Guess). What we do know is that the total combined wealth continues to increase annually and that has nothing to do with the money supply.
The Great Society: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society The problem was that the "social conservatives" at the state level opposed both ending poverty and eliminating racial injustice. It was doomed to failure because of social conservatism in the United States that's most easily imposed at the state and local levels of government. Not once have a read a Republican proposal to reduce poverty. Reducing poverty requires higher compensation for employment and not more jobs that under-compensate the employees leaving them living in poverty. More low-paying jobs increases poverty and doesn't reduce it.
perfect example of utter, pure and perfect liberal ignorance. China just switched to capitalism and instantly eliminated 40% of all the poverty on earth. How is that for reducing poverty??? See why we have to be positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance?
And the Federal solution was a near genocide against blacks wherein 1 in 3 males will go to prison and 75% will be born into broken or never formed homes. Our country is based on concept that federal govt knows least and that Hitler Stalin and Mao, the great 20th Century liberals knew less not more about how to solve problems. 1+1=2
not everyone has the privilege of getting pensions from their employers, that was something of the old times but now corporations are greedy and don't want to be taxed much less pay out pensions. the government cannot mandate corporations provide pensions to their employees because that is communism. the government can tax the individual to pay into a pension pool. the only way to build wealth for the poor who have no economic freedom is through taxation, since it uses government force to redistribute wealth from the rich who have the most economic freedom..
anti-American libNazi-like attitude. Our country was settled and made the greatest in human history by far not by violent liberal people who wanted to steal from others but by decent people who wanted to work hard to gain wealth and freedom. You are the violent liberal enemy of America and of everything that it stands for and has achieved. 1+1=2
My point is nothing is free. People demand higher wages...fine but there is a price to pay. People demand long-term leave with pay...fine but there is a price to pay. What determines the price of a product or service; demand, costs, competition, profit. If we for example force 'costs' to be higher, this might effect demand with higher prices, certainly lowering of profits, perhaps cost reductions in other areas which includes outsourcing, etc., We can assume some businesses can cope temporarily with higher costs but in the long run the business must remain viable to everyone involved. IMO we should not force higher costs onto business for political reasons, and I believe most all talk around minimum wages is politically driven. Regarding quantitative easing and other stimulus, over the past decade or so, including massive deficit spending and mounting debt, I don't think it's possible to understand the 'true' American economic picture? $500 billion per year in deficit spending alone is creating ~5 million jobs...stop deficit spending and what happens to our economy? Artificially low inflation also hurts our interest income on our cash investments.
Yes, there is. But it won't be inflation. The price to be paid will be the consolidation of firms no longer able to compete at the new wage equilibrium. It is really that simple. Who cares if we lose our "sweatshop labor jobs". More people spending more money more consistently will be analogous to an oil pump re-circulating currency through our economy.
The regressive nature of a consumption (sales) tax is not a newly identified problem but instead has always been a known problem. The excise tax doesn't tend to regressive be because it's never supposed to be imposed on what people actually need but instead is a "luxury tax" imposed on those things that people don't need and the tax is supposed to be limited to expenditures related to the luxury. There are those that state everyone should provide the same financial support to government through taxation and we could do that.... if we divide all of the wealth being created annually equally among the people. A $15 trillion GDP divided equally would provide every man, woman, and child with about $50,000/yr in income and we could easily tax every single person up to $20,000/yr (far more than we need today in tax revenues) to fund all local, state, and federal expenditures. Of course the cost of government would drop significantly because there would be no poor or low income households in the United States that require any form of welfare assistance. That's a stupid idea of course just like the idea that everyone should contribute to fund the government. There are those households with income above what they need to fund their minimum-mandatory expenditures and they can afford taxation and there are those households that don't have enough income to fund their minimum-mandatory expenditures and they can't afford taxation. Starting with the last statement first we already impose a heavy "excise tax" on non-essential items such as alcohol and tobacco so anyone consuming these non-essential items is supporting the government. Motor fuels are also subject to an excise tax as a non-essential item because the person can live within walking distance of employment, or use public transportation, or perhaps they're like me and are retired so they don't actually need to drive at all (but of course I do and it's a luxury). When we address the burden of taxation it has to be based upon a philosophical foundation and, as a Libertarian, my foundation is the "natural right of property" as established by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 5. In that chapter he addresses the "natural right of property" as being what the "generalist" can secure from nature directly to provide for their "support and comfort" but we don't live in the world of the "generalist" but instead live in the world of the "specialist" that provide for their "support and comfort" through commerce. The "support and comfort" based upon the natural right hasn't changed but the basis for providing the support and comfort has changed from the "generalist" that does everything for themselves and the "specialist" that provides for themselves through commerce. All taxation uses "money" which isn't required for the "generalist" but is required for the "specialist" that engages in commerce. Because the "support and comfort" does have a monetary value (cost) and we can address that quantitatively to establish the minimum-mandatory cost for support and limited comfort then we know where we go transition from the "natural right" to that which is in excess of the "natural right" and we can tax that. I've referred to the minimum-mandatory expenditures necessary as the "costs" of a person/household before they "profit" from commerce. The minimum-mandatory costs for "support and comfort" establish the line where the "right of property" is or is not violated. It doesn't matter if we're taxing the income with an income tax or taxing the expenditure with a sales tax if the tax is imposed on the necessary "money" for the minimum-mandatory expenditures then it's a violation of the "right of property" of the person. Taxation, so long as it's uniform for all, above the "minimum-mandatory expenditures" of the household in providing for their support and comfort doesn't place any different tax burden on anyone. An income tax with an Exemption to cover the minimum-mandatory expenditures required for "support and comfort" and a consumption tax with a Prebate to cover the taxation imposed on the minimum-mandatory expenditures required for "support and comfort" do not violate the Natural Right of Property and the tax burden is the same for everyone if the tax rate is the same for everyone on income above the Exemption and spending above what the Prebate covers. Of course as a Libertarian that supports the core belief of maximum personal and economic freedom based upon our "natural rights" I'm only addressing one-half of the issue when I address taxation on the income and expenditures of the household on their minimum-mandatory costs of their "support and comfort" because I'm not addressing the income itself. When it comes to the taxation I can only ensure that it doesn't violate the "natural right of property" but in addressing the income itself our laws are not based upon the "natural right of property" and because of that our natural rights are being violated. In addressing "income" then we get into the "living wage" issue because a person not earning a living wage has no economic freedom which violates a core belief of Libertarianism. So this discussion is limited to only addressing federal taxation based upon the "income tax" and in ensuring that the taxation doesn't violate the "Natural Right of Property" of the person. It doesn't include the natural right of property related to the actual income itself nor does it address a "consumption (sales) tax" imposed at the state level of government. It's a very limited discussion addressing a single issue of taxation where the Right of Property is not violated and where the tax is uniform across the board based upon a single tax rate above the Exemption (to protect the Natural Right) so there isn't a different tax burden for anyone.
is a good idea of course. Just as everyone pays equally in the supermarket everyone should pay equally for govt. When you use the tax system as a crutch for the poor you simple enable more and more poor people and condition them and their next generations to live on the dole. Its anti science and anti-evolution.
The best way to balance the budget is for the federal government to only enact laws for which it was given legislative authority by the states that created it.
that only happens with bad management. good management simply solves simple problems, at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage.
Whether you've violated the "Natural Right of Property of the Common" (all people) is determined by numerous other factors that predominately revolve around the basic necessity of providing for the "support and comfort" of your household and for any that contribute to the growing of the crops as employees without causing harm to nature. While "support" is quantifiable the "comfort" is subjective but in any case the amount of crops grown cannot exceed the requirements for "support and comfort" of those involved over their lifetime. For example if you consistently grow 3 to 5 times more than what is required for "support and comfort" of all involved in the growing of the crops, leaving a surplus at your death, then you violated the "Right of Property of the Common" (all people). Or if any of those crops rot in storage that is also a violation of the "Right of Property of the Common" or if you cause unnecessary destruction of the land or pollution that taints the land, water and/or air you've violated the "Right of Property of the Common" by your actions. If your actions cause or contribute to the extinction of a species it is a violation of the "Right of Property of the Common" as well. There are numerous conditions related to whether your actions fall within your natural right of property or outside of your natural right of property where you've violated the rights of the "common" (all people) in society.
I failed to respond to this earlier and I should have. Let's start with the fact that defining the "rich" as well as our current "tiered tax rates" are subjective, arbitrary, and capricious. We can also note our current tax rates include more than seven-tiers because we also split income into "earned income" and "unearned income" and each has their own tiered tax rates and that was also subjective, arbitrary, and capricious. Instead of establishing a subjective and arbitrary definition of "rich" (or wealthy) I relied on statistical information that provides a foundation for the minimum necessary income required for the fundamental "support and comfort" of the household in establishing the "Exemption" for all households so that it ends the "deductions" (that are also arbitrary, subjective and capricious) for expenditures above that what is necessary for the basic support and comfort of the household. Next is that the 25% I used in my example was based upon "assumed" annual authorized expenditures and it floats based upon those authorized expenditures. So if Congress decided to fund "going to the moon" in addition to the other authorized expenditures then the tax rate goes up as necessary to cover the expenditures. If we decided we didn't need to spend ten-times more than any other nation on our military and cut that spending by 20% then, all other expenditures remaining the same, the tax rate would go down. If somehow people begin earning more money and the expenditures remain the same then the tax rate also goes down. So I've also eliminated the subjective, arbitrary, and capricious tiered tax rates by establishing a single tax rate above the Household Exemption and that rate is determined by the spending. The tax rate is determined by the relationship between the authorized expenditures and the gross personal income of the nation that creates the median household income. It's really that simple and it always allows Congress to control what each years tax rate will be based upon the spending authorizations because they're linked together. Under today's tax codes there's no linkage between the tax rates and the spending so the government can collect too much (not happening) or too little which creates the deficits and national debt. I created that linkage.
Food is a necessity of life but government is not. Government is for the protection of the "Haves" and not for the protection of the "Have Nots" in society. For example if a person is denied their right to vote because they don't have certain forms of government issued ID and the government changes to a dictatorship where no one is allowed to vote then the person previously denied the right to vote loses nothing. As Janis Joplin once said in a song, "When you ain't got nothing you've got nothing to lose."
the government is the sheep dog, that protects the poor sheep from the rich wolves in the private market. when the rich wolves own the sheep dog, the poor sheep are sacrificed for their greed.
The government isn't doing a very good job because the sheep are slowly dying. Seriously. The federal minimum wage is only $7.25/hr and not even a single person can live on $15,080/yr according to MIT's study of the Minimum-Mandatory Cost of Living in the United States.
If I grow five times more food than I "need" on my own land, please explain how this violates anyone else's property.
what better reason to upgrade your skills so you can earn a better living and contribute more to society. We need to encourage this, not discourage. 1+1=2
