having trouble with Terms? are you on the right. Taxing into Heaven and Death are two different and distinct things, for some Persons.
... one implies the other. Being in San Francisco implies being in California. If you send someone to heaven... you're going to get arrested.
As the Left are primarily a non-religious group, the terms Heaven and Hell are more likely to be defined as where you reside and the explanation of taxing people into Heaven simply means forcing them to leave a State governed by a Liberal Democrat to a State governed by a more Conservative Republican. And the following Liberal Democrat governed States appear to confirm that. 62 percent of New Yorkers planning to leave cited economic factors — including cost of living (30 percent), taxes (19 percent) and the job environment (10 percent) — as the main reasons. Illinois residents have left the state at a rate of one person every 10 minutes for the last 15 years citing taxes, corruption and housing prices as the reason. Many Californians are being driven away by high home prices during the housing bubble, enormously high taxes of all kinds, and a deteriorating jobs market, and the biggest benefactor of California’s former most-productive citizens has been Texas, the largest Republican State in the Union.
voluntary monopolies are state privilege, they lobby the government so they can bully their market share and covet the profits. then they invest a little of those profits into lobbying to repeat the cycle for greater return.
that can be easy to be taken away in congress, what we need is a general basic income for everyone. plus unemployment compensation as is right now is unpopular because it only goes to a handful of people at a time, the basic income will go to everyone so everyone will support the added bonus. it will be paid for from the top down, meaning the richest will have the biggest tax burden to pay it. probably 1,000 a month.
Bully their market share? The other company owns their business, the one doing the merger owns the money they're offering in exchange, the state is the only party bullying anyone by forcibly preventing that voluntary transaction. To deny them this ability is to deny their property right in the first place - the state owns their businesses.
States have their own laws. A basic income could only come from Congress, not fifty, State legislatures. Unemployment compensation can solve simple poverty and for a natural rate of unemployment on an at-will basis. It doesn't get much simpler than that. General taxes on Firms instead of our current regime could even lower that cost to the private sector.
A voluntary monopoly is the other extreme of a state owned monopoly, its one where using money to lobby the government allows the interests of the monopoly over the interests of the people. The state owned monopoly puts the interest of the state over the people. A free market is fair and puts the interest of the people over the state and the monopoly, as the people will have high paying jobs and the best and fairest competition among many businesses providing innovative services. Today we don't have capitalism or a free market, the people are fooled into believing that. Bloated companies that provide the worst service and get away with it, because their the only service provider due to concentrated wealth through unfair lobbying of the state laws, is not capitalism or a free market.
unemployment compensation already exists, and its not working. republicans believe it promotes laziness and is too much, and democrats believe its a safety net and not enough money. the basic income would have support from both sides, as it would be a general handout for everyone and not special groups as handouts are normally distributed, in this case the unemployed.
The notion that all voluntary monopolies are exacted through state intervention is absurd. That would be a coercive monopoly achieved through force. A free market requires freedom of transfer. The ownership of a business implies the right to sell that business to someone else. To interfere with that transfer is an admission that they never held it in the first place. [hr][/hr] In a voluntary monopoly, if the monopolist stops providing a superior product at a lower price, their monopoly ends. In a coercive monopoly stops providing a superior product at a lower price, their monopoly ends. In a coercive monopoly, if the monopolists providing a superior product at a lower price stops, the state will use force to defend it. It was probably never a superior product in the first place, otherwise they wouldn't need the state intervention.
Our regime of unemployment compensation already exists. The rule of State law should never subvert the rule of law, even for controversial and convenient political passions of the moment. It currently doesn't work due to unequal application of the law. With equal application of the law, Labor should be able to quit or otherwise cease work, and still have recourse to unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. That could solve for simple poverty and capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment. In other words, Labor would have recourse to unemployment compensation whenever the private sector is not producing enough jobs or there is any structural form of unemployment. I believe any promotion of the general welfare should engender a positive multiplier effect on our economy, to be that form of investment in the general prosperity. Also, a basic income would have to come from the federal government; whereas, with unemployment compensation, it would be self-effecting and market friendly and as simple as the concept of employment at will can make it, in our at-will employment States.
That 'freedom' of transfer was created by the rich lobbying the government to push smaller competitors out of the market. In no way would a free market allow any type of monopoly, that is contrary to the whole point of competition. Capitalism is where the people are provided with quality products and services for the best prices through fair and open competition, and where the people are employed and paid living wages as a result of that fair and open competition. It's really simple, this neo capitalist jargon makes it complicated to get away with stealing wealth from the middle class much less the poor.
Do you know how many people we have in this country? There is no way we could afford to pay everyone a basic income. The math does not work out
A right of use implies a right of transfer. If you do not have the about to give your property to others, you in no sense hold the property - the state does, and you merely lease it off them under numerous conditions. In short, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Anti-trust had a history in different forms, but was largely an invention of the 19th century. The market is not some utilitarian machine designed to preserve competition and ensure equality. Just acquisition and transfer are all it mandates. What you desire may have merits (I don't think so though), but it's undisputedly anti free market.
We don't have pure capitalism, we have a mixed market political-economy. Distribution of wealth is what public policy accomplishes, in the US.
Excluding differences of political opinions we know why unemployment insurance doesn't work and some facts related to it. 1) Everyone that collects unemployment has a proven record being gainfully employed with demonstrated work skills and experience and all of them are seeking employment instead of government assistance. 2) It is true that unemployment doesn't provide enough income in many cases, but not all cases, when a person becomes unemployed due to no fault of their own. 3) It's limited to only six months so the long term unemployed are left without any income at all even though they've been actively searching for employment for the six months when unemployment insurance was being provided and continue to seek employment after the benefits are terminated. 4) Unemployment insurance can require a person to accept employment for less than it costs for their basic expenditures (i.e. below the cost of living) requiring government welfare assistance after the person becomes employed. 5) Unemployment insurance is predominately funded by employers and the rates they are charged are not enough to fully fund the insurance benefits in many cases. We need to fix all of the above problems with unemployment insurance but this basically relates to state government and not the federal government because the federal government generally doesn't provide unemployment compensation.
there is already a basic income in some socialist european countries, it just needs a tax rate of 95 percent on the rich. if you look at all the private jets, mansions, and yachts, if we taxed it all the people can afford to get at least 1,000 a month to sit home until they choose to work when they are good and ready too.. right now the people are coerced into work or face brutal lives from the torture of poverty
That is exactly what capitalism is, its a utilitarian machine designed to preserve competition for goods and services to the consumer in the most efficient way, and as a result ensures equality of wealth distribution. Crony capitalism is everything else and is what is in place today, and if they are not responsible with the privilege of freedom that comes from a free market due to greed, a socialist will come along and regulate a market to ensure its most basic function of fairness in competition for the interests of the people.
It works because all the European countries are smaller and have smaller populations than the United States. How is taxing the rich 95% in any way fair? Just because they have more money does not mean they should shoulder more responsibility for taxes.
I believe unemployment insurance should be generated from general taxes on Firms, instead of our current regime. It would be more cost effective and would give Firms a market based metric from our political economy concerning employment metrics. It could also help engender an awareness of Labor friendly forms of structural dis-employment. By clearing our poverty guidelines, we could also solve simple poverty and capitalism's, natural rate of unemployment at the same time, with the necessary and proper use of socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual. With that capital inefficiency solved and recourse to a form of minimum wage that can be applied for simply for being unemployed; the Right could even keep their custom and habit of simply claiming it is the least wealthy's, "poor life style choices" that keep them poor on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. - - - Updated - - - I believe all public policies should promote the general welfare and the general prosperity with a positive multiplier effect on our economy, to be considered an investment.
