dwr0109 Wrote:So why is it that "percolate up" economics do not work, but "percolate down/trickle down" economics do.

Ok, why does water flow downhill? You ask simply, "why does the universe behave the way it does? Why doesn't it do something else?"

But to go further

Quote:Wouldn't the middle class spend that extra income on goods and services provided by those who own the business that provide them?

Wouldn't the money end up in the same place?

It would, except that Obama's plan is to take it from the businesses again, and give it back to your "middle class." Then repeat.

Why wouldn't this work? Because the people who run that business figure, "Hey I did a good job and got paid, then the money was taken away and given back to the customer for doing nothing. Why should I bust my butt doing all this work?"

That's Orwell's Animal Farm, that's Lenin's Soviet Union, and that's a proven failure.

Secondly, it takes capital to start and run a business, so if you take this money and "redistribute" it...a lot of businesses will go under right away. Two main factions will survive: Gov't run institutions (again, we go back to the USSR) and the very rich who have the capital to keep their businesses around through the redistribution. So, in short this approach allows the government officials to gain power and wealth, and it allows the rich to grow richer very quickly. It is no coincidence that Ted Turner and George Soros (among others) support this approach, b/c they've go theirs...and they see a way to make more.

Quote:“So you think that money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Anconia, “Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?” ---passage from Atlas Shrugged

Rebel Wrote:

Quote:“So you think that money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Anconia, “Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?” ---passage from Atlas Shrugged

That quote is always misused. "The love of money is the root of all evil!"
What do you think motivates the moochers and looters in your quote? "Love of money", the same thing that inspires others to cling to their money and think that paying taxes is evil, yet they want the government to pull money out of it a$$ to support their goals.

DrTorch Wrote:

dwr0109 Wrote:So why is it that "percolate up" economics do not work, but "percolate down/trickle down" economics do.

Ok, why does water flow downhill? You ask simply, "why does the universe behave the way it does? Why doesn't it do something else?"

But to go further

Quote:Wouldn't the middle class spend that extra income on goods and services provided by those who own the business that provide them?

Wouldn't the money end up in the same place?

It would, except that Obama's plan is to take it from the businesses again, and give it back to your "middle class." Then repeat.

Why wouldn't this work? Because the people who run that business figure, "Hey I did a good job and got paid, then the money was taken away and given back to the customer for doing nothing. Why should I bust my butt doing all this work?"

That's Orwell's Animal Farm, that's Lenin's Soviet Union, and that's a proven failure.

Secondly, it takes capital to start and run a business, so if you take this money and "redistribute" it...a lot of businesses will go under right away. Two main factions will survive: Gov't run institutions (again, we go back to the USSR) and the very rich who have the capital to keep their businesses around through the redistribution. So, in short this approach allows the government officials to gain power and wealth, and it allows the rich to grow richer very quickly. It is no coincidence that Ted Turner and George Soros (among others) support this approach, b/c they've go theirs...and they see a way to make more.

Good point. I'm not in favor of raising taxes on anyone, but if anybody needs a break, its the middle class. I'm all for a flat tax on everyone, but we'd need to make some spending cuts.

Its a little too late to just bail on Iraq, but the trillions of dollars we're going to spend there on Iraqi welfare sickens me. How much tax relief could that money have provided? How much better would our economy be, if those trillions of dollars had gone towards tax reductions for businesses and individuals?

uhmump95 Wrote:

Rebel Wrote:

Quote:“So you think that money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Anconia, “Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?” ---passage from Atlas Shrugged

That quote is always misused. "The love of money is the root of all evil!"
What do you think motivates the moochers and looters in your quote? "Love of money", the same thing that inspires others to cling to their money and think that paying taxes is evil, yet they want the government to pull money out of it a$$ to support their goals.

"Paying" taxes is not evil...I have no problem with people voluntarily giving the fruits of their labor to anyone..including the government.
Being "forced" at the point of a gun to pay taxes is evil. You are correct that asking the government to steal from one person and give to another to support their goals is also evil.

Why not let's just stop the theft and voluntarily live together without forcing each other to do things against their will?
Let's stop locking up peaceful people for nonviolent victimless crimes. Let's end the welfare state and actually help people through charity that really need help instead of lumping in freeriders with those that are in need.
Let's end the silly "war against drugs" and thus eliminate most of the crime associated with it.
Let's have a government so small that it is almost a non-issue as to who we have to elect as it's President.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:"Paying" taxes is not evil...I have no problem with people voluntarily giving the fruits of their labor to anyone..including the government.
Being "forced" at the point of a gun to pay taxes is evil. You are correct that asking the government to steal from one person and give to another to support their goals is also evil.

Why not let's just stop the theft and voluntarily live together without forcing each other to do things against their will?
Let's stop locking up peaceful people for nonviolent victimless crimes. Let's end the welfare state and actually help people through charity that really need help instead of lumping in freeriders with those that are in need.
Let's end the silly "war against drugs" and thus eliminate most of the crime associated with it.
Let's have a government so small that it is almost a non-issue as to who we have to elect as it's President.

Beeaytches!

DrTorch Wrote:

Fanatical Wrote:There is a large income disparity in this nation, and Obama is playing to it.

That's not only ethically wrong...it's a good way to undermine a society.

And don't bash people for bringing up communism...this is one of Marx's foundational principles. It is probably closer to pure communism than the institution you reference.

It also is violation of the most basic 'ethics', the Ten Commandments. Which is why its always such a disaster, its immoral. "thou shalt not steal" doesn't mean its okay to vote for other people to steal for you. "Thou shalt not covet ..", Socialism is sold on Class Warfare(Envy).

you'd probably like this guy, he is a President at Morgan Stanely but also his dad is a famous Theologian.

Fiscal Conservatism is part of the Christian Credo

Quote:It is not for Christians to decide that the 6th commandment (abortion), or the 7th commandment (protection of marriage), are more important than the 8th commandment (economic freedom), or even the 10th commandment (tax policy and wealth redistribution). The decalogue summarizes the Christian perspective on a whole host of issues, and these issues include (implicitly or explicitly) issues that are social, and economic. Many Christians [properly] feel strongly about the institution of family, and the need for a Biblical model of family to exist in the home. Has it occurred to many believers how many parents are forced to go to a "two-income" model to get by, where perhaps a revised tax policy would enable more families to consider the more traditional option of a single income, allowing more families to have a parent in the home full-time? Is that merely an issue of "greed" and "money", or is that a case where nuance and contemplation allows us to see the broader implications of an issue that seems to be merely economic? Is the subject of tax credits for private school choice a matter of plain financial policy, or is it a serious issue for families and churches? Does the level of marginal tax burden paid by wealthy people hinder and negatively affect the funds raised by churches and non-profit entities that could be used for Kingdom purposes? I believe Christians need to think through these things in a more sophisticated manner. Burdensome economic policy that hinders economic growth are more than just fiscally irresponsible; they are morally irresponsible. Our kids and grandkids inherit the obligations of a government that spends money like a drunken sailor. Our covenantal succession is hampered by the egregious death tax, which robs families of generational wealth through a 50% tax on funds that have already been taxed multiple times. The prices struggling families pay for routine goods and products are forced up when the government interferes with free trade, and strangles competition in the marketplace. Family time is threatened when a dad has to work extra hours because his after-tax income is lowered by increased FICA payroll taxes that he never signed up for to begin with.

Examples are aplenty, but I risk overstating my point. Essentially, a comprehensive view of political engagement will deal with judicial restraint, and it will embrace the sanctity of life, and it will insist on protection for the unborn, and it should be defined by a muscular national defense, but it also must consider the key economic issues of the day. The Presidential election of 2008 is a screaming example. The two candidates could not be more opposite one another in these fundamental social and foreign policy issues. One is an internationalist; the other a Buckley-ite conservative. One is an extreme pro-abortion advocate; the other possesses a lifetime pro-life voting record. One praises the efforts of Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer on the court; the other admires Thomas and Scalia. But along with all these issues, we must look to their differences in matters of the economy as well. One believes that capital gain taxes on productive investments need to be raised, because the rich should be soaked for the sake of "fairness"; the other wants to make President Bush's tax cuts in this area permanent. One candidate wants to burden global economic trade and expansion; the other wants to lift current regulations that are already too tight. One wants to place authority over schools in the hands of bureaucrats and unions; the other wants to give parents choice and opportunities. The contrasts could go on and on and on, but I can best summarize my point as follows:

I know who I am voting for this November, but I also know why I am voting that way. And the reasons includes matters economic and fiscal every bit as much as it does the other categories Christians ought to care about. That is the Christian view of politics, and it is anything but "greedy."

GGniner Wrote:

DrTorch Wrote:

Fanatical Wrote:There is a large income disparity in this nation, and Obama is playing to it.

That's not only ethically wrong...it's a good way to undermine a society.

And don't bash people for bringing up communism...this is one of Marx's foundational principles. It is probably closer to pure communism than the institution you reference.

It also is violation of the most basic 'ethics', the Ten Commandments. Which is why its always such a disaster, its immoral. "thou shalt not steal" doesn't mean its okay to vote for other people to steal for you. "Thou shalt not covet ..", Socialism is sold on Class Warfare(Envy).

I agree with you completely. But it took some radio broadcasts by RC Sproul before I made the connection.

Quote:you'd probably like this guy, he is a President at Morgan Stanely but also his dad is a famous Theologian.

I think this is a great challenge to think through the issues at a deeper level.

Rebel Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:"Paying" taxes is not evil...I have no problem with people voluntarily giving the fruits of their labor to anyone..including the government.
Being "forced" at the point of a gun to pay taxes is evil. You are correct that asking the government to steal from one person and give to another to support their goals is also evil.

Why not let's just stop the theft and voluntarily live together without forcing each other to do things against their will?
Let's stop locking up peaceful people for nonviolent victimless crimes. Let's end the welfare state and actually help people through charity that really need help instead of lumping in freeriders with those that are in need.
Let's end the silly "war against drugs" and thus eliminate most of the crime associated with it.
Let's have a government so small that it is almost a non-issue as to who we have to elect as it's President.

Beeaytches!

I am fine with the FT. It's still theft, but its certainly a better system than we currently are strapped with. I think the fear that those in power have with this is that it might allow people to start "thinking" about the evils of taxation and Tax revolt could occur with this system since "withholding" would end. Businesses could simply...stop collection of the tax in massive opposition. There would be nothing the government could do to stop it...except change it's policies or downsize due to lack funds.

Of course they could just print money to finance their operations and leave us alone.

Fo Shizzle Wrote:I am fine with the FT. It's still theft, but its certainly a better system than we currently are strapped with. I think the fear that those in power have with this is that it might allow people to start "thinking" about the evils of taxation and Tax revolt could occur with this system since "withholding" would end. Businesses could simply...stop collection of the tax in massive opposition. There would be nothing the government could do to stop it...except change it's policies or downsize due to lack funds.

Of course they could just print money to finance their operations and leave us alone.

How is it theft when it's voluntary? Don't want to pay taxes? Grow your own food, build your own boat, drill for your own oil, build your own car, and build your own home.

Rebel Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:I am fine with the FT. It's still theft, but its certainly a better system than we currently are strapped with. I think the fear that those in power have with this is that it might allow people to start "thinking" about the evils of taxation and Tax revolt could occur with this system since "withholding" would end. Businesses could simply...stop collection of the tax in massive opposition. There would be nothing the government could do to stop it...except change it's policies or downsize due to lack funds.

Of course they could just print money to finance their operations and leave us alone.

How is it theft when it's voluntary? Don't want to pay taxes? Grow your own food, build your own boat, drill for your own oil, build your own car, and build your own home.

WTH

cb4029 Wrote:WTH

Fo, you wanna handle this one?

cb4029 Wrote:

Rebel Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:I am fine with the FT. It's still theft, but its certainly a better system than we currently are strapped with. I think the fear that those in power have with this is that it might allow people to start "thinking" about the evils of taxation and Tax revolt could occur with this system since "withholding" would end. Businesses could simply...stop collection of the tax in massive opposition. There would be nothing the government could do to stop it...except change it's policies or downsize due to lack funds.

Of course they could just print money to finance their operations and leave us alone.

How is it theft when it's voluntary? Don't want to pay taxes? Grow your own food, build your own boat, drill for your own oil, build your own car, and build your own home.

WTH

You forgot, deliver your own mail.

Rebel Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:I am fine with the FT. It's still theft, but its certainly a better system than we currently are strapped with. I think the fear that those in power have with this is that it might allow people to start "thinking" about the evils of taxation and Tax revolt could occur with this system since "withholding" would end. Businesses could simply...stop collection of the tax in massive opposition. There would be nothing the government could do to stop it...except change it's policies or downsize due to lack funds.

Of course they could just print money to finance their operations and leave us alone.

How is it theft when it's voluntary? Don't want to pay taxes? Grow your own food, build your own boat, drill for your own oil, build your own car, and build your own home.

I will agree with your point..based on its assumption that one could actually avoid all purchases of goods and services under the FT.

I advocate self sufficiency and agorism as a tool to bring down the state. I agree if enough people decided to take that route of civil disobedience that the government would implode upon itself under a system like the FT. That's not likely to occur..but..one can dream!

The problem is that the free market will respond to black and gray market dealers under ANY tax system. Those that choose to try and make a living in those markets will be under constant attack from those that choose to live within the system. Living an agorist lifestyle would be a very tough way of life under any tax system. I guess I could conceive of a society that consisted of only black markets..but..wouldn't that be a government free society?

You do make a good point though..One could choose to withdraw from the system if so desired...but.. What about the business owners?Businesses already are "forced" to collect taxes...that will not change with the FT. In fact..they will be forced to collect even more. Is it not theft of a business owners labor to have to be forced to submit to this system or any other for that matter? I guess he could refuse to participate, trade in the black market and face the risk of being put in a cage.

Anyway...I find the whole discussion very interesting and thought provoking

Let's play then fo. I am always open to new ideas.

My question is:

In your scenario, is there no government or a very limited government?

Maybe this need its own thread...

firmbizzle Wrote:

cb4029 Wrote:

Rebel Wrote:

Fo Shizzle Wrote:I am fine with the FT. It's still theft, but its certainly a better system than we currently are strapped with. I think the fear that those in power have with this is that it might allow people to start "thinking" about the evils of taxation and Tax revolt could occur with this system since "withholding" would end. Businesses could simply...stop collection of the tax in massive opposition. There would be nothing the government could do to stop it...except change it's policies or downsize due to lack funds.

Of course they could just print money to finance their operations and leave us alone.

How is it theft when it's voluntary? Don't want to pay taxes? Grow your own food, build your own boat, drill for your own oil, build your own car, and build your own home.

WTH

You forgot, deliver your own mail.

You do realize the the USPS has govt. granted monopoly on mail delivery under the price of $1.00? I don't know if someone else could do the job or want to..but..we will never find out as long as the USPS has a coercive monopoly on that delivery.

uhmump95 Wrote:Let's play then fo. I am always open to new ideas.

My question is:

In your scenario, is there no government or a very limited government?

Maybe this need its own thread...

Well...Personally I'd prefer no government. I think people are capable of voluntary associations with each other using contracts,private property rights and the principle of non-aggression to self-govern and control society without force. I realize this would take a major paradigm shift and is not easily understood. If you are interested in this type of theory I suggest the book..."Healing our World" by Dr. Mary Ruwart. It's pretty good at laying out this type of society. I think it can be downloaded in PDF at Ruwart.com

One of the main things to grasp would be a society with only "private" property. Property rights would play a huge part in almost everything.

So with no government, I am sure you are removing all levels not just the federal. So do you expect every individual to be involved negotiating their own contracts or will they have the ability to allow others to represent them? If so could one person attempt to get the ability to represent a group of people? Wouldn't this just degenerate into another form of the government you are trying to get rid of?

uhmump95 Wrote:So with no government, I am sure you are removing all levels not just the federal. So do you expect every individual to be involved negotiating their own contracts or will they have the ability to allow others to represent them? If so could one person attempt to get the ability to represent a group of people? Wouldn't this just degenerate into another form of the government you are trying to get rid of?

Yes..Individuals would certainly contract with a DRO (dispute resolution organization) to represent them...DROs would...as all other free market businesses be rated by independent rating organizations(like consumer guide) as to their efficiency,fairness and cost..ect.
Those that could not afford these services would likely be taken on as clients to show their community goodwill as agencies do now. Insurance companies would also contract with these agencies in behalf of policy owners.

You bring up a good valid question. I like that you want to punch holes in this system...That's what I find fun and interesting.

My answer....Your scenario would surely occur in a true free market(no government)....and...If a DRO managed to garner a monopoly on these businesses...it will surely be because they are offering the best quality,service and cost in their marketplace....Good for them!! Nothing wrong with being the best in your marketplace.

If a DRO attempted gain an monopoly in their market in an immoral or coercive manner outside the norms of accepted business practices.....Companies in search of profit would surely pop up as watchdog agencies to keep an eye on bad citizens of the free market. Media..now totally independent and not regulated by government would also would sound alarms as to monopolistic companies and those that show poor quality and service...Finally the media doing what it is supposed to do!!

OK...Here comes a new DRO into the marketplace seeking to take market share from those that are not behaving morally or have sub par quality or service...This new DROs business model might be that.."We guarantee that our services will not be predatory or we have faster service...ect."..whatever might lure consumers to them.... The consumer...now with unlimited options as to where he does his business(since govt. force is gone)..may well seek to punish those companies that acted outside the norms of good faith by withdrawing their business in favor of the new DRO... The beauty of a total free market paradigm...is ..the consumer has TOTAL control of almost everything..and..all consumers seek the same thing eventually...quality,service and price.

Of course if you are a sadist...you would seek evil...but..thats another whole discussion..that actually has an answer also...

Damn..it's late...I gotta crash...too much thinking.
I'm not an expert on this stuff, but I find it fun to banter about.
Look forward to your next question...or total debunk of my crap..