"Free To Choose", by Milton Friedman, a nobel prize winning economist, and a frequent columnist in various publications.

"The Road to Serfdom", by F.A. Hayek, an austrian economist who wrote about his observations on socialist economic policies and their inevitable tendancy towards totalitarianism, based on him witnessing the construction of Nazi germany. Hayek predicted during the WW2 time frame that the recent eastern block communist nations would degenerate into authoritarian prison. To decide if he was right or not, you need only look at the case of divided germany. One socio-economical situation built a wall to keep its citizens from leaving. One turned into a cultural, economic, and industrial powerhouse.

Friedman's book laments the unfortuneate expansion of government power via economic regulation and manipulation, and the inevitable restrictions this creates on personal freedoms. The most striking and illustrative example of this in the united states is Appendix A of his book - which is an enumeration of the economic planks of the 1928 Socialist Party of the USA. That is, in 1928, there was a socialist party here, that was trying to get elected, and they layed out their vision for a socialist america.

They didn't get elected - infact, they hardly got any votes.

But every single one of their economic dreams for a socialist america has since come true. The water temperature has been increased 1 degree at a time ever since FDR and the new deal (and actually starting even before then.. Friedman argues that the Federal Reserve's inappropriate manipulation of money supply led to the crash that instigated the depression.. which gave FDR the political capital for masssive unchecked expansion in government power)

I can't state the facts any better or more clearly than Friedman and Hayek do. Everyone that cares to have an opinion about matters of taxation, economic freedom, and the role of government owes it to themselves to pick up Friedman's book.

As an aside, social security is architected incorrectly if you take at face value what its proponents claim it is designed to do. Social security is a regressive tax, the poorest pay the highest percentage of their income. This is a result of the contribution cap (its around 95k or something like that, isn't it?). Income above the cap is not taxed for SS reasons. This necessarily means that this tax is artificially high on the middle and lower income segments of society. Strike 1.

Strike 2 has to do with how social security pays out benefits. SS pays until you die. If you beleive that there is a correlation with material wealth and life span (hint: there is), then the net effect is that the lower income segments of society are paying a disproportionate share of the contributions, contributinos which get paid out disproportionally to the rich if for no other reason then they tend to live longer. There are other factors that make SS distributions a bad deal for the poor but i don't remember the off the top of my head.

Irrespective of your opinions on the merits of a program with the stated goals of SS, a relatively simple analysis shows that it is failing to meet them. If policy makers are true to their word about what the point of SS is, they would at a minimum restructure the taxation side so that there was a contribution floor rather than a contribution cap. Fixing the distribution side of the program is more involved.

The hard lesson learned throughout the development of western civilization is that moneyed interests will seek to retain their financial security via government manipulation. The key contribution of the British was to adopt an open econmic policy that allowed for better wealth mobility. The key contribution of the American system was to supplement that with an intentionally limited governement. Jefferson and his ilk understood that expansion of government power inevitably means reduction in individual freedom.

Progressives, like socialists and marxists (who, through no deliberate acts, but only through good but misplaced intentions, perverted themselves into the National Socialists, or the Nazis -- read Hayek's book), have high minded ideals and an agenda that is perhaps praiseworthy. However, their methods are at fault because they nearly universally revolve around government compulsion to acheive their aims. Each tenet of the progressive (and typically, democratic) agenda requires an expansion of government powers, and the correspoding reduction in individual freedom.

this in effect creates a government "machine" with more power than people feel comfortable with. Progressives tend to support this as long as they are running the show, but once an opposing ideology takes control (say, the republicans, although the notino of democans and republicrats having any real differences these days is somewhat suspect) of the machine, the Progressives lament all of the radical changes the opposition is able to make. "If only we were still running things, this wouldn't have happened", they say.

No. This will always happen. Someone will always displace the current ruler, and some new opinino will always displace the previously fashionable one.

This is why a government ethos which is fundamentally limited, and only with great care and reservation, expands its powers, is the most just, least invasive, and most ethical choice.

But don't take my word for it - read the books I mentioned earlier.

-Eric

AcesHigh wrote:
It was more of an ethos assessment, if anything.

id rather hear the logos side

MisterCMK wrote:
Funny, seems to be that Bush graduated with a Bachelors from Yale in 1968 and then from Harvard with a Masters of Business Administration after serving in the military.

Next time do a little research before spouting off at the mouth.

Its funny how every time a political discussion comes up, those who cannot come up with any solid arguments end up trying to bash Bush. He may not be a slick mouthed democrat, but he sure as hell makes his point. I would rather have a man that is just like you or me than some slick talking sleezeball.

i bet if he took osama's cock out of his mouth for two seconds he could speak a bit more clearly....:eek:

DaveH wrote:
The education thing is just silly, not worth discussing.

It was more of an ethos assessment, if anything.

Democrats supposedly are open to all ideas but are pretty closed minded on many issues.
Republicans supposedly lower taxes but thats just income tax (the one most people care about since they see the direct affect it has on them) but then raise other taxes to make up for that lost income.

Republicans and Democrats both suck, you need a mixture of both parties to run the country.

AcesHigh wrote:
<snip> The Democratic mindset is to think about others and not ourselves. Improving society together. It seems to be a hard concept for some Republicans.

This is really going off on a tangent, but oh well.

The education thing is just silly, not worth discussing.

If Dems mindset is to think of others and not themselves, then how can you explain that conservatives give far more (as a percentage of income) to charity than the dems do?

This is my take on that statement. In general, Dems like to position themselves and may even believe that they are thinking of others more than themselves, but what comes out of their attempt to help others is just another step toward socialism. I like the usa the way the founding fathers set it up, it is what has made us the greatest country in the world.

I was speaking about the highest tier of education - the doctorate. Doctorates often required to teach college level courses. Almost all of the doctoral professionals I have spoken to have been democratic, including most of those in even a conservative a state as North Dakota. There is a higher ratio of college educated professionals are democratic, and this percentage increases as education level increases. The more uneducated you are the more conservative you tend to be.

Now with that being said, most of the comparable Democratic candidates have doctorate degrees of some form or another, whether it be Ph.D or equivalent law school or business doctorate. As I recall Obama, Edwards, and both Clintons (Hilary and Bill) are all doctorates from law. Heck, Bill was a law professor down in Arkansaw.

And that is all I want to say about education.

It isn't about whether or not Bush has completed the highest level of graduate study or not. It's not about whether he can form a cognitive sentence without grammatical mistakes or not. There's basically a big bag of less than prudent things the Bush administration has done that is inexcusable and really makes him a terrible president. It's a big can of worms and I don't want to get into it as I have had my share of debates against North Dakotan conservatives already.

The point of all this is that some Democrats have really intelligent and progessive ideas that the typical uneducated person would interpret as bureacratic mumbo jumbo simply because they don't get it. The Democratic mindset is to think about others and not ourselves. Improving society together.

It seems to be a hard concept for some Republicans.

AcesHigh wrote:
It is interesting to note that liberals occur in the highest percentage in the highest tiers of education. With that being said, there is no prerequisite for intelligence in politics. I think Bush makes a fine example of this.

Funny, seems to be that Bush graduated with a Bachelors from Yale in 1968 and then from Harvard with a Masters of Business Administration after serving in the military.

Next time do a little research before spouting off at the mouth.

Its funny how every time a political discussion comes up, those who cannot come up with any solid arguments end up trying to bash Bush. He may not be a slick mouthed democrat, but he sure as hell makes his point. I would rather have a man that is just like you or me than some slick talking sleezeball.

DaveH wrote:
I'm too lazy to figure this out, so maybe Chuck will. What would the flat tax rate have to be to make sure there is enough tax revenue to cover expenditures? 10%? 15%? 25%?

The GDP of the US is $12,980,000,000,000 with a labor force of 151,800,000 (thanks wikipedia!!) and our gov't spent $2,600,000,000,000 last year.

so, 2,600,000,000,000 / 12,980,000,000,000 = 20% which is 5% lower than I paid this year.

I guess I didn't need the labor force total number for that equation, but I found it so I thought I'd post it.

MethodlesS wrote:
Also, clinton is one of the best presidents to come through the white house.

Ever.

You should do your research.

Hell Ya!

I'm too lazy to figure this out, so maybe Chuck will. What would the flat tax rate have to be to make sure there is enough tax revenue to cover expenditures? 10%? 15%? 25%?

tjamz wrote:
2. But, everyone is paying the same percentage regardless of their profession/wealth class. The system you are suggesting is similar to the one that caused people to immigrate to the united states in the first place. They felt they were being taxed at an unfair rate in comparison with the "rich". Let's face it, its not unbelievably hard to make $100,000/year. Most successful sales people can do that fairly easily. But what separates those making 100,000 a year and 1,000,000+ a year as a CEO/executive of a fortune 500 company? Likely it is who you know, family name (Bill Ford anyone?), incredible luck, and severe ass kissing....some people rise to the top, but not as many as the other 4 ways. Working for a multi billion dollar corporation, I can tell you that the upper echelon of management will do just about anything to make sure that no one else will get promoted or warrant a huge promotion to upper management (insanely high quotas, cut in pay for top producers, etc...), instead there is a constant hiring from OUTSIDE the industry (see "who you know") It's not like you can take a class at NDSU/UND titled "CEO 101" or any other class that will tell you how to make it to the top of any given industry. This is kinda getting off topic, but what I'm getting at is that I don't understand why they shouldn't pay at least the same amount for every dollar they make as I do.

DaveH wrote:
Why should Chuck have to give the government more money than I do simply because he works hard and makes more money than me?
I kinda thought that too before...why should someone be punished for being successful? But there's some families that work their asses off for $50,000 a year or less and there's no way you can put them in the same tax category as a family making $100,000 plus. It seems unfair in ways but all types if employees are needed and you cant make unlivable conditions for people with below average incomes.

tjamz wrote:
IF that were the case and all existing gov't programs stayed in place

So basically what you've pointed out in your first paragraph is that the wealthy people are paying for basically everything (governmentwise). I think the answer is to eliminate Govt spending, of course no politician seems to want to do that.

tjamz wrote:
Now tell me what is wrong with my idea Dave. I make $100, I pay $10 in taxes. I make $100,000 and I pay $10,000 in taxes (for example...using 10% just as a base...and its easy to calculate). That way every dollar that everyone earns is taxed exactly the same.

My problem with that tax structure is that you are basically redistributing wealth. That is not the governments job. How do you justify taking more money from some people and less from others? Use you and me again as a example, why should one of us be forced to give more money to the government than the other? It makes no sense.

tjamz wrote:
By your standards Dave, everyone who works hard at what they do should be paid the same amount of wages.

LOL at Chuck on this, what sort of analogy is that? People earn what they are worth, or what the company they work for feel they are worth (except with unions). Because they work hard doesn't mean they aren't non-productive or they make only a small profit for the company they work for. The government does not have the job of regulating wages.

DaveH wrote:
Flat tax, and no (or extremely few) deductions. Of course, I don't mean flat percentage, I mean everyone pays the same amount. I've yet to have anyone tell me what is more fair than that... we all share in this great country, we all pay the same amount of tax. Why should Chuck have to give the government more money than I do simply because he works hard and makes more money than me?

IF that were the case and all existing gov't programs stayed in place and no new ones were ever created and we never went to war again or had to pay for the existing war (etc, etc, etc....) we would have to find a way to generate $2.6 trillion just to break even last year. We have 298,444,215 people in this country, including retired/children/nonworking people, etc...lets assume 2/3 of the population is capable of working (non-retired, etc..) I'm using this number as a base figure, I can look up specifics on how many people work here if the need arises. That leaves us with 198,962,810 people footing the bill. To make the number easier I will round up to 200,000,000. That means that each and every one of us will be required to pay $13,000 in taxes. That will put people out on the streets as for many of us (myself included not that long ago) we would have to pay in as much as we make annually ($6.50/hour is roughly equivalent to $13k/year). Figure it takes nearly that much a year just for living expenses (apt, car, food, etc...) and you've just successfully created the largest poverty class this country has ever seen.

Now tell me what is wrong with my idea Dave. I make $100, I pay $10 in taxes. I make $100,000 and I pay $10,000 in taxes (for example...using 10% just as a base...and its easy to calculate). That way every dollar that everyone earns is taxed exactly the same.

By your standards Dave, everyone who works hard at what they do should be paid the same amount of wages. Doesn't matter if they are milking cows or running the country. If they are in the top 1% of productivity in their careers they should all get paid the same, right? Wouldn't that be fair? I mean, they are all working hard to run a successful business and they all have to pay the same taxes so if they are the best at what they do, they should get the same pay as a CEO, President, Real Estate Tycoon, etc... That sounds more like Socialism than anything I've heard from the left. :icon_thumleft:

DaveH wrote:
Flat tax, and no (or extremely few) deductions. Of course, I don't mean flat percentage, I mean everyone pays the same amount. I've yet to have anyone tell me what is more fair than that... we all share in this great country, we all pay the same amount of tax. Why should Chuck have to give the government more money than I do simply because he works hard and makes more money than me?

Agreed.

tjamz wrote:
I still stand by my idea of a better tax code to ensure that everyone pays their fair share of the taxes so that some of the crazy loopholes get filled.

Flat tax, and no (or extremely few) deductions. Of course, I don't mean flat percentage, I mean everyone pays the same amount. I've yet to have anyone tell me what is more fair than that... we all share in this great country, we all pay the same amount of tax. Why should Chuck have to give the government more money than I do simply because he works hard and makes more money than me?

Bludvls4 wrote:
just a great thread!

I like to think this is because of me