Page 19 of 26 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 252

Thread: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

  1. #181
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Do you have any credible data to support these absurd assertions?
    For a broad summary, refer to Headey et al.'s Is There a Trade-Off Between Economic Efficiency and a Generous Welfare State? A Comparison of Best Cases of `The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalismí Consider the abstract:

    A crucial debate in policy-making as well as academic circles is whether there is a trade-off between economic efficiency and the size/generosity of the welfare state. One way to contribute to this debate is to compare the performance of best cases of different types of state. Arguably, in the decade 1985-94, the US, West Germany and the Netherlands were best cases - best economic performers - in what G. Esping-Andersen calls the three worlds of welfare capitalism. The US is a liberal welfare-capitalist state, West Germany a corporatist state, and the Netherlands is social democratic in its tax-transfer system, although not its labor market policies. These three countries had rates of economic growth per capita as high or higher than other rich countries of their type, and the lowest rates of unemployment. At a normative or ideological level the three types of state have the same goals but prioritise them differently. The liberal state prioritises economic growth and efficiency, avoids work disincentives, and targets welfare benefits only to those in greatest need. The corporatist state aims to give priority to social stability, especially household income stability, and social integration. The social democratic welfare state claims high priority for minimising poverty, inequality and unemployment. Using ten years of panel data for each country, we assess indicators of their short (one year), medium (five year) and longer term (ten year) performance in achieving economic and welfare goals. Overall, in this time period, the Netherlands achieved the best performance on the welfare goals to which it gave priority, and equalled the other two states on most of the goals to which they gave priority. This result supports the view that there is no necessary trade-off between economic efficiency and a generous welfare state.
    Do you have any contrary empirical research that you can refer to?

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    How about this one for all you Welfare supporters; the best way to REDUCE crime is the growth of the private sector to create JOBS and actually enforce our laws. Everything else is pure hyperbolic BS.
    I have far greater disdain for government intrusion into the economy than the rightists here, and ultimately desire the abolition of the state. However, as long as you wish to maintain capitalism, the state is a key agent in doing that; the government is an integral stabilizing and growth agent in the capitalist economy. I'm fully willing to abandon capitalism and the government along with it. But I somehow don't think you're up for that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    A Flat tax would go a LONG way towards expanding job growth and increasing the State's revenue.

    Actually, a flat tax is merely based on economic irrationality. It ignores the basic reality of the diminishing rate of marginal utility, and is thus fundamentally unfair and regressive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Another vast pile of nonsensical bile.
    And such a thorough and extensive response that you've offered too!

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    In the entire history of man, you will not find ONE example where this has ever worked.
    Similarly false! You're not doing very well today, are you? As I've mentioned to you previously, aside from microeconomic analysis into the superior efficiency of worker-owner enterprises and labor cooperatives, there are indeed examples of the successful implementation of libertarian socialism that can be referred to. For example, I know for a fact that I've previously mentioned the Spanish Revolution, the anarchist social revolution that occurred during the Spanish Civil War that involved widespread collectivization, direct democracy, and workers' self-management. As noted by the anarchist historian Gaston Leval:

    In Spain, during almost three years, despite a civil war that took a million lives, despite the opposition of the political parties . . . this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly more than 60% of the land was very quickly collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganised and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high-salaried managers, or the authority of the state.
    Conversely, you have no example of successfully implemented laissez-faire capitalism to refer to...which one of us is utopian again?

  2. #182
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    The thing about externalities, everyone wants companies to pay for negative externalities, but no one wants to pay for the positive externalities that they produce. If you're going to get into externalities, there's a problem you're going to have to get around:

    Should Henry Ford have paid for the negative externality of the lost jobs in the other transportation companies? By definition, it was a negative externality, so should he have been forced to pay for it? If a neighbor grows a beautiful lawn in front of his house, should I have to pay for the positive externality it produces in my higher property values and the beauty that I like seeing?
    We can help companies when they have positive externalities. That explains the tax free status universities have.

    And of course, we need to be practical with how we can only assist the truely positive externalities.

    While the benefit of someone having a nice garden is limited, having a more educated population has a great benefit to me.

  3. #183
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    We can help companies when they have positive externalities. That explains the tax free status universities have.

    And of course, we need to be practical with how we can only assist the truely positive externalities.

    While the benefit of someone having a nice garden is limited, having a more educated population has a great benefit to me.
    You ignored half of my question. Some companies produce pollution and you want to tax that negative externality, but Henry Ford produce a negative externality by forcing other companies to eliminate jobs because they couldn't compete with Ford. Should Henry Ford have paid for those lost jobs? After all, by definition, it was a negative externality.

    Also, things are externalities for a reason: they are impossible to price. Who's to say how much we should be charged for them.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  4. #184
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    Also, things are externalities for a reason: they are impossible to price. Who's to say how much we should be charged for them.
    Socialists and Communists think that THEY should be the ones deciding. It doesn't work, never has worked and never will work.

    Unfortunately the people who infest our educational systems still fill the heads of our young with farcical notions about externalities, commonalities and mediocrities.

  5. #185
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Socialists and Communists think that THEY should be the ones deciding. It doesn't work, never has worked and never will work.

    Unfortunately the people who infest our educational systems still fill the heads of our young with farcical notions about externalities, commonalities and mediocrities.
    What communists?

  6. #186
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    You ignored half of my question. Some companies produce pollution and you want to tax that negative externality, but Henry Ford produce a negative externality by forcing other companies to eliminate jobs because they couldn't compete with Ford. Should Henry Ford have paid for those lost jobs? After all, by definition, it was a negative externality.

    Also, things are externalities for a reason: they are impossible to price. Who's to say how much we should be charged for them.
    But free market competition isn't a negative externality, so I didn't notice that it was another question :P

    If you want, you can say that driving others out of business is, but then expanding your own production more efficency would have to be a positive externality.
    So no government intervention needs to be done in that scenario to reach an efficency market equalibrium.


    But when you look at things like pollution, there is actual ways to guess what level of taxation is nescesary to reach a more efficent situation. If anything, an estimated taxation or regulation against things that have negative externalities is better then doing nothing.

    Because then we would still have lead paint, poissonous pesticides ect. Those are all examples of externalities, and I think we can all agree that our economy is more efficenct with regulations against them.

  7. #187
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    But when you look at things like pollution, there is actual ways to guess what level of taxation is nescesary to reach a more efficent situation.
    Why, when taxation isn't the answer? The public isn't polluting, a specific factory is, and that factory is owned by a specific corporation which can be fined and commanded to comply with existing pollution laws.


    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    Because then we would still have lead paint, poissonous pesticides ect. Those are all examples of externalities, and I think we can all agree that our economy is more efficenct with regulations against them.
    "Efficient"?

    No, the laws are intended to ensure that safe products are sold without deceit. Issues of efficiency are left to the manufacturer.

  8. #188
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Why, when taxation isn't the answer? The public isn't polluting, a specific factory is, and that factory is owned by a specific corporation which can be fined and commanded to comply with existing pollution laws.




    "Efficient"?

    No, the laws are intended to ensure that safe products are sold without deceit. Issues of efficiency are left to the manufacturer.
    Thank you for agreeing with me that companies should comply with regulations for pollution. That is an example of a negative externality and why government internvention is needed.

    Taxation is needed though for regulations though, because of the harmful effect that pollution has in creating acid rain, and harming other people's property. There needs to be taxes on producers of acid rain to pay for repairing other people's harmed property from acid rain.

    Without those taxes, there will be an inneficency in the economy from an overproduction of ellectricity.

  9. #189
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    Thank you for agreeing with me that companies should comply with regulations for pollution. That is an example of a negative externality and why government internvention is needed.
    No, it's just an example of the violation of private property rights by a second party.

    The government exists to protect those property rights from intrusion by othesr.

    Ain't got a damn thing to do with any socialist "externalities" or "interalities" or hangnails, either.

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    Taxation is needed though for regulations though, because of the harmful effect that pollution has in creating acid rain,
    Not demonstrated.

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    and harming other people's property. There needs to be taxes on producers of acid rain to pay for repairing other people's harmed property from acid rain.
    No, if damage from so-called acid rain is proven, the transgressor needs to make reparations.

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    Without those taxes, there will be an inneficency in the economy from an overproduction of ellectricity.
    Taxes produce inefficiency in the economy.

    Free markets product economic efficiency.

    Naturally, one can never produce more electricity than is used. It's gotta go somewhere, fast.

  10. #190
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Taxes produce inefficiency in the economy.

    Free markets product economic efficiency.
    This is mere inaccuracy. The nonexistence of free markets is in fact the precise reason for the existence of taxation: the correction of market failure. The presence of negative externalities in the capitalist economy is indeed a form of such market failure.

Page 19 of 26 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •