Page 23 of 26 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 252

Thread: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

  1. #221
    Advisor wbreese91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Marietta, Ohio
    Last Seen
    07-08-10 @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    407

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    There aren't any disadvantages to the buyer of those goods, so what's the problem?

    Why are there no tuna canneries in the states? Because goonions forced the wages so high it wasn't profitable to can fish in the US. Instead, Nancy Pelosi was paid to write an exception to the federal minimum wage laws so Starkist could continue to pay Guamanians local wages to can fish.

    Why are clothes almost all imported? Because it's not profitable to pay a woman $15 an hour to sew zippers on in Atlanta, when it can be done for two bucks a day in Bangladesh.

    The people buying the clothes and the tuna make out just fine in the US, they have more money in their pockets to spend on other goods, and overall the economy is improved.

    Really sucks for someone who only knows how to sew zippers, though. But....since the flaming liberal marxist maxim is "greatest good for greatest number", even the flaming lib marxists like The Messiah can't credibly argue that tariffs help people.
    I would debate this, but I know whatever I say you will disagree, even if I agree with you. So in the interest of saving my sanity I would appreciate if you stopped quoting me.
    “Justitia suum cuique distribuit” Justice renders to every one his due

    - Cicero

  2. #222
    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 wbreese91 View Post
    So in the interest of saving my sanity I would appreciate if you stopped quoting me.
    You've offered me a positive externality....

  3. #223
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by wbreese91 View Post
    I would debate this, but I know whatever I say you will disagree, even if I agree with you. So in the interest of saving my sanity I would appreciate if you stopped quoting me.
    The only way liberal CA is going to agree to a flat tax is if they found a way to make it cost the taxpayer more than what's being paid in now.

  4. #224
    Advisor wbreese91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Marietta, Ohio
    Last Seen
    07-08-10 @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    407

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    The only way liberal CA is going to agree to a flat tax is if they found a way to make it cost the taxpayer more than what's being paid in now.
    Because God knows liberals hate extra money
    “Justitia suum cuique distribuit” Justice renders to every one his due

    - Cicero

  5. #225
    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 wbreese91 View Post
    Really, because that is what is happening right now.
    Yet for the longest time while we had it we didn't have the unemployment that you predicted. If you try to reference now, I'll just come back that the unemployment is due to the phonyness of this economy and how we don't produce anything and how it is that which caused this downturn.

    This is why you can't really talk about economics through statistics or anecdotal evidence.

    No cheaper labor equals less cost for the producer, which means the consumer pays less. That was my entire point.
    And we get cheaper labor from outside. The tariff should be opposed because it produces inefficiencies. Cheaper labor means we pay less. If the producer pays less then competition ensures that we as consumers will see that reduction in prices.

    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

  6. #226
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    And we get cheaper labor from outside. The tariff should be opposed because it produces inefficiencies. Cheaper labor means we pay less. If the producer pays less then competition ensures that we as consumers will see that reduction in prices.
    On this end of the curve, you are correct. The key is proper investment in the right technologies. American workers are among the most efficient in the world. It is the continuing research and development investments that spur our ingenuity.

    I believe small business driven by "green" or "efficient" services are the new driving force in years to come.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  7. #227
    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 jallman View Post
    What communists?
    Is there a point here; or is this another attempt to make some absurd claim there are no Communists?

  8. #228
    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 Goldenboy219 View Post
    On this end of the curve, you are correct. The key is proper investment in the right technologies. American workers are among the most efficient in the world. It is the continuing research and development investments that spur our ingenuity.

    I believe small business driven by "green" or "efficient" services are the new driving force in years to come.
    I am always fascinated when people willfully succumb to the failed ideas of "centralized" planning which is what we are seeing from Liberals like Obama.

    It reminds me of a story of such thinking that occurred in the Soviet Union and Communist China on many occasions; the central planning committee decided that a shoe factory was not producing enough shoes so they raised their quota to produce shoes. The result was a LOT of shoes that didn't fit anyone; you see, the factory not induced by actual supply and demand deducted that they could produce MORE shoes from the same piece of leather by making smaller shoes.

    Without the confines of a "market" and supply and demand, such thinking only produces POOR results and inefficiently uses up scarce resources.

    The notion that one can take an inefficient technology and force it onto the society will lead to very POOR results. Example; right now a geothermal energy producer in California has been stifled by trying to get their electricity into the power grid. It seems that Governments and environmentalists, the same ones chanting the green mantra, do not want them to install the power lines that would get the power from the desert where this geothermal energy is being created to the cities.

    The notion that "green" technologies can become a viable substitute to oil, gas and nuclear power requires the willing suspension of disbelief. This march to mediocrity will only lead to a further decline in our economy, our ability to manufacture food to feed the world, result in massive unemployment and starvation in the long run if we continue this mythical fantasy called "green technology" and man-caused global warming.

    The best most efficient "green" energy technology we have today is nuclear power; good luck getting any of those projects approved these days. The most abundant source of power we have in the US today is coal; good luck getting any coal projects approved these days.

  9. #229
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,263

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    I am always fascinated when people willfully succumb to the failed ideas of "centralized" planning which is what we are seeing from Liberals like Obama.

    It reminds me of a story of such thinking that occurred in the Soviet Union and Communist China on many occasions; the central planning committee decided that a shoe factory was not producing enough shoes so they raised their quota to produce shoes. The result was a LOT of shoes that didn't fit anyone; you see, the factory not induced by actual supply and demand deducted that they could produce MORE shoes from the same piece of leather by making smaller shoes.

    Without the confines of a "market" and supply and demand, such thinking only produces POOR results and inefficiently uses up scarce resources.

    The notion that one can take an inefficient technology and force it onto the society will lead to very POOR results. Example; right now a geothermal energy producer in California has been stifled by trying to get their electricity into the power grid. It seems that Governments and environmentalists, the same ones chanting the green mantra, do not want them to install the power lines that would get the power from the desert where this geothermal energy is being created to the cities.

    The notion that "green" technologies can become a viable substitute to oil, gas and nuclear power requires the willing suspension of disbelief. This march to mediocrity will only lead to a further decline in our economy, our ability to manufacture food to feed the world, result in massive unemployment and starvation in the long run if we continue this mythical fantasy called "green technology" and man-caused global warming.

    The best most efficient "green" energy technology we have today is nuclear power; good luck getting any of those projects approved these days. The most abundant source of power we have in the US today is coal; good luck getting any coal projects approved these days.
    You miss my point.... Entirely.

    Right now, even in a housing crisis, there are builders creating very energy efficient homes. So tell me, how much did the average heating and air conditioning repairman make in the 1920's? There are going to be new efficient technologies as global competition for energy increases in the following years. Combined with a weakening dollar, the cost of energy is going to rise as we rebound from the recession.

    It will probably be labeled Living Efficiency Services.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  10. #230
    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
    No. Libertarian does automatically mean laissez-faire.

    Libertarian means the acceptance of no outside coercion on the invidual and his choices.

    Laissez-faire means no outside coercion on businesses.

    They're congruent.

    Being anti-laissez-faire means being supportive of outside interference in a businessman's choices, which means being supportive of coercion on the indvidual, which means being something that isn't libertarian.

    So, if you support government interference in business, you're not a libertarian.
    Overall, I can see the rationale for libertarians to believe in a laissez-faire economy, because of the incredible economic growth associated with the system overall. And if you want max of a certain type of freedome, then laissez-faire will supply that.

    However, if you want to classify laissez-faire as having no business restraints then you will set yourself up for failure economically and just on a practical system.

    REALLY important programs that NO ONE can disagree with if they want high economic growth include regulations for transparency, basic internal improvements (roads and sidewalks) and some system of education for the poor (it can be vouchers). All of those programs can also be at the state or local level too.
    Those things either require higher taxes or more regulations which does interfere with businesses.

    When America was first founded it had public schools in most states and internal improvements, even if there wasn't as modern businesses that didn't need any transparency regulations.


    I consider the larger government, laissez-faire system to be what Adam Smith envisioned (minus his sugar taxes...) and that requires A FEW government involvements that truely do help EVERYONE, and don't persecute the individual.

    I just think that libertarians should at least agree with a system like that, which does require some government influence over the private sector.
    Last edited by nerv14; 06-19-09 at 01:43 PM.

Page 23 of 26 FirstFirst ... 132122232425 ... 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
  •