Page 24 of 26 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 252

Thread: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

  1. #231
    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
    Is there a point here; or is this another attempt to make some absurd claim there are no Communists?
    Is there going to be an answer as to what communists (or which communists) or is this another attempt to deflect from the fact that "communist" is TD-speak for "someone I disagree with"?

  2. #232
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,256

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    I contest the claim that with increased foreign involvement that we will lose jobs. That's not how it works. That does not follow from Say's Law: production creates its own demand.
    So you take Say's law as gospel? Say's law is irrelevant in a time of credit. How does demand for labor shift so swiftly; credit? LOL... Credit is a concept of free markets, that is manipulated by central banks currently. If anti trust laws are weak (as in the US, UK, EU, and basically all developed economies), monopolies will have the power to influence credit, not the free market.

    Price setting legislation is a menace unleashed by the state.

    Are you aware of governments presence in copyright laws? How about anti-fraud legislation, is that not government intervention?


    But you ignore that the costs necessarily go up. Cheaper labor means we have to spend more. This also means that loans are harder to pay back and that we save less.
    This is offset in gains in technology (that lead to efficiency). Who earned more, the massive armies of bridge builders of the late 1890's or the heavy equipment operators of today (include the labor required to produce machinery and skills)? What produced greater economic gain?
    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

  3. #233
    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 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.
    It's competition that forces us to find cheaper and more efficient ways to produce things. Without that, what's the impetus to become more efficient? That's why we need to encourage competition rather than stifle it.

    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. #234
    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 Goldenboy219 View Post
    It will probably be labeled Living Efficiency Services.
    LES is more.

  5. #235
    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 Goldenboy219 View Post
    So you take Say's law as gospel? Say's law is irrelevant in a time of credit.
    Credit is loaning saved capital. You do realize that when we loan without a physical backing of capital that it is fake and always produces a bubble.

    How does demand for labor shift so swiftly; credit? LOL... Credit is a concept of free markets, that is manipulated by central banks currently. If anti trust laws are weak (as in the US, UK, EU, and basically all developed economies), monopolies will have the power to influence credit, not the free market.
    You're throughly falling into many fallacies. Credit is something that can only happen with savings in a free market. Without it you get bubbles and all players in that scheme will fail.

    Central banks encourage the practice of loaning capital out of thin air and that is why we have bubbles.

    Let's assume that a monopoly or trust forms and it starts fractional-reserve lending. They're bound to fail eventually and every company that loaned from them. What will be left is those companies that had 100% or close to it reserve ratios.

    Tell me again how you're a libertarian.

    Price setting legislation is a menace unleashed by the state.
    That's the first libertarian sentement I've heard from you. Unfortunately many people already realize this.

    Are you aware of governments presence in copyright laws? How about anti-fraud legislation, is that not government intervention?
    The role of the state is protection and to uphold contracts. Anti-fraud would be one of its jobs then. Copyright laws: I'm not so sure how necessary they are. They are overused and last far too long.


    This is offset in gains in technology (that lead to efficiency). Who earned more, the massive armies of bridge builders of the late 1890's or the heavy equipment operators of today (include the labor required to produce machinery and skills)? What produced greater economic gain?
    I think I misspoke in my quote. Cheaper labor means we spend less and that we can save more.

    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. #236
    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
    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.
    I disagree.

    1. Transparency means no fraud. This is a role of the state since it is supposed to uphold contracts. This is not intervention.

    2. We don't need government for internal improvements. The idea of private roads really isn't as crazy as you might think.
    A Future of Private Roads and Highways - Walter Block - Mises Institute
    The Free Market: Private Roads

    3. Experience shows that government involvement in education has been a failure. There is no competition and so no drive for efficiency. Private schools would be much cheaper without the existence of public schools.

    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

  7. #237
    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
    I disagree.

    1. Transparency means no fraud. This is a role of the state since it is supposed to uphold contracts. This is not intervention.
    Look at what I said. I didn't write that transparency with government intervention isn't need, but simply that it is ideal for economic growth. Therefore, there is no reason why the government shouldn't asisst in that operation.
    I get the feeling that the only reason people use is their inherent fear of "socialism" when government action to create more transparency is nothing of the sort, and it also doesn't have any harmful restrictions to a free market.


    Also, there needs to at least be the state to enforce fraud, but that is just under the catagory of protecting people's private property.

    2. We don't need government for internal improvements. The idea of private roads really isn't as crazy as you might think.
    A Future of Private Roads and Highways - Walter Block - Mises Institute
    The Free Market: Private Roads
    What do you propose? We need to pay to use the street and roads to go across the street???

    Both of your links fail to address that problem. If ALL roads were private, then there would need to be a very inneficent and expensive police force to make sure that when someone left their driveway... they had paid to go on that private property.
    It is much more efficent to have that government run, odviously. I wouldn't say that for many industries... but for local roads the town government needs to run it.


    A truely "limited government" is fine but its this complete privitization of EVERYTHING (almost) that is dangerous.

    What is the problem with a local government collecting sales taxes for roads and sidewalks? that isn't rytorical.

    3. Experience shows that government involvement in education has been a failure. There is no competition and so no drive for efficiency. Private schools would be much cheaper without the existence of public schools.
    You are not addressing what I said. Even if public schools can have poor quality government VOUCHERS can theoretically alleviate that. Are you against vouchers as well?

    How would poorer children get the skills to be productive citizens then? Even Singapore and Hong Kong have government assisted schooling.

    Once again, there is no reason to not have the government supply schooling one way or another. If someone has a reason to say otherwise, I would love to hear it.
    Last edited by nerv14; 06-19-09 at 03:12 PM.

  8. #238
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    12-10-11 @ 02:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,122

    Arrow Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    These damn welfare people are going to take all of the Mexican's jobs !!

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brj2UkUPjCI]YouTube - they took our jobs[/ame]

  9. #239
    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
    Look at what I said. I didn't write that transparency with government intervention isn't need, but simply that it is ideal for economic growth. Therefore, there is no reason why the government shouldn't asisst in that operation.
    I get the feeling that the only reason people use is their inherent fear of "socialism" when government action to create more transparency is nothing of the sort, and it also doesn't have any harmful restrictions to a free market.

    Also, there needs to at least be the state to enforce fraud, but that is just under the catagory of protecting people's private property.
    The only reason you would need transparency is if the company is trying to commit fraud. If they try to sell you being a good, solid company that can weather the storm and they're about to go under, then you should sue them to get whatever you deserve that's left.

    What do you propose? We need to pay to use the street and roads to go across the street???
    These things do cost money to maintain and it would be better that we see the cost of those things.

    Both of your links fail to address that problem. If ALL roads were private, then there would need to be a very inneficent and expensive police force to make sure that when someone left their driveway... they had paid to go on that private property.
    No, the private companies would ensure that only those who paid used the roads. Liquor stores have cameras and book stores have those scanners. Of course they use the police, but they're not totally inept at handling theft.

    It is much more efficent to have that government run, odviously. I wouldn't say that for many industries... but for local roads the town government needs to run it.
    I still haven't heard a compelling argument. Government roads have given us potholes, suburbia, and bridges to nowhere. Plus the gas tax is far too low and does not pay for all of our roads. A price system would give us more efficiency.

    A truely "limited government" is fine but its this complete privitization of EVERYTHING (almost) that is dangerous.
    Well I'm not an anarchist. I want the state to be in charge of the police, military, and judicial system.

    What is the problem with a local government collecting sales taxes for roads and sidewalks? that isn't rytorical.
    The problem is that it excludes a price system. Anything without a price system is going to be inefficient.

    You are not addressing what I said. Even if public schools can have poor quality government VOUCHERS can theoretically alleviate that. Are you against vouchers as well?
    Vouchers are better than what we have now because it introduces some competition into the system. However, it is not the role of the state to be a charity.

    How would poorer children get the skills to be productive citizens then? Even Singapore and Hong Kong have government assisted schooling.
    Charity.

    Once again, there is no reason to not have the government supply schooling one way or another. If someone has a reason to say otherwise, I would love to hear it.
    The problem is that it is inefficient and it gains the capital it needs via intimidation.

    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

  10. #240
    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 only reason you would need transparency is if the company is trying to commit fraud. If they try to sell you being a good, solid company that can weather the storm and they're about to go under, then you should sue them to get whatever you deserve that's left.



    These things do cost money to maintain and it would be better that we see the cost of those things.
    Yes, public money can fund it with low taxes and we should be able to see how specifically the money is spent.

    No, the private companies would ensure that only those who paid used the roads. Liquor stores have cameras and book stores have those scanners. Of course they use the police, but they're not totally inept at handling theft.



    I still haven't heard a compelling argument. Government roads have given us potholes, suburbia, and bridges to nowhere. Plus the gas tax is far too low and does not pay for all of our roads. A price system would give us more efficiency.



    Well I'm not an anarchist. I want the state to be in charge of the police, military, and judicial system.



    The problem is that it excludes a price system. Anything without a price system is going to be inefficient.



    Vouchers are better than what we have now because it introduces some competition into the system. However, it is not the role of the state to be a charity.



    Charity.



    The problem is that it is inefficient and it gains the capital it needs via intimidation.
    I have brought up my reasons for internal improvements before. If you think the government has a specific role that can't be altered by the consent of the people then I want to hear why.

    Apparently, it isn't economic growth because besides public local roads and sidewalks being inpractical it also increases efficency compared to a private system.


    Just because you claim that the government shouldn't give vouchers, I don't see why you think that way because it gives the poor A CHANCE to have a suscesful life, and it increased economic growth by making the BARE MININUM investment to our population.

    And for transparency, why are you against the government allowing us to see how our economy is really working? Is this for principles, do you have a real reason. Once again, this simply increases economic growth and doesn't have any problems, so I am wondering why you don't support this.


    You are still WAY to the right of Republicans, but there is no real reason why these basic programs are needed, and untill you explain why the government simply CAN'T help out, these programs aren't negotiable in any government that can afford them.


    Even though you say you are not an anarchist, I get the feeling you are against government intervention simply for the sake of being against it. I would like to hear the real reasons for your views.
    Last edited by nerv14; 06-19-09 at 11:06 PM.

Page 24 of 26 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 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
  •