Time to kill Trickle Down Economics

[TimG]

That sounds Libertarian to me. Anyway, most don't see it that way, especially in Canada.

No most see government a trough to feast on while someone else pays. The trouble is the model is not sustainable in the long run.

[Michael Hardner]

No most see government a trough to feast on while someone else pays. The trouble is the model is not sustainable in the long run.

Again, a Libertarian view. Luckily, it's a fringe view and most people realize that government provides a way to balance out private power with democracy.

[Moonlight Graham]

Personally i think the purpose of government should be to ensure i get laid as often as possible with as many different hot chicks as possible.

[Michael Hardner]

Personally i think the purpose of government should be to ensure i get laid as often as possible with as many different hot chicks as possible.

I think you're restating my point, for your specific pursuit of happiness.

[TimG]

Again, a Libertarian view. Luckily, it's a fringe view and most people realize that government provides a way to balance out private power with democracy.

Rationalize if you like but the fact of the matter is people want to milk the government for as much as possible and make other people pay. It is about greed - not any desire to balance private power and democracy.

[Michael Hardner]

It is about greed - not any desire to balance private power and democracy.

It could easily said that letting wealth and power run amok is about greed. It makes more sense.

[TimG]

It could easily said that letting wealth and power run amok is about greed. It makes more sense.

No it does not. You are simply trying to rationalize you own views by spinning them in a positive light while denegrating other views. At the end of the day most voters only care about getting as much as possible from the system while making someone else pay for it.

[dre]

No it does not. You are simply trying to rationalize you own views by spinning them in a positive light while denegrating other views. At the end of the day most voters only care about getting as much as possible from the system while making someone else pay for it.

Thats a nice slogan but its just not true. If most voters voted along the lines you believe then we we would have a very redistributive system, probably outright socialism. But parties that campaign on that dont do very well in Canada or the US at all.

The trend in society right now is REGRESSIVE not progressive. Its EASIER for the wealthy to keep more of their money than it used to be and if anything tax rates for the upper bracket have come down. Thats why were are seeing the kind of wealth concentration.

The government makes it EASIER to accumulate wealth, not harder.

[dre]

It could easily said that letting wealth and power run amok is about greed. It makes more sense.

True but the problem is... what happens if you create that powerful central government with the hope it will maintain that balance youre talking about, but then the wealthy and powerfull find a way to game the system to make that big central government and instrument of their OWN ideas and policies.

Now they have a tool that they can use to extract money from the tax payers and turn it over to the wealthy, and thats exactly what we have seen happen.

Look at the GWOT, or the massive tax payer bailouts to insurance companies, banks, and financial corporations. Powerfull private organizations have used government as a tool to steal literally trillions of dollars from the tax payer.

Democracy doesnt do SHIT for you once the private sector and government get too cozy.

Edited April 21, 2011 by dre

[Bonam]

Personally i think the purpose of government should be to ensure i get laid as often as possible with as many different hot chicks as possible.

A good point. That would certainly increase my happiness, and probably that of a large proportion of Canadian males. If the goal of government is to maximize the happiness of the most Canadians, why isn't the government shipping in millions of hot sex slave chicks? Why isn't the government redistributing the sex to the poor nerds who get laid less often? I bet getting laid more often would increase the happiness of the sex-deprived at least as much if not more than getting more money would increase the happiness of the poor.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Bonam

[WIP]

True but the problem is... what happens if you create that powerful central government with the hope it will maintain that balance youre talking about, but then the wealthy and powerfull find a way to game the system to make that big central government and instrument of their OWN ideas and policies.

Now they have a tool that they can use to extract money from the tax payers and turn it over to the wealthy, and thats exactly what we have seen happen.

Look at the GWOT, or the massive tax payer bailouts to insurance companies, banks, and financial corporations. Powerfull private organizations have used government as a tool to steal literally trillions of dollars from the tax payer.

Democracy doesnt do SHIT for you once the private sector and government get too cozy.

It is time to consider that capitalism does not support democracy, but is instead an adversarial force that has to be constrained by a democratic society, or we end up with oligarchy...which we are pretty damn close to now, if not already there. Just to digress a bit, consider the mantra of George Bush I, Clinton and Bush 2.0 about how encouraging "free enterprise" in China and other former Communist nations would advance democracy.....it hasn't happened, and it won't happen! Because if a country is already a dictatorship, the introduction of liberal, unfettered capitalism will encourage those with resources to buy and game the political system. Milton Friedman's experiment with free-wheeling capitalism in Chile, did not encourage the rise of democracy any more than it has in China or Russia, or most of the former Iron Curtain nations, as well as the Western friendly dictatorships in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Democracy works by each individual having an equal vote; while corporate capitalism works on the principle that each share of stock has an equal vote; therefore those who own the most shares control the corporation and choose the board of directors. And if that corporation is given personal rights granted to real citizens, and reward certain candidates with campaign donations; promises of future compensations after leaving office; creating third party political advocacy organizations to advance their agendas; consolidate control of mainstream commercial media....well eventually you end up with a system that they have in the U.S. and we are fast approaching...an oligarchy of business elites with politicians who are no more than puppets to molify or pacify the public with the illusion of having a real say over important issues that affect our lives. Fixing the system will require more than adjusting tax rates. "Free trade needs to be scrapped in favour of Fair Trade, both for our sakes, and the poor nations of the world that are presently exploited by large multinational corporations. Then, we can take on some of the dogmas of corporate personhood.

[August1991]

Thats a nice slogan but its just not true. If most voters voted along the lines you believe then we we would have a very redistributive system, probably outright socialism. But parties that campaign on that dont do very well in Canada or the US at all.

We're not far from that. The top 50% pay about 96% of federal income taxes. IOW, the poorest half pay about 4%. Link

On a different thread, I presented data showing that about 30% of filers pay no federal income tax at all.

Government's prime objective is to ensure the collective happiness of its people is maximized, not to protect private property.

MH, the 20th century surely put to rest the oxymoron "collective happiness".

I prefer to decide on my own whether I'm happy or not, and what makes me happy. But nevertheless, I can take your comparison out for a spin and make a pronouncement: If a government aims to ensure that property rights are protected, then we'll probably get the greatest aggregate happiness possible.

This may seem counterintuitive but on reflection, it's obvious. Sadly, it's a notion that has been perplexing people at least since Adam Smith first noticed it.

Edited April 23, 2011 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

MH, the 20th century surely put to rest the oxymoron "collective happiness".

I prefer to decide on my own whether I'm happy or not, and what makes me happy. But nevertheless, I can take your comparison out for a spin and make a pronouncement: If a government aims to ensure that property rights are protected, then we'll probably get the greatest aggregate happiness possible.

This may seem counterintuitive but on reflection, it's obvious. Sadly, it's a notion that has been perplexing people at least since Adam Smith first noticed it.

The problem is that systems such as that are old. They were tried and found wanting. Let's all stop pretending this is a new idea .

[Pliny]

The problem is that systems such as that are old. They were tried and found wanting. Let's all stop pretending this is a new idea .

They were tried and men conspired to rob it. Economics is the natural governor of behavior. Governments are artificial entities to ensure the natural laws of economics are understood. Some will always try and ignore them - not only to their own detriment but those in their wake. Governments, as monopolies are poor at correcting themselves and if not limited, eventually attempt to control the economy and then use economics to control society. Natural Economic law when violated brings inexorable devastation to individuals and when those violations are legally protected by government will crash the society. Taxation that is not equal to all is always unfair to some. That unfairness is one of the first indicators that a nation or society is crumbling.

Corporate capitalism is not a form of government. It is a system of economy. Corporations can be destroyed, and only will be destroyed, when they violate natural economic law. The adjudicators are the consumer. As long as, governments are not creating monopolies, subsidies and bailouts of corporations, they can and will disappear. Most of them serve a purpose that the public supports but under our social democracy that keeps them alive (perhaps because governments get most of their revenues from them) the public increasingly despises them.

Edited April 24, 2011 by Pliny

[dre]

We're not far from that. The top 50% pay about 96% of federal income taxes. IOW, the poorest half pay about 4%. Link

On a different thread, I presented data showing that about 30% of filers pay no federal income tax at all.

MH, the 20th century surely put to rest the oxymoron "collective happiness".

I prefer to decide on my own whether I'm happy or not, and what makes me happy. But nevertheless, I can take your comparison out for a spin and make a pronouncement: If a government aims to ensure that property rights are protected, then we'll probably get the greatest aggregate happiness possible.

This may seem counterintuitive but on reflection, it's obvious. Sadly, it's a notion that has been perplexing people at least since Adam Smith first noticed it.

We're not far from that. The top 50% pay about 96% of federal income taxes. IOW, the poorest half pay about 4%. Link

Those stats dont mean what you think they do.

Edited April 24, 2011 by dre

[August1991]

The problem is that systems such as that are old. They were tried and found wanting. Let's all stop pretending this is a new idea .

Explain.

By any measure, Deng Xiao Peng made it possible for more individual Chinese to find some happiness than anything Mao Tse Tung ever did. Leftists the world over must face this obvious fact.

Michael, your can surmise and theorize all you want but it is practice that matters: who cares whether the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice.

Those stats dont mean what you think they do.

Then, what do those stats mean?

In my case, I took the statistics from the 2002 Canadian Federal tax returns. Riverwind checked them.

Edited April 24, 2011 by August1991