(New Left vs. Old Left) vs the Right

[August1991]

This new thread, about Left vs. Right, is a branch of the thread on "Bush and the USA" in Canada/America relations.

Eureka: I would think that the "old Left" has largely disappeared. Socialism evolved into Social Democracy a generation or more ago in the mass.

By old Left, I meant Lyndon Johnson, Pierre Trudeau and Harold Wilson. Tax-and-spend Democrats. (I didn't mean Marxist as Old Left - that would be Old, Old Left - they only exist on university campuses now.)

The New Left is Clinton and Blair: people who can read the WSJ, understand all those numbers and still defend the "underdog working man".

Eureka: I see the problem as a resurgence of the "Old Roght" which has brought forward no ideas for the betterment of societies since Churchill brought in some measures nearly a century ago.

Old right as in Hayek, Bastiat and Smith? They are resurgent, true.

Why the Left does not address the atrocities of Stalin is not too difficult to understand. It is simply that Stalin was not a Leftist but a totalitarian dictator who seized on the 1917 Liberal revolution to bring about his own dreams. In the same way that Hitler was not a Roghtist but one who used the Right for his own ends.

Both Stalin and Hitler thought the State should be used to solve society's "problems". The Left wants to do the same, even today, to control for example transnational corporations.

Thelonius: Au contraire, it is the theory of free enterprise that dangles the promise that '100% of the wealth deserves to be concentrated in the hands of the 1 who earns it'.

Where did you get those numbers?

Life is not a zero-sum game. Life is not a single cake to be cut up fairly or unfairly. The whole point of life is to make the cake bigger. That happens when people co-operate (or trade). Free enterprise helps that to happen.

Imagine you have $9 and I have $1. Time passes, we work better, and you have $95 and I have $5. Should I be angry? (My wealth increased by 500%!)

I strongly disagree with this notion that the Left is somehow the heart and the Right is somehow the brain.

Me too; the right doesn't have any brains that I have seen. Just greed.

Caesar, markets with prices are an ingenious answer to our species method of survival. It's too bad that you don't understand it better.

Free enterprise is like a big game of 'Monopoly', it's just that you aren't allowed to win. The argument that 'monopolies wouldn't work because one could charge $500 for a coke' is bunk. The market prices are dictated by what people can pay.

Market prices are dictated by... well, who dictates market prices? Workers always complain about low salaries and buyers always compalin about high prices. (House sellers complain they didn't get what it was worth and house buyers always paid too much...)

But let me accept your idea that monoplies control market prices. So what! Monopoly market prices are still a great thing compared to what life was like without them.

Thelonius: You might argue that if Pepsico charged $100 per meal, other companies would start up with lower prices, fuelling competition and therefore benefit the economy and free enterprise. That is, assuming Pepsico were a bunch of idiots.

IOW, monopoly market prices are not theft. People deal with corporations voluntarily and there is a limit to corporate greed. Glad to know you realize that Thelonius.

Caesar: Monopolies are a concern not because of optional goods such as pepsi. It is necessary to control and disallow them due to the necessities in life.

Such as all the grocery stores, all the home heating products; all the electrical services; all the car fuel companies owned by one source.

People in third world countries do not die young because there are thieves (monopolies) about them, unfairly stealing. They die young because their talents and resources never get the chance to be used.

Thelonius: A monopoly may infact be a good thing for the consumer.

I doubt any consumer would like a monopolist, but a monopolist is always better than nobody if the consumer can choose solitude. Consider the large island with Friday and Crusoe, a small boat adrift with Joe Clark and then think of that Tom Hanks movie.

Black_Dog:

I would think that the "old Left" has largely disappeared.

Nope, quite a few of them left, esp in the left wing of the Liberal party and among the NDP, people who still believe and drone on about the great possibilities of Marxism.

I don't recall seeing the word "Marxism" appearing in any NDP literature or in any candidate speeches in the last election. Why, I do believe this is, if not a lie, then a gross exaggeration.

Old Old Left is the Marxist tripe of capital accumulation, internal contradictions, surplus value, eventual collapse, flat earth etc. I'm completely surprised it still exists.

Old Left is simply tax-and-spend combined with "it's good for the economy". I'm surprised it still exists. Hubert Humphrey and Neil Kinnock are dead. Even François Mitterand realized Old Left limits.

their economic beliefs, their programs, their ideas for reducing poverty, et al, simply do not work. They're unrealistic and utterly ignore human nature.

One of my favorite right-wing boilerplates. Unfortunately, neoconservative economic policies have bombed everytime. Reganomics was a dud, Thatcherism caused far more woes than it solved, the Common Sense Revolution fizzled. Of course, in these instances, the right never applies the virtue of "personal responsibility" that hey drone on about: their policy failures are always someone else's fault.

So, rather than argue that Old Old Left works (Soviet Union, Mao, Cuba) or Old Left works (UK, Sweden, Canada, US 1970s, France 1980s), you argue that the Right doesn't work.

Forget Reagan, Thatcher and Mulroney.

Countries that open up to trade are rich: Hongkong, Iceland. Countries that are closed to trade are poor: North Korea, Albania.

Human beings are brought together now and work co-operatively to achieve a common good. They do this through markets but you apparently have no understanding of this.

"Free" markets can tangentially assist the common good through increase in economic prosperity. But it can also harm the common good through short-sightedness and rampant greed. The only true purpose of the market is to exchange goods and services and maximize profits.

BD, I really appreciate your posts here. They are smart and, IMV, on the money - even if I disagree. But here, you're wrong. Markets are not weak because of short-sightedness and greed.

Huh? Countries that adopt free markets become rich. This wealth is not confined to a small group. It means poor people in western countries live better now than at any time in history.

Um...in case you haven't noticed, wealth in western countries is confined to a small group: the "10 per centers". The vast majority are at the whim of the market place and certainly have little or no impact on it.

BD, you missed my point. Poor people in Canada now are better off than poor people in Canada 30 years ago. Compare comparables.

Incidentally, people in the poorest 20% bracket today will not be the same people in 10 years. But that's a different argument. (God is the Left clueless. I feel like becoming a Leftist just to explain this to them...)

Argus: Even the NDP are bright enough to not talk about Marxism in a public speech. That doesn't mean they don't talk about it in private conservations. Union types are the same, when they get up high, they're stuffed full of leftist and Marxist readings, and you'll find quite a few talking about Marx and Lenin in conversations - but never in a speech to the membership.

I agree entirely with you Argus. Surprisingly, the Old Old Left still exists.

[Guest eureka]

I have trouble with your definitions of Left and Right. It seems you insist on totalitarianism being included in the mix. When yo come to extremes of what you regard as the twain, there is no continuum. I wish I could draw the four points here but they curve to where Left and Right almost come together above and below the line the more extreme the views become.

Sorry, I see that you are now leaving that out of your thesis. I will leave it in anyway since it might be useful for some to consider. Oh! Oh! later you seem to say that there are two Old Lefts which do include totalitarians. They, in my opinion, can not be called Left in any sense.

I still have trouble since you include leaders like Lyndon Johnson as an Old Left: I don't think he could be called even New Left anywhere but the USA. You also say tax-and-spend Democrats are Left. Who those would be, I am at a loss to discover. Democrats, generally, have been the authors of balanced budgets and, over the past couple of decades have had to reign in the drunken spending sprees initiated by Reagan and Bush (1) and next Bush (2).

Certainly, those "Rightists" did not tax so much: they borrowed instead. Perhaps what is needed is a Credit Counselling" service for the New Right.

Hayek was a theorist who tried to turn common sense on its head. I rally think that his short-lived influence on the Right is over. I don't consider Bush as being influenced by Hayek since he probably could not spell the name never mind read him. Bush has only the desires of the corporate elite on his mind.

I am pleased to hear that Marxism still exists on some campuses: it has a lot to commend it. All that is needed is to take the workable parts and the concern for humanity and you morph into Social Democracy. The principal error in Marxism is that it does not know that when the centre gets too big it snaps the cord that binds. The logistics don't work.

Social Democracy, what I would think of as the New Left si concerned, economically, with the most efficient balance between public and private: with the provable system that puts most services in the Public sector and most industry in the Private. That, too, has not been written in stone for the left and there are variances based on experiences.

The New Right, which I see as a resurgence of a very old right - raw Liberalism - has no such balance of consumer or citizen interest. It lives by inane slogans and has done a remarkable job of propagandizing them. The "Free Market;" "Tax-and-Spend" are just a couple. A gullible public is easily seduced by these.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Imagine you have $9 and I have $1.  Time passes, we work better, and you have $95 and I have $5.  Should I be angry?  (My wealth increased by 500%!)

Should you be angry? There is not enough information in your case to decide. I think we need to know:

(1) how did it come to pass that one begins with $9 and the other begins with $1?

(2) from the time we begin working together, what did each contribute to the process? Whose input was the greater in terms of effort and ability?

Until these two parts are clarified, a sensible answer to your question is impossible.

Incidentally, people in the poorest 20% bracket today will not be the same people in 10 years. But that's a different argument. (God is the Left clueless. I feel like becoming a Leftist just to explain this to them...)

Well, since the poorest of the poor are the children of the poor, in 10 years time, it will indeed be new people who are in the bottom 20%. I.e. their children.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

QUOTE 

Thelonius: Au contraire, it is the theory of free enterprise that dangles the promise that '100% of the wealth deserves to be concentrated in the hands of the 1 who earns it'. 

Where did you get those numbers?

These are 'absolutes', with 100% meaning 'all' and the 1 meaning 'you' (or me) but not both.

[August1991]

Eureka: The New Right, which I see as a resurgence of a very old right - raw Liberalism - has no such balance of consumer or citizen interest. It lives by inane slogans and has done a remarkable job of propagandizing them. The "Free Market;" "Tax-and-Spend" are just a couple. A gullible public is easily seduced by these.

Call it the New Right if you want but it amounts to the same usual suspects: Smith, Ricardo, Hayek, Bastiat, Friedman, von Mises, Marshall, Walras. Markets, by the way, are designed precisely to balance consumer/citizen interest.

"Tax-and-spend" is a term that applies to 1960s Democrats and their ilk. These are people who believe in Keynes and believe that government spending creates jobs. I would call them "Old Left".

I still have trouble since you include leaders like Lyndon Johnson as an Old Left: I don't think he could be called even New Left anywhere but the USA. You also say tax-and-spend Democrats are Left. Who those would be, I am at a loss to discover. Democrats, generally, have been the authors of balanced budgets and, over the past couple of decades have had to reign in the drunken spending sprees initiated by Reagan and Bush (1) and next Bush (2).

The last "Old Left" president in the US was Carter. I would classify Clinton as "New Left". That is, Clinton demonstrated an appreciation of how markets work and was in favour of free trade.

Reagan and the 2 Bushes have, at most, wanted to limit the size of government.

BTW, it is irrelevant whether the US federal government budget is in surplus or deficit. It is overall expenditures that matter.

I am pleased to hear that Marxism still exists on some campuses: it has a lot to commend it.

Marxism is as bogus as claims that the Earth is flat.

Marx presented a theory of capitalism which purported to show that it was inherently unstable and would eventually collapse. This conclusion was in part based on the idea that capitalism leads to wealth being concentrated in a few hands, leaving the rest of us impoverished.

I refer to people who believe these ideas as "Old Old Left". I am surprised they still exist. Vaclav Havel agrees with me.

Should you be angry? There is not enough information in your case to decide. I think we need to know:

(1) how did it come to pass that one begins with $9 and the other begins with $1?

(2) from the time we begin working together, what did each contribute to the process? Whose input was the greater in terms of effort and ability?

Until these two parts are clarified, a sensible answer to your question is impossible.

Your two questions are neither here nor there. But you can assume that one is beautiful and young and the other is ugly and old. The young one managed to get a good job and helped the older one to get a job in the same firm.

My main point though was that economic growth makes the pie bigger (as Belinda Stronach kept saying). True, a larger pie is shared differently. The Old Left (and Old Old Left) laughingly dismissed this as a "trickle down" theory. In this, they demonstrated a tremendous ignorance of history.

I ask all posters to think of the house/apartment they live in now and the kind of house/place their four grandparents were born into. Markets generate wealth, and it doesn't trickle down. It pours down so well, that we face environmental problems.

Some numbers? US real per capita growth has been on average about 1.5% annually over the past 200 years. At present, the average US citizen receives about $35,000 each year. Given the past average growth rate, the average citizen will receive about $700,000 in the year 2200. Even if the poor in 2200 receive 10% of the average, they'll have an income of $70,000 annually.

Sound strange? Well, take any poor person in Canada in 1925 (80 years ago) and bring them forward today to see how poor people live now. They would be shocked.

Of all the poverty I have seen in this world, I have found nothing so distressing as the poverty in towns in the former Soviet Union. Ordinary people, in such a rich country, impoverished by misguided economic ideas.

----

I am saying that the Left has gone through a variety of permutations over the past hundred years or so. The Right has remained attached to same basic precepts.

In general, I find that the "Old Old Left" (Marxists etc.) and "Old Left" (Tax-and-spend, big government etc.) are uncomfortable with numbers, markets, money. They have a vague suspicion that Wall Street is a big fraud.

New Left at least has an appreciation of how markets function.

The current Leftist disdain for corporations is a throwback to Old Old Left thinking. I suspect it is just an example of the profound turmoil in Leftist circles about their basic theories and the world around them.

To be practical, consider this NDP candidate Gregor Robertson (New Left) and this NDP candidate Judy Darcy (Old Left).

I am honestly waiting for a Leftist to come forward and defend markets, corporations and explain how the State can be a force for good.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

I am honestly waiting for a Leftist to come forward and defend markets, corporations and explain how the State can be a force for good

I will take up this gauntlet, August1991. First, I would like to 'clarify' a couple of items.

Cuba is not a fair test of 'marxism'. The US embargoed it severely, and thereby tainted any test it might have otherwise succeeded or failed.

Democracy vs. dictatorships ( in which I would I would place 'monarchy') and free enterprise vs Marxism are two different animals. That is why 'Marxism-Leninism' are always coupled together, to clarify. They do not belong together. Only democracy and marxism represent 'equality'. The hunger for wealth and power are championed by 'free enterprise' and dictatorship.

Now, all that rhetoric aside, I am 'left', yet a business owner. I believe the state can be 'a force for good' (You may have to clarify what you believe to be 'good') if it encourages free enterprise in the 'right' direction. The only non-intrusive way for a gov't to do this is through tax breaks. If, for example, a company was given a choice of :give Tiger Woods 20 million to hawk a product, where they can write off the 20 mil as an Advertising expense, OR, the 20 mil could go to a local hospital, infrastructure or whathaveyou, (things that the gov't itself spends money on), and gave a 1.1-1 tax break on it, it might encourage business to focus on the needs of society as a whole, rather than just serving the [free enterprise] system itself. Just a small example, but the point would be for the gov't to take a hand in the direction business profits go, with everyone the better.

[Hugo]

Cuba is not a fair test of 'marxism'. The US embargoed it severely, and thereby tainted any test it might have otherwise succeeded or failed.

This falls down on two counts. Firstly, if you are saying that Marxism can only survive if buoyed up by foreign capitalist nations, then Marxism is flawed and will never work.

Secondly, the International Trade Commission found that lifting the embargo would have a minimal impact on the Cuban economy. Consider further that Castro really doesn't want the ban to be lifted. If it goes, he loses his scapegoat and a key method of control over his people. Remember 1984? Everything bad is the fault of Oceania/Eastasia.

I believe the state can be 'a force for good'... if it encourages free enterprise in the 'right' direction. The only non-intrusive way for a gov't to do this is through tax breaks.

Ah. So you are saying the state can do good by refraining from stealing from people? Wow. Given all the people I haven't stolen from, I must be like Mother Theresa by now. My place in heaven is assured.

You should know that all that a government has to offer is violence and coersion, and ultimately, all that a government can do is to kill you. I am just wondering what virtue you feel is so great that it is worth stealing, imprisoning and killing for?

[Cartman]

That last post was very strong August. I think that you are right about the left needing to articulate a solid understanding of and appreciation for markets and corporations. I think that the left also has to consider how to ensure that noble ideals are put into practice b/c it seems as though few tax $$ ever really get to those needing them.

Having agreed with most of your post, I still think that the left and the state (some believe them to be the same thing) are important in society. We need courts, police etc. to ensure that laws are respected and IMO to balance out the worst excesses of greed (sorry Hugo ). In the US, the cost of housing and health care have skyrocketed over the past 30-40 years.

[Hugo]

We need courts, police etc. to ensure that laws are respected and IMO to balance out the worst excesses of greed

Oh, of course we do. It's my opinion, though, that if you allow one group to monopolise law, courts and police, they will inevitably abuse that monopoly to their own ends.

In the US, the cost of housing and health care have skyrocketed over the past 30-40 years.

Cost of housing was pushed up by rent controls and price fixing. The reason health care ever became so expensive is because government outlawed the mutual aid societies that were keeping healthcare extremely cheap, and raised the cost of healthcare as they were lobbied to do so by doctors who wanted more money from their patients.

[August1991]

This thread is like Lazarus, or an old letter found in the attic.

Dear August1991,

I am honestly waiting for a Leftist to come forward and defend markets, corporations and explain how the State can be a force for good

I will take up this gauntlet, August1991. First, I would like to 'clarify' a couple of items.

--

Now, all that rhetoric aside, I am 'left', yet a business owner. I believe the state can be 'a force for good' (You may have to clarify what you believe to be 'good') if it encourages free enterprise in the 'right' direction. The only non-intrusive way for a gov't to do this is through tax breaks. If, for example, a company was given a choice of :give Tiger Woods 20 million to hawk a product, where they can write off the 20 mil as an Advertising expense, OR, the 20 mil could go to a local hospital, infrastructure or whathaveyou, (things that the gov't itself spends money on), and gave a 1.1-1 tax break on it, it might encourage business to focus on the needs of society as a whole, rather than just serving the [free enterprise] system itself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thelonious, you are right about taxes. If a civilized society is to share properly, our tax system is wrong. If I buy a house, I pay for it with after-tax income. If Conrad Black buys a house, he pays for it with pre-tax income - after paying many tax lawyers to find a way to do it.

The problem is not that Conrad Black is a rich deal-maker who creates wealth for himself and others. The problem is our tax system.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

The problem is our tax system.

I agree wholeheartedly. I believe in taxes, and that they should be solely used for the betterment (or 'easement) of society and the economy as a group. I do believe that tax incentives can be used to 'socially engineer' society for the better, rather than simply serve 'the market', when both could be done. As I understand it, First Nations peoples have a 'tax exemption card' for certain goods. Why not use this as the 'carrot' to keep doctors in Canada? Family doctors (that see the 'regular people') could be tax exempt, while cosmetic surgeons etc. could be free to chase the dollar wherever they wish. ER surgeons get a free ride while newspaper magnates and you and I pay full (or subsidized, or insurance-enhanced) fare.

[Riverwind]

Family doctors (that see the 'regular people') could be tax exempt, while cosmetic surgeons etc. could be free to chase the dollar wherever they wish. ER surgeons get a free ride while newspaper magnates and you and I pay full (or subsidized, or insurance-enhanced) fare.

An interesting idea, however, it would probably require a lot less bureaucracy to simply provide cash bonuses to doctors working in locations and fields that need doctors. If you really want, the bonuses could be equal to the income tax paid so that the doctor thinks he is pays no income tax.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Sparhawk,

If you really want, the bonuses could be equal to the income tax paid so that the doctor thinks he is pays no income tax.

But then he/she would pay tax on the bonus, and possibly at a higher tax rate. Besides, the 'bureaucracy' would be paid for by private enterprise. The doctor has little time to do his/her own taxes, mostly these would be done by firms or agents, or private accountants. The exemptions would be standardized, so it would probably be no harder to implement than a change in the regulations for 'capital gains'.

[Charles Anthony]

If you really want, the bonuses could be equal to the income tax paid so that the doctor thinks he is pays no income tax.

But then he/she would pay tax on the bonus, and possibly at a higher tax rate.

You misunderstand.

The suggestion is that the bonus be raised high enough that -- even with the higher tax rate -- it will still amount to a higher net income.

If a civilized society is to share properly, our tax system is wrong. If I buy a house, I pay for it with after-tax income. If Conrad Black buys a house, he pays for it with pre-tax income - after paying many tax lawyers to find a way to do it.

The only solution I see to rectify this injustice between your purchase and Conrad Black's purchase is to eliminate income taxes altogether and replace it with consumption taxes.

Presumably Conrad Black's house will be higher priced and we will be able to extract more from him than us poor-folk.

This thread is like Lazarus, or an old letter found in the attic.

Let us stir things up a bit more.

On what side of the political fence would the elimination of income taxes fall: Right camp or Left camp?

[Remiel]

I think that the tax exemptions for family doctors is a very interesting idea... More family doctors means less pressure on the rest of the system, does it not?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

You misunderstand.

The suggestion is that the bonus be raised high enough that -- even with the higher tax rate -- it will still amount to a higher net income

Yes, but then taxes overall would have to be raised to pay for it...(one would be saying to the doctor; "We have to raise your taxes to give you a raise in pay..." I think it would be better to simply take the small hit of eliminating their taxes altogether.

Let us stir things up a bit more.

On what side of the political fence would the elimination of income taxes fall: Right camp or Left camp?

Without replacing the lost revenue with another tax (or a higher rate of another tax), it is 'right-wing'.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Remiel,

I think that the tax exemptions for family doctors is a very interesting idea... More family doctors means less pressure on the rest of the system, does it not?

That is the theory, and I think it is perfectly plausible.

[Charles Anthony]

Yes, but then taxes overall would have to be raised to pay for it...(one would be saying to the doctor; "We have to raise your taxes to give you a raise in pay..."

Why is that a problem? He could still end up with an overall higher net income.

I think it would be better to simply take the small hit of eliminating their taxes altogether.

I agree. It would involve less wasted time.

Without replacing the lost revenue with another tax (or a higher rate of another tax), it is 'right-wing'.

Why would that be right wing?

What side of the political spectrum would it be if we added a consumption tax?

Also, why are you assuming revenue would be lost?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

What side of the political spectrum would it be if we added a consumption tax?

Left-wing.

Also, why are you assuming revenue would be lost?

Because less money would be going into gov't coffers...

As to your original question before the edit, "Why", (replaced with)

Why would that be right wing?

All 'taxation' is 'left-wing', because taxes are ostensibly for the 'common good'. The 'right-wing' (with anarcho-libertarianism being penultimately 'right') would espouse 'everyman for himself'.

[Riverwind]

I think that the tax exemptions for family doctors is a very interesting idea... More family doctors means less pressure on the rest of the system, does it not?

OTH - more family doctors means more people making a living off the system which increases the costs and would inevitably lead to more rationing. The only way to reduce stress on the system is to reduce demand. They only way to reduce demand it to increase the cost to the consumers that create the demand. There are no other solutions - 100% free no-questions-asked healthcare is an infinite pit that will consume every dollar thrown at it.

TFB,

Here is formula that could be used to calculate how much of 'bonus' to pay doctors that would ensure that their after tax income is the same as it would be if they were given a tax exemption:

bonus = desired pay x (1/(1 - top marginal rate) - 1)

IOW a doctor making $120K before tax in a province with a top marginal rate of 45% would have to be paid a bonus of $98K. This would require no changes to the tax system and is much simpler to implement.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Riverwind,

The only way to reduce reduce stress on the system is to reduce demand. They only way to reduce demand it to increase the cost to the consumers that create the demand

I see a potential problem with 'reducing the demand for medical assistance by making it unaffordable'...

[Riverwind]

I see a potential problem with 'reducing the demand for medical assistance by making it unaffordable'...

So do I - but I see no other option when I look at the economics of free healthcare, an aging population and exploding costs of technology. Do you have any options other than throw more money in and pray?

I find it extremely ironic that healthcare is the only field where advances in technology actually increase the cost of providing the service rather than decrease it.

[Charles Anthony]

Do you have any options other than throw more money in and pray?

Excellent! That is the best definition of Left-wing that I have ever heard!

Also, why are you assuming revenue would be lost?

Because less money would be going into gov't coffers...

This is where the foolishness of the Left vs. Right ridiculotomy collapses in economics.

[i wonder what will happen when Right-wingers and Left-wingers learn that the Earth is actually round?

I also wonder what will happen when they learn that some actually people live at the equator of this globe?]

The assumption that "less money would be going into government coffers" is hilarious because it depends on us living in one moment of time. Furthermore, it completely omits the fact that each of us very frequently buy and sell from each other. In other words, the government collects taxes on your dollar and again when the second person spends it and again when the third person spends it and again when the fourth person spends it and so on and so on and rinse and lather and repeat. We all leave with bouncing and behaving hair! Now, all we have to do is tell two friends and the government has oodles and oodles of taxation.

Please forgive the dramatic sarcasm but my point is that the price you pay for ANYTHING includes several layers of multiplied taxation which our Big Brother can not even calculate. A decrease in income tax can lead to more general spending and thus, it is not wise to assume how it will affect the total money going into government coffers.

All 'taxation' is 'left-wing', because taxes are ostensibly for the 'common good'.

If that is so ostensible, can taxes also take care of peace and harmony and motherhood and joy to the world and eliminate poverty too?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

Please forgive the dramatic sarcasm

No worries, it was quite funny. I remember the '2 friends' commercial, it was for shampoo...Faberge , I believe.

A decrease in income tax can lead to more general spending and thus, it is not wise to assume how it will affect the total money going into government coffers.

You could be right, but the gov't isn't willing to take the chance. What if, god forbid , everyone saved that money...in 'income trusts'

If that is so ostensible, can taxes also take care of peace and harmony and motherhood and joy to the world and eliminate poverty too?

Well, one can always...

throw more money in and pray?

I found it odd that you would espouse the elimination of income tax in favour of other taxes, but I am in agreement. No, taxes cannot magically create these things, but they do lead more to peace and harmony within your own population than anarchy would.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Riverwind,

I find it extremely ironic that healthcare is the only field where advances in technology actually increase the cost of providing the service rather than decrease it.

Have you seen the price of new cars recently? Or computer chips? If you can provide an example of prices going down in a field because of tech advances, I'd be interested in hearing it.

Healthcare is not based on the profit motive, and in my mind, except for cosmetics, it should never be.