[quote]magick wrote:
I assume you support monopolies.
[/quote]
Here’s one for you
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
I’m none much pleased with the workings of the IRS either, but how would the alternative work? What would that look like?
[/quote]
Easy, flat tax.
Either the same percentage of everyone’s income is taken each week by the government with no exemptions, or a flat federal sales tax on all goods.
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
Here’s one for you
[/quote]
Does this mean global monopolies cannot exist?
I don’t disagree with Friedman on this matter.
I do think he’s intentionally limiting his viewpoint PURELY to monopolies, and the question at hand, in the video. I mean, if his counterargument to monopolies in the States is that foreign companies can topple them, then the obvious question is- what does this mean for jobs/the economic state of affairs within the States themselves if they get toppled? And this can give a skewed viewpoint.
Another question- Do you support tariffs and other forms of governmental control on foreign trade?
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
Easy, flat tax.
Either the same percentage of everyone’s income is taken each week by the government with no exemptions, or a flat federal sales tax on all goods.
[/quote]
Why should everyone be taxed at exactly the same rate?
A better question- What is the purpose of taxation?
[quote]magick wrote:
Does this mean global monopolies cannot exist?
I don’t disagree with Friedman on this matter.
I do think he’s intentionally limiting his viewpoint PURELY to monopolies, and the question at hand, in the video. I mean, if his counterargument to monopolies in the States is that foreign companies can topple them, then the obvious question is- what does this mean for jobs/the economic state of affairs within the States themselves if they get toppled? And this can give a skewed viewpoint.
Another question- Do you support tariffs and other forms of governmental control on foreign trade?
[/quote]
If you agree with Friedman that monopolies are more a creation of government, I would suggest reading what he has to say about “unfair competition” from abroad.
Do I support tariffs on foreign trade?
That depends. Do I support tariffs on government trade in the current welfare state? Yes, just as I support restrictions on immigration in a welfare state. Were we to change the rate at which we redistribute wealth and opportunity, a free economy would benefit everyone.
[quote]magick wrote:
Why should everyone be taxed at exactly the same rate?
A better question- What is the purpose of taxation?[/quote]
To the first, can you think of a more “fair” way to do it?
The purpose of taxation is to raise revenue for government.
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
If you agree with Friedman that monopolies are more a creation of government, I would suggest reading what he has to say about “unfair competition” from abroad.[/quote]
I read this-
http://doc.cat-v.org/economics/milton_friedman/the_case_for_free_trade
I have no idea if he wrote anything else on the topic (I would assume he has), but anyways-
I assume Friedman has a FAR better understanding of economics than I do, seeing as how he’s considered one of the most important economists of the 20th century.
But 5 years to remove tariffs and move to complete free trade?
Consumers benefiting more important? Don’t need to care about workers losing jobs?
The manner in which Friedman writes there makes sense to me only if one is willing to accept a concept of true globalized economy and not be concerned about the power of individual nations. It is, in essence, a large part of what happened in the U.S. in its infancy. The states used to compete with one another heavily on all manners of things, and then we slowly moved towards a much more cohesive, unified economy, no tariffs against hats made in MA by New York or some such. Took some growing pains, but it worked in the end.
The only trouble is that such a thing isn’t terribly realistic (as of yet) on a global basis.
Assume that we magically got rid of all tariffs and moved entirely to complete and absolute global free trade tomorrow.
I think I’d rather go live in the mountains than see what happens to the U.S.
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
Do I support tariffs on foreign trade?
That depends. Do I support tariffs on government trade in the current welfare state? Yes, just as I support restrictions on immigration in a welfare state. Were we to change the rate at which we redistribute wealth and opportunity, a free economy would benefit everyone.
[/quote]
Why would tariffs be unnecessary in your ideal world?
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
To the first, can you think of a more “fair” way to do it?
The purpose of taxation is to raise revenue for government.
[/quote]
Suppose that the purpose of taxation IS to raise revenue.
Then what does fairness have anything to do with it?
[quote]magick wrote:
A better question- What is the purpose of taxation?[/quote]
Yes, that is an excellent question. Perhaps taxes are used to defend and protect the freedoms of citizens(which is why no government recognized as tyrannical has ever collected taxes); perhaps taxes are used to enrich those in charge(whoever they may be); perhaps taxes are used to influence the market. I wish I knew the answer.
An easier question to answer is, “Why are taxes paid?” The answer is, “Because it is believed that paying them is less objectionable than the alternative.”
Push,
Claiming to want all federal labor laws repealed is fine, as far as it goes, but unserious. Not in the modern economy, and especially in light of the fact that labor-management issues affect commerce across state lines. States would have no ability to meaningfully impact this problem.
But that’s just labor-management issues. Repealing all labor laws entails also repealing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibiting discrimination in employment.
As for Bacon-Davis, you and every other competitor for those government contracts has this “floor” of wage costs when bidding for contracts, etc., right?
[quote]HeyWaj10 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
…What about the real world? Enough ink has been spilled on abstractions - what stays, and what goes?
[/quote]
What’s your answer to this question?[/quote]
Tons of stuff, as you well know. Aspects of the national economy must have some regulation (including credit and money supply (which has been the case since founding), commerce (prevention of fraud, mandatory disclosures for consumer and investor protection, efforts to restrict monopoly, as well as others), and environmental protections. These are just examples.
[/quote]
Yes, examples of what stays. What are examples of what goes?
[/quote]
Export-import bank. A ton of regulations on small and mid-sized businesses. Parts and chunks of social insurance (not because I disagree with them in principle, but because they are fiscally unsustainable and have moved beyond their proper scope). Just a few examples.
[/quote]
I think we can agree so far.
I would “burn to the ground” the following:
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Education
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Labor
and downsize the hell out of several other cabinet departments.[/quote]
Love it, but you forgot one: The IRS.
We don’t need it. Americans can pay taxes in a far simpler manner.
[/quote]
I’m none much pleased with the workings of the IRS either, but how would the alternative work? What would that look like?
[/quote]
Everyone pays 10% (Could be 15%). No loopholes, no exceptions.
The question you should be asking is how did we get to a place where we have a tax code that is something like 20,000 pages long and can only be understood by lawyers and tax experts.
It needs to be eliminated.
[quote]magick wrote:
What do you think will happen if Obama and Congress chose to get rid of all the departments you want gone tomorrow?[/quote]
We would have less of a bloated government to start with.
Where do people get the idea that the federal government is supposed to be all things to all people?
[quote]magick wrote:
Why should everyone be taxed at exactly the same rate?
[/quote]
A better question is this, why shouldn’t everyone be taxed at the same rate? Also, why do we punish those people who actually succeed and contribute more to the economy?
If you owned a company and punished your best salesmen by paying them less how long do you think they would continue to produce at a high rate?
Washington has it wrong and they have for decades.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
To the first, can you think of a more “fair” way to do it?
The purpose of taxation is to raise revenue for government.
[/quote]
Suppose that the purpose of taxation IS to raise revenue.
Then what does fairness have anything to do with it?[/quote]
Fairness is everyone paying the same rate.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I say this as the owner/operator of a small business who is required to pay Davis Bacon wages at times and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that having to pay $33 - $45 hr for common unskilled labor in the Rocky Mountain West is a complete joke and forces me to scale back my number of employees. I know more what my employees are worth than some faceless D.C. monstrosity. Yeah, I really do.[/quote]
I’m assuming you’re being hyperbolic though, but 33-45 USD for unskilled labor? Really?[/quote]
Yes really.
Any municipal job requires prevailing wage, which is in that range, at least. It’s a much easier pill to swallow when you’re paying skilled employees, ie: machine operators. But you need the dudes in the trench with the shovel as well.
Hard working, good headed chaps no doubt, but worth $45 an hour? Nope. Would much rather give them a nice Christmas bonus at the end of the year.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
To the first, can you think of a more “fair” way to do it?
The purpose of taxation is to raise revenue for government.
[/quote]
Suppose that the purpose of taxation IS to raise revenue.
Then what does fairness have anything to do with it?[/quote]
I don’t understand what your getting at. Taxes are for gaining revenue. More recently the government uses them as a way to alter behavior. But in an economic sense, a tax is a means to raise revenue.
I’d like to see how a Federal Sales and Use Tax would shake out numbers wise. If we care about what’s fair (not sure I do) that’s about the fairest way to tax. I tend to agree that a flat tax on income will not work.
The basic premise:
The more money you make, the more you spend, and consequently you pay more in taxes. It limits the tax burden on the poor while ensuring they actually having skin in the game. It gives individuals the freedom to effectively decide how much to pay in taxes (can reduce tax liability by saving money). It also ensures these “evil” hedge fund managers and “giant evil corporations” pay their fair share as well. The trick will be in determining the rate.
If we continue to tax income I’d like to see a three rate progressive tax system: 10% ($0 - $75K), 15% ($76K-$150K), 20% ($151K+). I’d like to see the same rate structure for C. Corps (perhaps change the dollars). I think it should be based on total family income. I don’t think we need all the classifications (married filing jointly, married, single, head of household, etc…).
Not sure how I’d attack deductions yet.