|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 7, 2013 10:58:48 GMT
In the past I've been falsely accused of supporting "progressive taxes" but that isn't necessarily the case.
In truth I'm not necessariy a fan of progressive taxation on earned income but, in theory, under progressive taxation the same dollars are
taxed at the same tax rates. A person with a million dollar a year net income pays the identical taxes on their first $50,000 of net income as a person with only $50,000 in net income. The problem today that reflects "crony caplitalism" is that not all dollars of income are
taxed the same and that reflects crony capitalism. "Unearned Income" is taxed at less than one-half the rates of "earned" income. Corporations
are taxed at about two-thirds or less of what a small business owner pays.
Favoritism in taxation where some pay higher rates on the same income than others pay is crony capitalism.
There are certainly alternatives to progressive tax rates though. Below I outline a proposal that would be a different way to tax income (under
the 16th Amendment) and that I believe would eliminate "crony capitalism" in taxation. It also addresses the tax burden related to
our two most expensive "welfare" programs (i.e. Social Security/Medicare) and eventually ends them over time. It would also
vastly increase the wealth accumulation of low and middle income workers in America.
We have two forms of "income taxes" where first are the personal/corporate income taxes that fund general expenditures and we have the FICA/Payroll/Self-employment taxes that are dedicated to Social Security/Medicare so each needs to be addressed separately.
Personal/Corporate Income Taxes:
All income will be treated equally under the law regardless of source or who receives the income. Eliminate all personal deductions and
replace them with a flat exemption of $50,000/yr per household (adjusted for inflation and based upon a four-person household which would adjusted based upon household size). All income below that exemption threshold would be tax free and all income above it would be taxed at the single fixed tax rate. The $50,000 threshold was established because it is slightly less than the median
household income in the United States.
The corporate tax rates would be the same rates as the personal income tax rates and applied to net gross income (i.e. income above the actual
cost of production and/or providing the service) of the corporation. Corporations would also receive the same proposed exemption from
taxation on the first $50,000 of net gross income just like an private household filing a tax return which would help start-up corporations. Eliminate all "special" deductions for corporations except for the "cost of production" in providing of the goods and/or services. Include "dividend" payments by the corporation as a "cost of production" as the taxation on these dividends will be paid for by the
shareholders of the corporation. This eliminates the "complaint" of double-taxation on the same income.
The tax rate would be a single flat tax rate determined by government spending authorizations each year (including the financial obligation to pay off existing government debt).
FICA/Payroll Taxes for Social Security/Medicare
The FICA/Payroll taxation is currently 15.3%.
The FICA/Payroll/Self-employment taxes on the first $50,000 in personal income (regardless of source) would be
dedicted to personal (vested) private investment portfolios that are highly diversified and age-adjusted. Based upon historic investment
data we can expect a minimum return on investment of 8% and this would result in a portfolio valued at roughly $3.6 million after a 45 year
working career for maximum mandatory contributions. A minimum wage worker would have a portfolio valued at about $1.3 million. In all
cases this "wealth" accumulation would provide more income than Social Security at retirement age eliminating the need Social Security and
would actually provide enough income for the individual to afford private health insurance eliminating the need for Medicare.
A person or employee/employer could invest more in these accounts if they choose to do so increasing their personal wealth at retirement. These investment accounts could not be borrowed against and could only be withdrawn from for retirement purposes. If the person dies before retirement age these funds go to the heirs of the deceased to provide supplemental funding their retirement portfolios.
There would be no minimum age for retirement but "minimum income" criteria would established.
A maximum age (I propose 70 yo) would be established and a safety net provided where a minimum income is established (I recommend $30,000/yr) where a government subsidy would supplement the income of the person from their personal investment account as required.
Since the vast majority of people would have well over $50,000/yr in income they could afford private health insurance (est. cost about $15,000/yr for those over 65 yo) eliminating the need for Medicare completely and a safety net providing a subsidy for those with less than $50,000/yr to fund health insurance in those rare cases. Those with $30,000/yr in income (my recommended minimum income that could include a safety net subsidy) would be covered by Medicaid.
The cap would be lifted on the FICA/Payroll taxes and the revenues from incomes above $50,000 per year would be used to fund the transitional
phase from the current Social Security/Medicare welfare programs. There is a 45 year transitional period to "privatize" Social Security and
Medicare that I estimate will cost about $40-$45 trillion overall. At the end of this transitional period the "taxation" imposed above
$50,000 (adjusted for inflation) would virtually cease to exist except as necessary to fund the safety net. Social Security/Medicare would disappear completely and the American People would be far better off financially in retirement.
This would also vastly increase the amount of personal wealth for low and middle income individuals where today the average personal assets
are retirement age are only $100,000 and where a significant percentage have nothing at retirement age. Instead of "nothing" even a person that
worked at minimum wage would have over $1 million is personal wealth at age 65. We need to note a single fact and that is that 40% of Americans
that pay into Social Security/Medicare today die before ever collecting any retirement benefits. Every dollar in taxation they paid is lost in
taxation. Under privatization this money belongs to them, plus the return on investment, and that wealth is transferred to their heirs as
opposed to being lost tax dollars sent to the US government. Virtually all of this "money" comes from low and middle income workers in America today.
A "safety net" could still exist but because of "privatization" there would be little if any need for it. The current projections of
insolveny for Social Security/Medicare are solved without reducing benefits or significantly increasing the tax rates. Because all
personal income would be subjected to the "FICA/Payroll" taxes it would greatly expand the revenues to pay benefits during the next 45 years.
****************************** ****************************** **
This is a general proposal but it accomplished many things.
1. It eliminates "favoritism" in our tax policies.
2. It funds the government by the upper 50% of income households that can actually afford to fund government.
3. It resolves the problem identified by Congress in the 1930's (and then again in the 1960's) where 1/2 of the people (i.e. those with
average or below average incomes) were not investing enough to accumulate wealth during their working career to provide income during
their retirement years.
4. It is absolutely fair because every household has the identical exemption from taxation (i.e. incomes of $50K or below) and every
household pays a Flat Tax Rate above that exemption (i.e. on all personal income above $50K).
5. It is Constitutional unlike the calls for Congress to impose a consumption tax with prebates as proposed by FairTax.org currently. The
Contitution does not allow a Federal Sale Tax but the 16th Amendment does authorize the income tax.
6. It doesn't play "favoritism" with corporations, which are merely businesses owned by a lot of people, because corporations will pay the
same tax rates as individuals on gross income.
7. It directly addresses government spending because the tax rate every year would be based upon authorized spending by Congress. If Congress
increases spending then the tax rates will go up and if Congress reduces spending then the tax rates will go down.
8. The $50,000 exemption from personal income taxes removes any income tax withholding below that amount and will reduce the need for welfare to mitigate the effects of poverty albeit only slightly. It has never made sense to take money from someone in taxation and then give it back to them as welfare money. It makes far more sense to not take the money in the first place.
9. Similar to the proposals for a "consumption tax with prebates" it isactually "progressive" based upon applying the same "exemption" from
taxation and the same "rates" above the exemption for all households in America based upon gross personal income of the household.
Is it perfect? Not from my "libertarian" perspective because it forces people to invest in their future when they should be doing this
voluntarily. The problem is that we know that about 1/2 of the people won't and when they don't they become a burden on others in society. We can't let "granny" starve because "grandpa" didn't invest for retirement. From my "libertarian" perspective the only reason I can justify the mandatory investments is that the money still belongs to the person as they're 100% vested in their accounts. It is a compromise based upon a
pragmatic necessity to ensure that people don't become a burden on society when they get old.
I'm sure that others can improve on this idea but I believe that the "bones" of the proposal are sound.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 5, 2013 13:15:20 GMT
We do have some that support the Tea Party movement falsely believing in much of their propaganda. The Tea Party has it correct that the average person is over-taxed but the problem is that they blame it on the poor as opposed to blaming it on the 1% of wealthy investors that pay far less than the 90% of the workers in American. The truth will set this issue straight so let's present some of the truth related to just federal taxation in the United States.
The workers of America from the lowly janitor to the CEO of a major corporation are "workers" in America and they pay the "earned income" tax rates.
 Investors don't pay the same tax rates as workers. They pay Capital Gains taxes on the profits from their investments. We need to remember that these investors are overwhelmingly investing in secondary financial instruments such as money markets and stock purchases on the stock exchanges that don't fund enterprise and it is a myth that they do. Only a fraction of 1% of all investments actually fund enterprises as that only relates to stock issued by the corporations while most stocks purchase merely reflect the purchase of the stock by one private investor from the previous investor and not a single dime of this goes to the corporation.
Below is the comparison of the earned income tax rates to the capital gains tax rates.
 The comparison of the two charts is quite revealing because it shows that well over one-half of the workers of American are paying up to 15% income taxes while investors are paying nothing, not one dime, on this same income. When we go to the top income workers such as small business owners and corporate executives they're being fundamentally taxed at twice the rate when compared to investors... but that's not all because it gets worse for the workers.
The workers are also subjected to the FICA/Payroll/Self-employment taxes that investors were historically exempted from paying. These taxes are divided into two components with one funding Social Security and the other funding Medicare.
For 2013 the Social Security portion is 12.4% up to a gross (not net) income of $113,700. This tax is only paid on "earned" income and investors are exempt from paying it.
For 2013 the Medicare portion for workers with earned income is 2.9% on gross income with no limit on income.
New for 2014 was a tax on investment income to fund Medicare/Medicaid.
 As we can see from the chart this tax doesn't even begin for the wealthy investors until they have roughly five-times the income of an average working family in the United States. Even if they have $1,000,000 in net income for the year they will pay a lower total rate on income than someone working at a minimum wage job.
Regardless of what income level we select when we compare the income tax rates for the workers of America that are producing the wealth of America and the investors that really contribute nothing to the US economy because they don't even fund enterprise the workers are pay well over twice the tax rates on their earned income when compared to an investor with the identical income. The 90% are carrying the heaviest tax burden relative to income in the United States and the lower the income level this disparity actually becomes worse. In my federal tax proposal I addressed this problem by exempting the first $50,000 from any federal taxation so that roughly those below the average income would pay no federal taxes while those above average income would all pay the same tax rate.
Yes, those below $50,000 in family income would still have the 15.3% combined employer/employee withholding but it would be invested in private investment accounts that are owned (vested) by the person and is not a tax. It is a mandatory investment program that would eliminate Social Security and Medicare in the future reducing the future size of government by roughly 1/3rd (that the Tea Party advocates) and where the individuals, their families, and heirs would be far better off financially in generations to come. It builds the personal wealth of the 90% of working Americans and also provides investment funding at the same time. The only difference is that it would be the average American that is investing as opposed to just the top 1% to 5% of Americans.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 25, 2013 12:15:36 GMT
One thing lacking on my "tax plan" is the inheritance tax and that requires some thought. My first "off the cuff" proposal would be to have a single "once-in-a-lifetime" exemption on what I'd refer to as "windfall income" that could be inheritance or the winning of a large lottery. It would have a cap that would be relatively high, perhaps $25-$50 million per person, and the individual could choose to use or not use the exemption in the case of inheritance or a large lottery winning. Above that amount they would pay the tax rate on income that everyone else pays.
The "windfall income" would be described as income to the person not derived from labor or investment. Whether they choose to apply the exemption is up to them but if they don't then they pay the tax rate on income that applies to all income regardless of source.
This is one proposal that I'm really interested in hearing comments on because I haven't spent a lot of analysis of it but I believe it's fair to the person and protects people from being unfairly taxed on income from in a "windfall" situation that often relates to carrying on a family enterprise or that happens to be "struck by lighting" in winning a large lottery.
One calculation I did do related to this is that even at the $25 million exemption level a person would receive $1,250,000/yr in income forever at 5% return on investment and that would put them in a very small faction of the top 1% income earners in American. No one with over $1 million a year in income can complain that they don't have enough income to live on. That's almost $3500/day and that is a hard amount to spend every day without downright wasting the money.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Oct 25, 2013 14:09:53 GMT
Is should probably begin with full disclosure: I am a recipient of both Social Security and Medicare Part A. And I would find it especially difficult to eschew the former (although I could get along okay without the latter, as I have other healthcare insurance).
However, the proposal to eliminate these programs over time, in favor of private accounts that one could pass along to one's heirs, strikes me as eminently reasonable. Many, however--especially among the Democratic Party--would, no doubt, demagogue any such proposal. (Wait: They did precisely that with George W. Bush, when he proposed something similar.)
And I agree that it makes very little sense to treat investment income more favorably than earned income. If the former were more noble, or more useful to society, than the latter is, that might make some sense. But it clearly is not.
Politicians--yes, from both parties--tend to push, however, for those exemptions and exceptions that will benefit their constituents (and especially their major donors), so I am not especially optimistic about the possibility for change here.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 26, 2013 2:01:16 GMT
I don't think one can truly eliminate "favoritism" in the tax code. Even your proposal would mean that anyone making over $50,000/yr pays for virtually ALL the infrastructures (including interstate highways), ALL the defense, all the national parks, and all government facilities and employees. How "fair" is that??? Those making under the $50,000/yr would have no "skin" in the game. AND if one makes $49,000/yr, but could make $60,000/yr.....what is the incentive to do so....really??
The population that was paying all the taxes still would not have much say in what the political leaders decided to spend. So, we'd still have the problem of over taxation at the whims of those who seek to run up the debt some more. This magical number of $50,000 would continually be raised by Democrats and they would insist that those at the bottom STILL have a "safety net," with no consequences for not working when one simply just doesn't want to. I'm betting that Democrat leaders would also never go for Social Security savings passing to heirs when someone dies before it's collected. For some reason, they've always thought of that as "their money" to spend as they wish. So....all in all....while some of your proposals are something I could certainly go for......the ones who would not are called Democrats. And you didn't address it....but I'm assuming if you really want "fair," you'd also do away with the Earned Income Credit, and Child Credits as well?
And as PJ stated.....we had such a proposal before regarding Social Security.....by Pres. Bush. It was soundly refused by Democrats who do not WANT citizens to own ANY of their own retirement accounts. WHY? Because they like being able to spend it as they like. There is NO "lock box" and no actual "trust fund" for Social Security.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Oct 26, 2013 4:13:05 GMT
I'm betting that Democrat leaders would also never go for Social Security savings passing to heirs when someone dies before it's collected. For some reason, they've always thought of that as "their money" to spend as they wish.
The trenchant political analyst and syndicated columnist, George Will, put it very accurately, I believe, in an August 1999 column in The Washington Post: "Democrats seem to believe this: Government frames society, providing laws, physical infrastructure and human capital (education, particularly) that fuels commerce. Therefore government is responsible for all economic outcomes, and the economy [and even individuals' money] is essentially government property." |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 26, 2013 11:00:57 GMT
Is should probably begin with full disclosure: I am a recipient of both Social Security and Medicare Part A. And I would find it especially difficult to eschew the former (although I could get along okay without the latter, as I have other healthcare insurance). However, the proposal to eliminate these programs over time, in favor of private accounts that one could pass along to one's heirs, strikes me as eminently reasonable. Many, however--especially among the Democratic Party--would, no doubt, demagogue any such proposal. (Wait: They did precisely that with George W. Bush, when he proposed something similar.) And I agree that it makes very little sense to treat investment income more favorably than earned income. If the former were more noble, or more useful to society, than the latter is, that might make some sense. But it clearly is not. Politicians--yes, from both parties--tend to push, however, for those exemptions and exceptions that will benefit their constituents (and especially their major donors), so I am not especially optimistic about the possibility for change here.
For example there was a "complaint" by conservatives that corporate profits are taxed twice, first at the corporate level and then at the stockholder level so I addressed that. Only dividends paid to the stockholder would be subjected to double-taxation if they were taxed as income profits at the corporate level and then again taxed as income at the stockholder level. I simply incorporated "dividend payments" by the corporation as a "cost of production" so that they wouldn't be taxed at the corporate level as "income" but would be taxed at the individual level because they were income to the stockholder.
On the flip side I knew that "liberals" wouldn't endorse the proposal if it relied solely upon preferred long term diversified and age-adjusted private investments (that have never failed to earn less than 8% ROI historically) because they're paranoid. So I included a "safety net" that paid 4-times as much as the minimum SS retirement benefit and was about equal to the maximum SS benefit if a person waits to age 70 to collect. When you tell a "liberal" that the new minimum benefit will be $30,000/yr as opposed to $7,000/yr they have a hard time saying no. Of course the government doesn't have to fund that entire $30,000/yr if the safety net is ever required because it is the combined income from investments with a subsidy to merely bring up income to $30,000/yr and doesn't kick in until age 70. As noted though even a minimum wage worker would have over $55,000/yr in annual income based upon 50 years (age 20-70) so who's actually going to ever require the safety net is highly questionable.
As also noted if a minimum wage worker has over $50,000/yr in income they can afford to pay the high costs of medical insurance for those above 65 years of age that would be about $15,000/yr because they would still have over $35,000/yr in disposable income to live on so we don't need Medicare at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 26, 2013 12:30:40 GMT
I don't think one can truly eliminate "favoritism" in the tax code. Even your proposal would mean that anyone making over $50,000/yr pays for virtually ALL the infrastructures (including interstate highways), ALL the defense, all the national parks, and all government facilities and employees. How "fair" is that??? Those making under the $50,000/yr would have no "skin" in the game. AND if one makes $49,000/yr, but could make $60,000/yr.....what is the incentive to do so....really??
The population that was paying all the taxes still would not have much say in what the political leaders decided to spend. So, we'd still have the problem of over taxation at the whims of those who seek to run up the debt some more. This magical number of $50,000 would continually be raised by Democrats and they would insist that those at the bottom STILL have a "safety net," with no consequences for not working when one simply just doesn't want to. I'm betting that Democrat leaders would also never go for Social Security savings passing to heirs when someone dies before it's collected. For some reason, they've always thought of that as "their money" to spend as they wish. So....all in all....while some of your proposals are something I could certainly go for......the ones who would not are called Democrats. And you didn't address it....but I'm assuming if you really want "fair," you'd also do away with the Earned Income Credit, and Child Credits as well?
And as PJ stated.....we had such a proposal before regarding Social Security.....by Pres. Bush. It was soundly refused by Democrats who do not WANT citizens to own ANY of their own retirement accounts. WHY? Because they like being able to spend it as they like. There is NO "lock box" and no actual "trust fund" for Social Security.
Let's start with my exemption level of $50,000/yr that represents the median family income so it basically addresses the bottom 50% of family income groups. If you recall Mitt Romney brought up a fact that 48% of families already have a neutral or negative "income tax" in 2012. So either they're they have a zero tax liability or are actually receiving government assistance where they get more from the government than they pay in income taxes already.
My proposal doesn't really change that statistic because I'm merely establishing that they won't have any income taxes withheld and that in turn reduces their need for welfare assistance that is an expenditure of government. Basically the proposal doesn't change who's paying the income taxes in America today and it reduces welfare assistance. As I noted it doesn't make sense to take money from people in income taxes with one hand and then give it back to them with the other as welfare assistance. My proposal doesn't end the need to mitigate the effects of poverty but it does reduce poverty by increasing disposable income Taking money in taxation just to give it back as welfare assistance just creates bigger government with no net benefit to the person that we both oppose.
Infrastructure is overwhelmingly paid for, or should be paid for, with "user fees" such as the federal and state fuel taxes that were created to pay for roads. It's also true that overwhelmingly infrastructure is and should be a responsibility of State government and not the federal government. If Seattle, for example, needs a new storm drain or improvements to an existing storm drain to keep Seattle streets from flooding the predominately it's a responsibility of the residents of Seattle to pay for it with perhaps some State financial assistance. That should not be funded with federal taxation because it relates specifically to Seattle and the State of Washington.
I have had some problems related to federal funding of infrastructure historically. For example in 2007, as I recall, the federal government collected about $30 billion in federal fuel taxes but authorized about $40 billion in expenditures creating $10 billion in deficit spending. The work really was required, and in fact more work was required, so why weren't the fuel taxes raised to fund the expenditure? That's exactly what the fuel tax was created to pay for and we shouldn't have resorted to deficit spending to accomplish the work.
Point being infrastructure should be predominately be a state matter and infrastructure should always be paid for with user fees.
"...if one makes $49,000/yr, but could make $60,000/yr.....what is the incentive to do so....really??"
While I appreciate this question the answer is quite obvious. Let's say the tax rate is 30% above $50,000 then the incentive for a person earning $49,000 per year to work more and earn $60,000 per year is $8,000. They wouldn't be taxed up to $50,000 and the tax on the next $10,000 is $3,000 so they net an additional $8,000 in income. I would believe that an additional $8,000 in income would be a very compelling reason to earn $60,000 a year as opposed to $49,000 a year.
The $50,000 is not established based upon political agendas but instead is based upon median family income. Neither the Democrats or Republicans could change the median family income based upon political considerations. This is the same for the "tax rate" because it's based upon authorized government expenditures. The budget always balances based upon the authorized expenditures. If we, the American People, want a lower tax rate then we need to reduce government expenditures.
One important fact was noted though. The people "paying the tax" (i.e. the top 50% of income earners) also have a disproportionate influence with the politicians because they fund the political campaigns. If the tax burden is too high on those that are paying the tax they will put pressure on the politicians to reduce spending so that the tax rate goes down. Today those "paying the taxes" don't have much incentive to demand lower expenditures because they're not fully funding our government because of deficit spending.
It's always easy for someone to say spend more when they don't have to pay for it and those paying the taxes are not funding the full costs of the spending. This is especially bad related to the top 1% of income earners because their income overwhelmingly comes from secondary investments that don't do anything to promote the US economy and they're taxed at less than 1/2 the rate of the workers in American (e.g. top rate for earned income is 39.5% but only 20% for unearned income and unearned income doesn't pay SS/Medicare taxes). My proposal fixes that inequity.
Finally the matter of former President Bush's proposal to privatize SS was mentioned. The Bush proposal was seriously flawed but I actually did start by looking at it an other proposals for privatization in developing mine. First and foremost prior proposals didn't account for the fact that the transition period had to be the full working career of the person that needs to be from about age 20-65 or 45 years. Next are the huge costs to be covered during the transitional period because we don't want to reduce the standard of living for any Americans during the transitional period of 45 years. We can't expect a minimum wage earner to pay taxes for Social Security and also invest more of their limited income.
I realized that the solution was that All Americans had to be involved in eliminating a horrible welfare program with projected expenditures of about $75 trillion during the next 65 years or so but also wanted to ensure that no one's standard of living was decreased by dealing with the issue. I accepted that it sometimes costs money up front to save money long term (something Republicans haven't really acknowledges in their plans). Finally I realized that the higher the income of the person or family the lower the percentage of income they spend sustaining their standard of living that I didn't want to adversely affect. The poor low income worker spends virtually all of their disposable income to maintain a low level standard of living. The super-wealthy only spend a small fraction of their disposable income to maintain their standard of living as vast amounts of income are generally re-invested as opposed to being spent. The super-wealthy have far more income than their standard of living requires so they use the surplus income to create more income that they don't really need.
So, to address the issue of funding it really came down to imposing the same 15.3% financial burden on everyone in America on all income. Everyone has that same 15.3% expenditure from their income. I also kept is fair where for everyone that financial burden for the first $50,000 in income remained "their money" (as opposed to belonging to the government today) and that it would be used to fund fully vested preferred diversified and age-adjusted investment accounts. Above that level the funds would be "taxation" to fund the transition from Social Security as a welfare program to a program based upon private investments that build personal wealth. Everyone is treated the same and it is fair. It also provides the estimated $40 trillion in federal expenditures that are going to have to be paid anyway but by the end of the transitional period that taxation all but disappears.
Ultimately my proposal saves many more tens of trillions dollars in taxation that our children or grandchildren would have to pay to fund spending on a welfare program. The proposal, as noted, virtually ends Social Security except for the "safety net" provisions that probably won't be required and literally ends Medicare which would cut the size of the federal government by about 1/3rd.
The final plus is that because all of the investment money is vested in the individual it dramatically reduces poverty in America. It literally creates millionaires out of minimum wage workers over the next 45 years and even when they die their investment assets are transferred to their heirs increasing the family wealth. It also fuels trillions of dollars of investments that counteracts any negative consequences of taxation on the current top 5% of income earners today. It doesn't "rob the wealthy and give it to the poor" because the wealth of the poor is created from their own personal labor and investments.
A long response but the questions presented required a long response. There only one issue left and that is a statement made by many conservative that was also made here.
"Skin in the game."
Conservatives apparently believe that just because a person doesn't pay federal income taxes that they don't have "skin in the game" but America is the game and not the government. The lowest paid workers have the greatest "skin in the game" when it comes to America because they spend virtually all of their income on consumption and consumption drives the economy, not investing. A company that can sell their products and services based upon demand really doesn't require investment. They can expand based upon profits generated from sales. They can borrow against those profits if the require capital as opposed to selling off part of the enterprise as stock if they choose. Finally the lowest paid worker in purchasing an item provides the money for all of the higher paying jobs. Engineering jobs (and I'm an engineer) are generated because of people with lower incomes than I have and not by those with higher incomes.
The base of the economic pyramid is the lowest paid individuals and it is upon that foundation that the pyramid exists. We could remove the top of the pyramid and the pyramid does not collapse but if we remove the bottom it destroys the whole pyramid. The economy is not feed from the top down but instead is created from the bottom up. That was the problem with "Reaganomics" because the top doesn't feed the bottom. The bottom feeds the top.
The lowest paid people in America are the most important factor of the economic success of America so they do have "skin in the game" of America because without them our economy couldn't exist. The more disposable income the lowest paid workers have the higher the economic pyramid grows because they spend virtually all of their income building the pyramid.
Once again, sorry for being long-winded but there are so many considerations that I've made regarding my proposal that I know others haven't considered that I feel compelled to explain them. If anyone wants me to be short-winded then limit the issues I feel compelled to address. LOL
Thanks for being concerned and presenting concerns of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 26, 2013 13:38:29 GMT
I'm betting that Democrat leaders would also never go for Social Security savings passing to heirs when someone dies before it's collected. For some reason, they've always thought of that as "their money" to spend as they wish. The trenchant political analyst and syndicated columnist, George Will, put it very accurately, I believe, in an August 1999 column in The Washington Post: "Democrats seem to believe this: Government frames society, providing laws, physical infrastructure and human capital (education, particularly) that fuels commerce. Therefore government is responsible for all economic outcomes, and the economy [and even individuals' money] is essentially government property."
Yes, government does frame society to a large degree in providing laws and can do so in either a positive or negative manner. I won't go too far off topic on this but will note that when government fulfills it's primary purpose of protecting the inalienable Rights of the Person as expressed in the Declaration of Independence it is acting as a positive influence. The problem is with laws that unnecessarily infringe upon our Freedom to Exercise or Inalienable Rights or the failure of government to act to prevent or mitigate the effects of infringements upon or Inalienable Rights by others in society.
Yes, government is the logical institution to address infrastructure and human capital (education) in a "macro" sense and infrastructure and human capital are vitally important in fueling commerce but they are not the most important factors related to commerce. Consumption is the primary fuel that feeds commerce.
Yes, the government is largely influential in the economic outcomes in America but unfortunately most government interventionism results in negative outcomes as opposed to positive outcomes.
The perfect example of this is Social Security. In the 1930's the government correctly found that about 1/2 of the people didn't invest to build the personal wealth to provide income when they became too old to work. Congress failed to address the problem identified (i.e. 1/2 the people not investing for their future income requirements) and instead addressed the symptom of the problem that was a lack of income. Had Congress created a program like I propose for Social Security we wouldn't have the Social Security (or Medicare that was also based upon the fact that 1/2 of the people didn't have the wealth to provide income to pay for health insurance when they retired in the 1960's) welfare program problems we have today. Congress, by not addressing the actual problem in the 1930's created what has become 1/3rd of the US government today, prevented low income workers living in poverty from accumulating the personal wealth they need, and created a $1.5 trillion per year a tax and spend requirement of government.
Our government does a horrible job of addressing the actual problems and instead addresses symptom of the problems. Both Democrats and Republicans do this so it's not a partisan issue. I guess I really should slam conservatives as well because I just slammed the liberal.
Conservatives support low capital gains taxes making a false argument that investments represent capital investments in enterprise creating jobs but that's basically BS. If we had $100 million to invest in Microsoft stock and purchased Microsoft stock on the NYSE on Monday not a single dollar of the $100 million goes to Microsoft. Not one dollar of that $100 million goes Microsoft and that $100 million doesn't create even one job at Microsoft. Virtually all investments are secondary financial investments that don't fund enterprise with any capital.
The myth is that investments create wealth and jobs but the truth is, and has always been that, workers create wealth and consumption creates jobs. It makes no logical sense that a worker with a net income $75,000 is in a 15% income tax bracket and pays Social Security taxes while an investor is in 0% income tax bracket with the identical $75,000 in net income and pays no Social Security taxes but that's what our current tax laws establish and Republicans believe that the Capital Gains tax is too high. Based upon WHAT??? A Myth!
Bottom line remains that the government can and does effect economic outcomes but the problem is that it usually creates negative economic outcomes as opposed to positive economic outcomes.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Oct 26, 2013 20:50:02 GMT
The trenchant political analyst and syndicated columnist, George Will, put it very accurately, I believe, in an August 1999 column in The Washington Post: "Democrats seem to believe this: Government frames society, providing laws, physical infrastructure and human capital (education, particularly) that fuels commerce. Therefore government is responsible for all economic outcomes, and the economy [and even individuals' money] is essentially government property."
Yes, government does frame society to a large degree in providing laws and can do so in either a positive or negative manner. I won't go too far off topic on this but will note that when government fulfills it's primary purpose of protecting the inalienable Rights of the Person as expressed in the Declaration of Independence it is acting as a positive influence. The problem is with laws that unnecessarily infringe upon our Freedom to Exercise or Inalienable Rights or the failure of government to act to prevent or mitigate the effects of infringements upon or Inalienable Rights by others in society.
Yes, government is the logical institution to address infrastructure and human capital (education) in a "macro" sense and infrastructure and human capital are vitally important in fueling commerce but they are not the most important factors related to commerce. Consumption is the primary fuel that feeds commerce.
I do not believe it is within the province of government--the proper province of government, anyway--for government to act as some superstructure that fuels commerce, either directly or indirectly. Come to think of it, I do not believe that Adam Smith believed that government is the engine that drives commerce, either. (And no, I am not speaking here of the Democratic congressman from Washington state, who goes by this same name.) But then, I thoroughly reject the Hobbesian view of government as The Leviathan State... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 27, 2013 0:42:27 GMT
I do not believe it is within the province of government--the proper province of government, anyway--for government to act as some superstructure that fuels commerce, either directly or indirectly. Come to think of it, I do not believe that Adam Smith believed that government is the engine that drives commerce, either. (And no, I am not speaking here of the Democratic congressman from Washington state, who goes by this same name.) But then, I thoroughly reject the Hobbesian view of government as The Leviathan State...
I'm sure we'd find a lot of commonality of opinion on that subject but we can save it for later. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Oct 28, 2013 14:11:23 GMT
There is so very much about this proposal that makes good sense to me--not the least of which is the point that the repair or replacement of infrastructure (which is a critical need, in my opinion) is really a state and local matter, not a federal matter--that I think it would be a severe mistake to dismiss it out of hand. But there are a couple of points that I find problematical, viz:
(1) I am not surre what your evidence is that it is a mere "myth" that it is the monied class that produces jobs. After all, how many people have ever been hired by person mired in poverty?
(2) To conclude that even those who pay no federal income taxes have "skin in the game," based upon the interpretation of "the game" as "America," is a mistake, in my opinion. The phrase, "no skin in the game," is surely intended to mean, nothing at stake. And those who pay no federal income taxes--who are not, therefore, at any risk of having to pay for others' goodies--are likely to vote (if at all) for that candidate who offers the most in the way of freebies; which, I believe, is largely how our current Community-Organizer-in-Chief defied all the Right Track/Wrong Track surveys and the polls of likely voters in 2012, and won re-election.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 28, 2013 15:48:59 GMT
There is so very much about this proposal that makes good sense to me--not the least of which is the point that the repair or replacement of infrastructure (which is a critical need, in my opinion) is really a state and local matter, not a federal matter--that I think it would be a severe mistake to dismiss it out of hand. But there are a couple of points that I find problematical, viz: (1) I am not surre what your evidence is that it is a mere "myth" that it is the monied class that produces jobs. After all, how many people have ever been hired by person mired in poverty? (2) To conclude that even those who pay no federal income taxes have "skin in the game," based upon the interpretation of "the game" as "America," is a mistake, in my opinion. The phrase, "no skin in the game," is surely intended to mean , nothing at stake. And those who pay no federal income taxes--who are not, therefore, at any risk of having to pay for others' goodies--are likely to vote (if at all) for that candidate who offers the most in the way of freebies; which, I believe, is largely how our current Community-Organizer-in-Chief defied all the Right Track/Wrong Track surveys and the polls of likely voters in 2012, and won re-election. Let me see if I can address the two items. First of all realize that my proposal is neither Democratic or Republican but instead took into account legitimate issues presented by both. When "illegitimate" issues were presented then I was required to address them with solid rebuttal that would dismiss them. I have not gone unchallenged and the issues you present at challenges that I have to address. Is that not true. 1) I haven't said that the poor hire people but the consumption of the poor does result in employment and not the investments by millionaires. For example I'm an engineer that receives very high wages for my work. I could work for a wealthy person and create a single product for their use. It's a market that does exist but it is a very limited market because they're aren't very many rich people that can afford my services. At the other end of the spectrum I could use my knowledge and expertise to design a "better mousetrap" that tens of millions of poor Americans would purchase. The costs of my services is split over millions of American and, in fact, their consumption of products generates the job requirements for hundreds of thousand of engineers just like me. At the same time an enterprise that produces a better mousetrap that millions of Americans want and will purchase doesn't require outside wealthy investors to purchase shares of the enterprise to expand to meet the demand. The owners of the enterprise may choose to sell part of the enterprise to fund expansion but they don't have to. They can borrow against projected profits or simply allow the profits to fund expansion at a slower rate. But one more fact needs to be understood. I don't have an exact number but I've estimated that 99% of investments are completely unrelated to the purchase of stock being directly issued by a corporation to fund corporate expansion. Investments to purchase stock directly from a corporation that capitalize the enterprise are referred to as "primary" investments but overwhelmingly investments relate to "secondary" investments in our economy. Secondary investments, like purchasing $100 million of Microsoft on the NYSE today, don't fund any enterprise (except the stock market itself) and don't result in the creation of product or services (except related to the stock market) and the GDP is a reflection of the products and services produced. Bottom line these investments don't create any "wealth" (i.e. grow the GDP) because they even fund corporate expansion and all profits related to them are parasitic because they're not profits based upon the direct creation of weath (products and services). Workers produce products and services and not investors. A long answer but its because the issue is complex and requires an explanation that addresses the issue. 2) "The phrase, "no skin in the game," is surely intended to mean, nothing at stake." Once again though I believe that even the lowest income Americans do have "skin in the game" even if they don't understand that they do. My position is that most people don't know much about the "skin in the game" even when they talk like they do. For example, I'm pretty heavily taxed because of my income and I have a relatively high standard of living because of my income. My routine expenditures just to support my standard of living are probably about $40,000/yr which is more than many people even earn. Many earn less than 1/2 of that amount and are trying to get by. Now, if I look at just general spending on "welfare programs" that equals about 1/5th of all general expenditures (that excludes SS/Medicare). Without saying how much I pay in income taxes let me just say that 1/5th of my total income taxation isn't all that much accounting for a few thousand dollars at most. Let's put a number on that because it would be less than $5,000 it is only a small fraction of my total annual income. I would spend none of that money on "consumption" and would probably spend it on investments that don't grow the economy by one dime (as noted above). Someone with substantially lower income will receive that money as a "welfare" benefit such as SNAP assistance and they will spend 100% of it on necessary consumption. Yes, I've lost a little future personal wealth by being taxed but the use of my money on "consumption" improves the economy by that many dollars. Because that consumption improves the overall economy it increases the demand for my labor and I earn even more money. Obviously I'd prefer that these people didn't need assistance just to feed their families or to keep a roof over their heads. Then I could keep my money, invest, and earn more in wages because of the increased demand for my services but the fact it they don't right now. So as it is my standard of living is not decreased one iota by paying taxes that are distributed as welfare assistance, people do have enough money to buy food and keep a roof over their heads, I'm still investing and will have more than what I need to retire on, and the spending by these individuals on "consumption" is still fueling economic growth that increases how much money I'd earn if they didn't have the money to spend. Perfect is no povety and no welfare assistance necessary but as it is we have the second best thing IMHO. So my position is that the solution to reducing welfare spending is to reduce poverty. No poverty is the utopian solution that is the goal we strive for knowing it can never be reached but that doesn't mean we don't strive for it and base our policies upon the goal while understanding that because the utopian goal can never be reached we must mitigate against that. Welfare assistance is the best way to mitigate the effects of poverty because it creates the consumption that otherwise wouldn't exist and consumption is what improves the economy and reduces poverty. The "poor" do have skin in the game because their consumption helps fuel the economy even if that consumption comes from people like me that do pay a lot in taxes (I paid double the tax rate on disposable income that Mitt Romney paid in 2011 and he had over 200 times my income) because I ultimately benefit from their consumption. Without them spending I'd earn a lot less. They're spending money, even if it comes from me, on consuption that I wouldn't spend on consumption. My lifestyle and my investments in the future really aren't negatively affected so I suffer no real loss but do benefit considerably based upon my taxes being uses to help them. No, I don't have a problem with my taxes that are spent on welfare assistance. Where I have a problem is with the spending on playing World Cop just so the President and the Congess can walk around with inflated chests of self-rightous self importance because they're the biggest bullies on the block. That I have a problem with. Spending my tax dollars to murder the citizens in far off lands that never harmed us is a problem for me because I was one of those solders that killed those citizens in the far off land of Vietman and not a single one of those people ever killed a person living in America. Spending my tax dollars to provide national defense for other nations such as Germany, Japan, and S Korea instead of the citizens of those nations paying for their own damn national defense is a problem for me. But my proposal doesn't directly to spending (except the eventual elimination of virtually all goverment SS spending and all Medicare spending in about 45 years) and instead is limited to funding government and doing what's best for the American People and the United States. My proposal will reduce poverty both now, by increasing disposable income at least 1/2 of Americans now and with personal wealth growth in the future that neither Republicans or Democrats are making any pragmatic proposals that will do that. My proposal balances the US budget in the first budget year that it's implemented and neither Republicans (including Tea Party Republicans) have proposed that. My proposal doesn't reduce the life style of ANY Americans because the disposable income used on the lifestyles of Americans is unaffected by it. All of the "additional" revenues it generates comes from eliminating tax inequities and from excess income that isn't used to fund anyone's reasonable standard of living including the standard of living of the super-wealthy that often already have more than enough money to maintain their lifestyle even if they never earned another dime. As I've stated this is not a Republican or a Democratic proposal. It allows Americans to keep more of the wealth they actually produce with their labor that even the Tea Party should support. It also increases the benefits to retirees by a minimum of 400% related to Social Security with a safety net that even the most liberal Democrat would support. It insures that all Retirees have the best health care ever in the United States while still ending Medicare. The proposal doesn't "harm" any American regardless of whether they earn $15,000/yr or $150 million/yr because no one's standard of living is diminished because additional tax revenues are generated from surplus and not primary income. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Oct 29, 2013 1:05:37 GMT
There is so very much about this proposal that makes good sense to me--not the least of which is the point that the repair or replacement of infrastructure (which is a critical need, in my opinion) is really a state and local matter, not a federal matter--that I think it would be a severe mistake to dismiss it out of hand. But there are a couple of points that I find problematical, viz: (1) I am not surre what your evidence is that it is a mere "myth" that it is the monied class that produces jobs. After all, how many people have ever been hired by person mired in poverty? (2) To conclude that even those who pay no federal income taxes have "skin in the game," based upon the interpretation of "the game" as "America," is a mistake, in my opinion. The phrase, "no skin in the game," is surely intended to mean , nothing at stake. And those who pay no federal income taxes--who are not, therefore, at any risk of having to pay for others' goodies--are likely to vote (if at all) for that candidate who offers the most in the way of freebies; which, I believe, is largely how our current Community-Organizer-in-Chief defied all the Right Track/Wrong Track surveys and the polls of likely voters in 2012, and won re-election. I haven't said that the poor hire people but the consumption of the poor does result in employment and not the investments by millionaires. ... For example I'm an engineer that receives very high wages for my work. I could work for a wealthy person and create a single product for their use. It's a market that does exist but it is a very limited market because they're aren't very many rich people that can afford my services. At the other end of the spectrum I could use my knowledge and expertise to design a "better mousetrap" that tens of millions of poor Americans would purchase. The costs of my services is split over millions of American and, in fact, their consumption of products generates the job requirements for hundreds of thousand of engineers just like me. At the same time an enterprise that produces a better mousetrap that millions of Americans want and will purchase doesn't require outside wealthy investors to purchase shares of the enterprise to expand to meet the demand. The owners of the enterprise may choose to sell part of the enterprise to fund expansion but they don't have to. They can borrow against projected profits or simply allow the profits to fund expansion at a slower rate. But one more fact needs to be understood. I don't have an exact number but I've estimated that 99% of investments are completely unrelated to the purchase of stock being directly issued by a corporation to fund corporate expansion. Investments to purchase stock directly from a corporation that capitalize the enterprise are referred to as "primary" investments but overwhelmingly investments relate to "secondary" investments in our economy. Secondary investments, like purchasing $100 million of Microsoft on the NYSE today, don't fund any enterprise (except the stock market itself) and don't result in the creation of product or services (except related to the stock market) and the GDP is a reflection of the products and services produced. Bottom line these investments don't create any "wealth" (i.e. grow the GDP) because they even fund corporate expansion and all profits related to them are parasitic because they're not profits based upon the direct creation of weath (products and services). Workers produce products and services and not investors. ... Once again though I believe that even the lowest income Americans do have "skin in the game" even if they don't understand that they do. ...The "poor" do have skin in the game because their consumption helps fuel the economy even if that consumption comes from people like me that do pay a lot in taxes... No, I don't have a problem with my taxes that are spent on welfare assistance. Where I have a problem is with the spending on playing World Cop just so the President and the Congess can walk around with inflated chests of self-rightous self importance because they're the biggest bullies on the block. That I have a problem with. Spending my tax dollars to murder the citizens in far off lands that never harmed us is a problem for me because I was one of those solders that killed those citizens in the far off land of Vietman and not a single one of those people ever killed a person living in America. Spending my tax dollars to provide national defense for other nations such as Germany, Japan, and S Korea instead of the citizens of those nations paying for their own damn national defense is a problem for me. (1) Since poor people (by your own admission) do not typically "hire people," this begs the question: How would the poor have the money for "consumption" if they were not hired by those who are a part of the monied class (or, more precisely, their proxies: i.e. managers of one sort or another)? (2) I find it appalling that anyone (other than a hardcore leftist) would consider the upper-middle class to be the refuge of mere "parasit[es]." (3) Libertarians typically dislike both "warfare" and "welfare"; but it is only the former half of this equation that you appear to reject... |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 29, 2013 11:58:06 GMT
(1) Since poor people (by your own admission) do not typically "hire people," this begs the question: How would the poor have the money for "consumption" if they were not hired by those who are a part of the monied class (or, more precisely, their proxies: i.e. managers of one sort or another)? (2) I find it appalling that anyone (other than a hardcore leftist) would consider the upper-middle class to be the refuge of mere "parasit[es]." (3) Libertarians typically dislike both "warfare" and "welfare"; but it is only the former half of this equation that you appear to reject...
1) Who provides the jobs isn't really important but realize that the vast majority of jobs in America are created by small enterprises and not large corporations that the top 1% typically invest in. Large corporations (i.e. with more than 500 employees) only represent 0.3% of all enterprises in the United States.
What is important is that consumption is ultimately responsible for all jobs, not investments. The key is any proposal that increases consumption.
Welfare assistance does increase consumption but that isn't something I prefer. In a metaphorical sense it "Robs Peter" of money Peter wouldn't typical spend on consumption and "Gives it to Paul" that does spend it on consumption. It increases consumption which expands the economy and creates jobs but personally I'd rather see Paul spending his own money and my proposal does that by reducing the taxation on Paul which increases Paul's disposable income that Paul will spend on consumption.
In truth, because of welfare assistance and/or tax provisions 48% of American families don't have a net income tax liability today. Mitt Romney pointed that out in 2012 and it is true. My proposal simply cuts out all of the inequities in the tax codes by removing all personal deductions, credits and BS and ends up with virtually the same results without the inequities. By simply exempting the first $50,000 in income though it increases disposal income for everyone on their first $50,000 that has the highest percentage spent on consumption and reduces the need for welfare assistance to those earning below this amount.
It doesn't eliminate welfare but it does eliminate those cases where a person has taxes withheld and then paid back to them in the form of welfare assistance. It cuts the government out of the role of playing "middle man" between the employer and the person when it comes to the earnings of the worker.
2) I didn't make any claims related to income levels in pointing out that secondary investments are "parasitic" in that the they don't produce wealth but do reap profits from the wealth created. That is simply a fact about secondary investments that differ from primary investments. It doesn't relate to ALL income derived from secondary investments though. If we purchased 1 million shares of Microsoft stock today and it would cost about $35 million (according to the current stock price). None of that money goes to Microsoft and is not a capital investment in Microsoft. It is merely the purchase of part ownership in Microsoft and who "owns" Microsoft doesn't matter to Microsoft per se. Microsoft could issue a $5/share stock dividend and we'd receive a $5 million check from Microsoft based upon our 1 million shares. That "profit" is derived from the wealth created by Microsoft in production and sales and it is not parasitic. It is income created directly from the creation of wealth.
If Microsoft stock increases in value to $50 million and we sell our million shares then our $15 million in net income is not derived from the "wealth" created by Microsoft and that is parasitic as it is not generated by the wealth created by the corporation nor is any money going to the corporation. It's $15 million being taken from the economy as opposed to $15 million being created by the economy. That's why its referred to as being parasitic.
BTW - Going along with Item #1 Microsoft generates a lot of it's profits and probably 1/3 of all the high paying jobs at Microsoft are because even "poor people" buy computers. "Poor people" have a huge impact on creating high paying jobs and expanding the economy because of the amount of consumption they represent. If we give a woman with a child food stamps so she can feed her child she will scrap together enough other income over time to buy a computer that is virtually a necessity today for anyone in the job market.
3) As a card carrying Libertarian I find many self-professed libertarians to be almost as ignorant as Democrats and Republicans but they do tend to have a more open mind in many cases. For example I presented the disparity between earned income and unearned taxes on income on a libertarian forum and even they admitted it was wrong o two counts. First being that if taxes are necessary (and they are) then taxing people the same is a necessity. Next they agreed that the different tax rates were rationalized by government interventionism in the economy and they oppose government interventionism in the economy.
Try making those same arguments to a Democrat and a Republican. Both are so firmly entrenched in bigoted ignorance that they often implement policies that are juxtaposed to their self-professed ideals. Republicans claim to want "free markets" which are devoid of government interventionism and then support the Capital Gains tax that is government interventionism.
But the point is welfare and in principle I oppose it but I acknowledge it for what it is. Welfare assistance never attempted to "fix" poverty which is why Republicans are dishonest when they use the false argument that we've had "welfare" and it hasn't reduced poverty. Of course not because that was never it's purpose. Welfare assistance was exclusively related to mitigating the effects of poverty and it has been very successful, if inadequate, in accomplishing this. For what it was intended to do it can be called a success but it didn't address the problem, which is poverty, and instead addressed the symptom which is a lack of adequate money by people living in poverty. I often claim that our government is very good at identifying problems and very poor at addressing them because it typically focuses on a symptom of the problem.
I look at solutions to problems. Welfare assistance isn't the problem, poverty is the problem. The way to reduce or eliminate the necessity for welfare assistance is to reduce or eliminate poverty. Spending on welfare assistance isn't the problem but instead its a symptom of the problem because the problem is poverty.
There are numerous reasons for poverty in America and some are created by the government and some are created by us, the people. I address one cause which is government taxation where the highest tax burden relative to income is on the lowest income individuals and families. That is a relatively easy fix because it is very evident.
Other factors that create poverty are created by our society such as discrimination based upon race, ethic heritage, and/or gender predominately due to invidious and ignorant prejudice. Economic discrimination denies a person equality in society and that is a fundamental violation of the Rights of the Person. Our government was created to protect us against the violations of our Inalienable Rights by other persons in society. It says so right in the Declaration of Independence. Unfortunately (or fortunately) our government cannot legislate against invidious prejudice by individuals. It can legislate against overt acts of discrimination in rare cases but overall it is powerless. If the government can't "protect" us, which it really can't in this case, then it has a responsibility to mitigate the effects of the violations of the Inalienable Rights of the Person by others in society. Because discrimination exists, and is well documented, the government has a responsibility to mitigate it's effects and welfare does that.
If we want to eliminate the government assistance to mitigate the effects of discrimination created by society that violate the Rights of the Person then we, as individuals and as a society, must assume responsibility for eliminating the cause of that discrimination because collectively we're responsible for it existing. It's not the government's responsibility to do this nor can the government do this. It's OUR RESPONSIBILITY and if we ignore our own responsibilities then we have no right to complain about the government mitigating the effects of our violations of the Rights of those adversely affected.
Many call upon Americans to be "responsible" and then refuse to acknowledge that as a society we're responsible for violations of the Rights of People based upon our invidious prejudice that results in economic discrimination. Yes, we all need to be responsible for reducing and eliminating invidious prejudice that results in the violations of the Rights of Others that are denied equality of economic opportunity. When we take responsibility then the discrimination will decline and the need for government to mitigate the effects of the violations of the Inalienable Rights of the People adversely effected will also go away.
I'm an advocate of Laizze-Faire capitalism (not free market capitalism that is reflective of corporate capitalism) but it can only exist in a society where all individuals have equality of economic opportunity. We're a long ways from being that society.
|
|
