No response for my post? Guess it has too much substance to be acknowledged on this board by a lot of posters. I hate tooting my own horn, but it's hardly worth trying any more...

No response for my post? Guess it has too much substance to be acknowledged on this board by a lot of posters. I hate tooting my own horn, but it's hardly worth trying any more...

 

I know what you mean.

No response for my post? Guess it has too much substance to be acknowledged on this board by a lot of posters. I hate tooting my own horn, but it's hardly worth trying any more...

 

It was one of the better posts I've read in a while, I just didn't have much to add outside of a green smiley. :lol:

Thanks for the clarification.

 

Let me say a few things

 

1. A progressive tax code is an interesting topic, for a few reasons. First of all, we already have a progressive tax code, I don't think we need more taxes on those who are already heavily taxed. This is because studies have shown that, for a variety of reasons, tax cuts for the wealthy result in a greater percentage of tax revenue from the wealthy.

 

For example, take the so-called "Bush tax cuts for the wealthy". See Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates: Summary of Table 2 (page 6 of the PDF file & report) from the Congressional Budget Office.

 

From the column "Individual Income Taxes", you see that the top 20% of income earners paid 84.8% of all Individual Income Taxes in 2003 (before the cuts), and paid 85.3% of all Individual Income Taxes in 2004 (after the cuts). May be a minimal jump (although I'd imagine that .5% of all Individual Income Taxes is a huge number), but still shows that our tax system is so progressive that it is encouraging the very wealthy to hide their money, and even the smallest of tax cuts (which, I may add, are correlated with economic growth) can increase the percentage that they pay.

 

2. I agree that people mislabel Obama's policies as socialist as a scare tactic. However, IMO it is accurate to say that Obama's economic policies would result in negative consequences for the economy is accurate.

 

3. You are right that there need to be regulations and restrictions- the question is how many. Many conservatives say we don't need more regulations. I think it is dangerous to say we need no regulations.

 

4. I feel the statement that the Invisible Hand has no moral compass or soul is a bit misleading. I understand what you are saying, but the free market, as opposed to higher taxation, relies on the freely made decisions of individuals rather than coercion. It is driven by natural thoughts and desires of humans rather than forcing people to do and give what the government wants. So, in a sense, you can say that high taxation restricts our freedom, and therefore has no moral compass as well.

 

I will just deal with #4.

 

Iron law of wages - bad (does not provide freedom of choice)

Child labor - bad (does not provide freedom of joice)

Unequal pay for wome - bad

Monopolies/big trusts - bad (see current economic crisis)

Unsafe food - bad

Unsafe working conditions - bad

 

All of these were "regulated" by crusading progressives who saw the amoral free market perpetrating evil. The free market is driven by greed, we can talk about supply and demand, but we know that the basic graph has been thrown out the window and there is so much more involved. An unregulated free market is neither free nor a true market.

Why in the world would I look at statistics generated by groups who manipulate the data to meet their needs? I can just look around me and confirm my beliefs? Like many, if I need statistics, I will merely look at the results of my Form 1040 and Form 740 each year.

 

Convenient

 

.087 of the budget is spent on welfare. .087. Even if you eliminated all of it, it would have no impact on the budget. You, who make over 250K and will give more in taxes should not really worry about it going to welfare. Because only .087 does

I will just deal with #4.

 

Iron law of wages - bad (does not provide freedom of choice)

Child labor - bad (does not provide freedom of joice)

Unequal pay for wome - bad

Monopolies/big trusts - bad (see current economic crisis)

Unsafe food - bad

Unsafe working conditions - bad

 

All of these were "regulated" by crusading progressives who saw the amoral free market perpetrating evil. The free market is driven by greed, we can talk about supply and demand, but we know that the basic graph has been thrown out the window and there is so much more involved. An unregulated free market is neither free nor a true market.

I am very unsure as to why you will only choose to deal with one of my four points.

 

1. Iron Law of Wages- I had never heard of this before, but after doing research, I am under the impression that it was an untrue assertion. But I'd love to discuss further.

 

2. Agreed that child labor is bad in a country that is as developed as ours. However, in current 3rd-world countries, it is a different matter. But that is a good regulation.

 

3. Equal pay for women of course is a good thing, but I am not sure how it is related. There are various reasons why women do not get paid on par, and from talking with an Econometrics professor, the gap is not as much as you'd think. But if you want to discuss further here, that would be great too.

 

4. IMO breaking up monopolies and trusts should be and is a primary role of government in the market.

 

5. Unsafe food/working conditions- I don't understand how these is related.

 

 

 

Either way, all you are proving is that a 100% completely unregulated free market is bad, which I conceded in my third point.

 

All of the things you listed above, I can agree with. However, within the context of our economy, we have those things covered. The debate is not between many regulations and no regulations. It is whether or not we need more regulations with out current situation. Many believe that the answer is no. Citing certain things that would be wrong with a 100% free market (which we do not have) do not convince me that we need more regulations now.

 

I have taken the time to discuss all of your points. If you feel that I did not, I would be happy to. I feel like I have earned your respect, or at least you could address all of my points, instead of the one that you find most convenient.

1. The gap between the rich and poor continues to grow so that more and more wealth is held in fewer and fewer hands. This does not provide freedom of choice. It creates situations where people become bitter toward their country mates. One of the things that kept this country together for so long was the "idea" of the American Dream. This dream is becoming less and less doable for more and more people.

 

Tax cuts for the wealth did not provide enough revenue in the state of kentucky to meet all of the states needs and in some time spans the revenue has fallen as compared to the previous year.

 

2. You simply make a statement. I disagree.

 

3. Given the recent economic crisis I would say that it is obvious that we need MORE regulations.

 

4. The Iron Law of wages certainly exists when there is no minimum wage and a shortage of jobs. If I work at Wendy's and they pay me 2.00 per hour and somebody is waiting to do that job and there is not another job available for me, i will continue to work for 2.00 even though it does not allow me to make a living wage.

 

the IRON Law of wages is rampant in developing countries. there are not enough jobs and there are too many people needing work, so American and other companies pay workers .60 per hour and we say that is more than they would make if we weren't there. While the statement is true it is certainly not moral, it is however true to capitalism.

1. The gap between the rich and poor continues to grow so that more and more wealth is held in fewer and fewer hands. This does not provide freedom of choice. It creates situations where people become bitter toward their country mates. One of the things that kept this country together for so long was the "idea" of the American Dream. This dream is becoming less and less doable for more and more people.

 

Tax cuts for the wealth did not provide enough revenue in the state of kentucky to meet all of the states needs and in some time spans the revenue has fallen as compared to the previous year.

 

2. You simply make a statement. I disagree.

 

3. Given the recent economic crisis I would say that it is obvious that we need MORE regulations.

 

4. The Iron Law of wages certainly exists when there is no minimum wage and a shortage of jobs. If I work at Wendy's and they pay me 2.00 per hour and somebody is waiting to do that job and there is not another job available for me, i will continue to work for 2.00 even though it does not allow me to make a living wage.

 

the IRON Law of wages is rampant in developing countries. there are not enough jobs and there are too many people needing work, so American and other companies pay workers .60 per hour and we say that is more than they would make if we weren't there. While the statement is true it is certainly not moral, it is however true to capitalism.

One of the primary reasons that there are not enough jobs in some areas at some times is that government sucks too much money out of the private sector. The average federal employee makes double in wages and benefits compared to private sector employees, for example.

 

In areas where the local economy is strong enough to overcome the burden of big government, minimum wage is rarely paid because employers are forced to pay more by the free market to attract and retain qualified and motivated workers. Whenever socialists tinker with the free market, taxes soar and real wages plunge.

1. The gap between the rich and poor continues to grow so that more and more wealth is held in fewer and fewer hands. This does not provide freedom of choice. It creates situations where people become bitter toward their country mates. One of the things that kept this country together for so long was the "idea" of the American Dream. This dream is becoming less and less doable for more and more people.

 

Tax cuts for the wealth did not provide enough revenue in the state of kentucky to meet all of the states needs and in some time spans the revenue has fallen as compared to the previous year.

 

2. You simply make a statement. I disagree.

 

3. Given the recent economic crisis I would say that it is obvious that we need MORE regulations.

 

4. The Iron Law of wages certainly exists when there is no minimum wage and a shortage of jobs. If I work at Wendy's and they pay me 2.00 per hour and somebody is waiting to do that job and there is not another job available for me, i will continue to work for 2.00 even though it does not allow me to make a living wage.

 

the IRON Law of wages is rampant in developing countries. there are not enough jobs and there are too many people needing work, so American and other companies pay workers .60 per hour and we say that is more than they would make if we weren't there. While the statement is true it is certainly not moral, it is however true to capitalism.

1a) The gap between the rich and the poor- first of all, this has little concern to me. The gap between the rich and the poor today is much smaller than the gap of 100 years ago. Our economic system is comprised of voluntary transactions between firms and individuals in which each side (at least believes that they are going to) benefits from.

 

Furthermore, inequalities in wealth are only justified when they improve society as a whole. There is a reason why the poor in our country are the most well-off country in the world. (Another way to put it- the poor in our country are significantly better off than the rich of our country 150 years ago). There is a reason why our poor have access to free education, free money (welfare), (virtually/completely) free transportation, and free food.

 

1b) I am unaware of the specifics on Kentucky's tax revenues. I will need to research more (and you will need to be more specific) to address further.

 

2. That's fine. I won't call him a socialist, but I won't agree with a lot of what he has voted for.

 

3. The recent economic crisis was created by a variety of solutions. The main one is probably that recessions and expansions naturally occur. You can not blame one thing for it happening. From there, we can argue about what caused the degree to which it has happened. A large part of it was having two government-sponsored enterprises (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) whose profits went to the stockholders, and whose debts went to the taxpayers. This is an example of too much government intervention causing a problem.

 

Another problem is that the government intimidated banks into giving out mortgage loans that, within a free market setting, would never have happened. Unfortunately, this lead to a variety of problems.

 

I think a third negative affect of this debacle has been how executives can get off the hook while others suffer. I don't know exactly how to fix this and I haven't seen a great argument from either candidate. I vaguely remember an argument by H a few weeks back that I am going to look back into.

 

4a) With all due respect, I think the existence of this iron law does not exist. Mainstream economists, the Austrian school of economics, and even Karl Marx disagreed with it.

 

4b) I always think back to the example of the 2006 World Cup, when activists found out that soccer balls were being made by Pakistan by children (working alongside their parents). Production was quickly shipped to China. Later, the children who were making soccer balls were resorting to begging and prostitution to help provide money to their family in a country with little elementary education.

One of the interesting comments that was posted in the second link. I wouldn't know how to verify the statistics quoted, but this is food for thought:

 

Red states LOVE redistribution of wealth;

Of the 32 states that receive more money back from the federal government than they send to the federal government in taxes, 21 of them are polling ahead for McCain. Here are the amount of federal dollars these McCain states get for every one dollar they pay in taxes.

 

Mississippi: $2.02

Alaska: $1.84

Louisiana: $1.78

West Virginia: $1.76

North Dakota: $1.68

Alabama: $1.66

South Dakota: $1.53

Kentucky: $1.51

Montana: $1.47

Arkansas: $1.41

Oklahoma: $1.36

South Carolina: $1.35

Tennessee: $1.27

Idaho: $1.21

Arizona: $1.19

Kansas: $1.12

Wyoming: $1.11

Nebraska: $1.10

Utah: $1.07

Indiana: $1.05

Georgia: $1.01

 

Note: McCain is only ahead in 22 states. The only McCain state that sends more money to the federal government than they get back is Texas.

 

Not sure those numbers are correct. I've seen very different numbers for a couple states listed but it could be the years used. I've seen where Indiana for recent years got back about 88-90 cents on the dollar, which is quite a bit different than these numbers. It would be interesting to see by state where the dollars get spent.

The only numbers that you can know are correct are the numbers that indicate that, if only those who actually contribute to the country (pay actual income taxes, etc.) voted, McCain would win easily.

 

I received an email the other day that explained why Obama draws much larger crowds at rallies than does McCain. The reason was, of course, that McCain supporters had a job and were at work. Not politically correct but certainly true.

The only numbers that you can know are correct are the numbers that indicate that, if only those who actually contribute to the country (pay actual income taxes, etc.) voted, McCain would win easily.

 

I received an email the other day that explained why Obama draws much larger crowds at rallies than does McCain. The reason was, of course, that McCain supporters had a job and were at work. Not politically correct but certainly true.

 

Wouldn't surprise me at all. The Obama supporters are probably hoping for a job...

Wouldn't surprise me at all. The Obama supporters are probably hoping for a job...

 

I'm sure a number are "hoping for a job" in order to receive "compensation". However, from the profile of many of Obama's new voters (and a goodly number of his more "seasoned" voters), it is obvious that they want the latter without the burden of the former.

I'm sure a number are "hoping for a job" in order to receive "compensation". However, from the profile of many of Obama's new voters (and a goodly number of his more "seasoned" voters), it is obvious that they want the latter without the burden of the former.

Those ACORN scammers will need something to do after the campaign is over.

The only numbers that you can know are correct are the numbers that indicate that, if only those who actually contribute to the country (pay actual income taxes, etc.) voted, McCain would win easily.

 

I received an email the other day that explained why Obama draws much larger crowds at rallies than does McCain. The reason was, of course, that McCain supporters had a job and were at work. Not politically correct but certainly true.

 

 

What part of any of your post can you state are fact? Seriously! You can't possibly know whether all at a McCain rally work, and all that an Obama rally don't!

 

What a gross generalization, and yet another example of why I am further repelled by the supposed "conservatives".