Jump to content

Recommended Posts

You supported Obama but at one point you were certain Hilary would win. Don't ask why I remember this.

 

And I said above I don't think I could vote for Santorum. I don't think he's going to be the candidate anyway.

Good memory. Too bad you would even consider voting for Santorum. Sad state of affairs.

 

LouieB

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Great article...

 

Libertarians versus Liberals on the Poor

by Jacob G. Hornberger

 

Wouldn’t it be great to have a national debate between liberals and libertarians over whose philosophy and policies help the poor?

 

For decades liberals have claimed that the welfare-state/regulated-economy way of life helps the poor. That has been the major rationale for the statist way of life under which we have all been born and raised.

 

Libertarians, on the other hand, hold the exact opposite. We hold that economic statism is the very worst thing for the poor. Contrary to liberals, we contend that if people truly want to help the poor, the best way to do that is do embrace the libertarian philosophy of economic liberty.

 

Consider Cuba, for example. That country has taken liberal principles to their logical conclusion. The government took from the rich and gave to the poor by nationalizing everything. Everyone became an employee of the government, including physicians, lawyers, and industrialists. By and large, everyone became equal in terms of income. Prices for goods and services, which were all provided by the state since the state now owned everything, were kept within reasonable limits by the state.

 

In other words, the Cuban revolution was a dream-come-true for genuine liberals, at least in terms of taking from the rich to give to the poor, which is the driving rationale behind the welfare state.

 

But look at what happened. Most everyone in Cuba is desperately poor, verging on starvation. That’s not a coincidence. When the state took everything from the rich by nationalizing their businesses and placing them under ownership and control of the state, the government killed the means by which wealth is created. Once that happened, it was just a matter of time that the government would fritter away the wealth that it had confiscated. That was why the Cuban government ultimately had to turn to Soviet foreign aid to help out. The government lacked the resources to maintain all its employees.

 

By the way, it’s also not a coincidence that civil liberties are non-existent in Cuba. When the state owns and controls everything and when people’s survival depends on receiving a check from the state, the state will end up controlling every aspect of people’s lives.

 

Liberals, of course, blame Cuba’s suffering on the U.S. embargo on Cuba, as do Cuban leaders. The embargo certainly has contributed to Cuba’s suffering. But the crux of the matter is socialism — the welfare state — the paternalistic society — the managed economy — central planning — state ownership over the means of production. That’s the central reason for the horrific poverty that afflicts Cuba. Without the embargo, the privation would not be as bad but it nonetheless would be horrific.

 

The critical question is one that liberals never ask: What causes wealth in a society? The Cuban authorities saw that there was already lots of wealth in Cuban society and thought, “All we have to do is confiscate it for the good of the people and the poor will benefit.” In the short term, some of the poor did benefit in that they had more money or better housing than before. But as the pool of wealth that has been confiscated begins to dissipate over time, most everyone ends up becoming desperately poor.

 

How is wealth created in society? That’s the critical question. Wealth is created through the efforts of private individuals to produce goods and services that other people want and then trade with other people for the goods and services they’re offering. Most people naturally want a better way of life for themselves and their families. They put their talents and abilities to use and go to work in some enterprise.

 

As people enter into trades with others, their individual wealth begins to increase, especially as they save a portion of their income. They might risk their pool of savings to start a business, one that employs other people. That obviously helps the people who are being employed, who now have a stream of income, a portion of which they are able to save.

 

Others may simply prefer to work for people who establish businesses rather than start businesses themselves. They prefer the security of a wage as compared to the risk of starting a business. They benefit from people who start businesses because people who start businesses create employment for people who would rather work for a wage rather than start a business.

 

As individuals begin accumulating savings, they place that money into banks. That pool of savings becomes capital that is available to lend out to businessmen. An owner of an enterprise goes to the bank and borrows the money to purchase tools and equipment that will make his employees more productive. The increase in productivity benefits consumers, especially in terms of decreased prices owing to increased supply. It also benefits the employees of a firm, which now has more money to pay higher wages.

 

In fact, that’s the way that real wages rise — through increased levels of capital in society. There is no other way. For example, printing paper money in an attempt to increase wages only ends up debasing the currency, which is a surreptitious way for the government to plunder and loot the citizenry. The only way to increase real wages (as compared to inflationary wage increases) is by making workers more productive, which can only happen with increases in capital, which are brought about by increases in savings.

 

Therefore, there is a mutual harmony of interests between the rich, the middle class, and the poor. The rich invest in businesses that hire the poor. The poor earn wages. They save a portion of their income. The savings go into banks. The business owners borrow the savings to purchase equipment that makes the workers more productive. The consumers, who largely consist of the workers, benefit with lower prices.

 

Moreover, with increased production, the employees are able to earn higher wages. The employees might continue to work for the firm, with real wages continuing to rise. Or they might go out and start businesses with their pool of savings.

 

That’s the way a society gets wealthier. That’s the way poor people get wealthy or at least move into the ranks of the middle class. An unhampered market economy — one that is unhampered by government — is the key to alleviating poverty.

 

The problem, of course, is that as the amount of wealth in society increases, statists become over-consumed with envy and covetousness. They can’t stand the thought that there are people who are much richer than they or richer than others. They want everyone to be equal. In the name of helping the poor, they end up taxing the rich and then the middle class and then the poor. They use the state to confiscate the wealth that has been accumulated, beginning the downward spiral that retards the wealth-producing process and ultimately reverses it.

 

If the poor were ever to discover the truth about what the welfare state/managed-economy way of life has done to them and were to realize that the libertarian philosophy of economic liberty is the key to alleviating poverty, we would stand a good chance at achieving economic liberty. After all, can you imagine how difficult it would be for liberals to attack the poor for wanting the jettison the cause of their poverty?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that Cuba has "taken liberal principles to their liberal conclusion" is so dumb that its unreal.

 

Sparky you never answer any of my questions but how bout an actual answer for this one:

 

name me one country where this Libertarian for the poor principle is in place. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that Cuba has "taken liberal principles to their liberal conclusion" is so dumb that its unreal.

 

Yes.

 

Republicans blame poverty on poor people.

Libertarians blame poverty on the government.

Communists blame poverty on the rich.

 

Pragmatic progressives blame poverty on a vast number of systemic issues that begin with individual psychology and extend to socio-economic class. Most of these insights make very shitty headlines, they are usually found in foreign relations, public health and economics journals. They don't fit on a bumper sticker.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But look at what happened. Most everyone in Cuba is desperately poor, verging on starvation. That’s not a coincidence. When the state took everything from the rich by nationalizing their businesses and placing them under ownership and control of the state, the government killed the means by which wealth is created. Once that happened, it was just a matter of time that the government would fritter away the wealth that it had confiscated. That was why the Cuban government ultimately had to turn to Soviet foreign aid to help out. The government lacked the resources to maintain all its employees.

 

 

But look at what happened? So is the author assuming that everything in Cuba was just peachy before 1959? Cuba's always been poor, just like every other Caribbean nation. It has nothing to do with socialism, but everything to do with geography, climate, and available resources.

 

Over 3/4ths of the "wealth" in Cuba, pre 1959, was foreign owned, mostly by Americans. The Cuban govt didn't confiscate wealth, they confiscated the property. The wealth was already offshore in foreign banks.

 

I don't know what the best form of government is, but it's notable that the writers who attack socialism never make reference to Sweden.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't say a lot for Obama, does it?

By comparison Obama is doing just fine. He isn't a crazed theocratic bigot for one.

 

Meanwhile I may have suggested that Hillary was going to win the primary last time. I think that was a possibility. Unlike this election where Romney doesn't stand a chance against the incumbent Obama.

 

LouieB

Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys realize that "big banks" and "central banks" etc and so forth are just code words for libertarians right?

 

Code words for what?

Link to post
Share on other sites

One Month to Go Until We Have the World's Highest Corporate Tax Rate

 

Just one month from today, the United States will have the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world, surpassing Japan.

 

Just one month from today, Japan will lower their corporate income tax rate from 39.5 to 35 percent. When they do so, the United States will officially have the dubious distinction of possessing the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world, a federal/state integrated rate of 39.2 percent.

To put that in perspective, the average in the developed world (OECD) is only 25 percent. Our six major trading partners--Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, and France--will all have a lower rate than we will have. As a result, capital and jobs will continue to flow overseas, rather than staying here to create jobs, increase wages, fund pensions, invest in new business, or grow nest eggs.

 

Read more: http://www.atr.org/o...8#ixzz1ntkPu8XY

 

big-government.jpg?0673a6

Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys realize that "big banks" and "central banks" etc and so forth are just code words for libertarians right?

 

Libertarians are opposed to central banks such as the Federal Reserve. They are also opposed to the fiat currency printed by our central bank. Have you read anything posted here?

 

mental6-2l.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys realize that "big banks" and "central banks" etc and so forth are just code words for libertarians right?

 

since you are big on having questions answered, what are these code words for?

Link to post
Share on other sites

take a guess smart guy

 

No, I want to see what you pull out of your big bag of nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One Month to Go Until We Have the World's Highest Corporate Tax Rate

 

Just one month from today, the United States will have the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world, surpassing Japan.

 

Just one month from today, Japan will lower their corporate income tax rate from 39.5 to 35 percent. When they do so, the United States will officially have the dubious distinction of possessing the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world, a federal/state integrated rate of 39.2 percent.

To put that in perspective, the average in the developed world (OECD) is only 25 percent. Our six major trading partners--Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, and France--will all have a lower rate than we will have. As a result, capital and jobs will continue to flow overseas, rather than staying here to create jobs, increase wages, fund pensions, invest in new business, or grow nest eggs.

 

Read more: http://www.atr.org/o...8#ixzz1ntkPu8XY

 

big-government.jpg?0673a6

 

 

You don't really think corporations in this country actually pay that rate do you? Maybe a few with really bad accountants...

Link to post
Share on other sites

One Month to Go Until We Have the World's Highest Corporate Tax Rate

 

Just one month from today, the United States will have the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world, surpassing Japan.

 

Just one month from today, Japan will lower their corporate income tax rate from 39.5 to 35 percent. When they do so, the United States will officially have the dubious distinction of possessing the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world, a federal/state integrated rate of 39.2 percent.

To put that in perspective, the average in the developed world (OECD) is only 25 percent. Our six major trading partners--Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, and France--will all have a lower rate than we will have. As a result, capital and jobs will continue to flow overseas, rather than staying here to create jobs, increase wages, fund pensions, invest in new business, or grow nest eggs.

 

Read more: http://www.atr.org/o...8#ixzz1ntkPu8XY

 

big-government.jpg?0673a6

 

From the WSJ

 

U.S. companies are booking higher profits than ever. But the number crunchers in Washington are puzzling over a phenomenon that has just come into view: Corporate tax receipts as a share of profits are at their lowest level in at least 40 years.

 

Total corporate federal taxes paid fell to 12.1% of profits earned from activities within the U.S. in fiscal 2011, which ended Sept. 30, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's the lowest level since at least 1972. And well below the 25.6% companies paid on average from 1987 to 2008.

 

With Tax Breaks, Corporate Rate is the Lowest in Decades

 

See I what I did there is not pull the government tax rate, I pulled the rate of what was actually paid to the government.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the specific "tax breaks" that result in the lower effective rate? I can't access the rest of the article...does it go into detail on this?

 

See what I did there I used the quote button. It does, go into details. Pay for it yourself you freeloading hippie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Corporations, like the rich, aren't paying their fair share in taxes, billionaire investor Warren Buffett told CNBC on Monday.

Even while enjoying record profits, corporations last year paid just 12.1 percent of those earnings in taxes, their lowest tax rate since 1972, according to the Congressional Budget Office. At least thirty of the country's most profitable companies had a negative tax rate between 2008 and 2010.

Buffett, for one, says it's time to take notice.

"It's a myth that American corporations are paying 35 percent or anything like it," Buffett said, referring to the top marginal corporate tax rate. "Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness."

Buffett's comments come alongside a larger debate over the tax rates of corporations and individuals. President Obama recently announced a corporate tax reform plan that would look to eliminate loopholes while lowering the top marginal tax rate. In addition, Obama's budget proposal includes a provision, named after Buffett, that would require Americans making more than $1 million to pay at least a 30 percent tax rate.

Buffett said that current corporate tax rates are low both by historical standards and compared to other industrialized countries, or "far, far, far below what we’ve seen in the United States."

Many corporations pay a tax rate far below the top marginal rate. Industrial machinery companies, led by General Electric, paid a negative tax rate of minus 13.5 percent of their profits in federal income taxes between 2008 and 2010, according to a recent analysis. Information technology companies paid taxes at a 2.5 percent rate, utilities companies at a 3.7 percent rate, and financial corporations at a 15.5 percent rate.

Buffett disclosed that his company, Berkshire Hathaway, paid a corporate tax rate of between 15 and 16 percent of its income in 2011, higher than the national average. Though raising the corporate tax rate would cost Berkshire Hathaway more money, Buffett said it was crucial to put aside special interests.

"Once you start cherry-picking, the whole thing disintegrates," he said. "Why not have a code we don't like that at least is sustainable as opposed to one that's unsustainable?" he added.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...