The Progressive Income tax

Originally posted by Eladar
Government simply need to take out loans to pay their debt, just as they already do today.

and loans don't need to be paid?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
and loans don't need to be paid?

You pay loans with money do you not?

The government can print its own money.

Originally posted by Eladar
You pay loans with money do you not?

The government can print its own money.

Not without runaway inflation, runs on banks, etc.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/why-does-the-us-government-bor/

Originally posted by no1marauder
Yes, the Randian worldview that the majority are parasites and the few should be entitled to the vast majority of the benefits of society while the rest suffer. Mankind has been cursed with this idea since we left the Natural State though it has always been rejected by the majority of the People. Such a social system can only be maintained by brute force.

Forget Randian. Address actual issues presented.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
For the vast majority of people their gross salary has almost no relation to "the fruits of their labor."

Care to explain?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
There are plenty of people who receive a salary "in the free market" but whose "fruits of their labour" are rotten (i.e. negative production). Do you suggest that these people should pay over 100% of their income in taxes?

You seem good at making ideologically based assertions without any rational basis.

Originally posted by normbenign
Care to explain?

Most people are wage earners, and their wages are the result of a complex process involving the supply and demand of labour, cultural values, the availability of information, business culture, etc. etc. etc. The value of the products and services they (help) provide are only very loosely related to their wage at best. We've been through this before.

Originally posted by JS357
"Certainly, evaluating the value of labor is possible only from the standpoint of the buyer and seller. Others may have views, but are not valid, any more than they are in setting supermarket prices for produce."

Doesn't the power relationship of the two parties need to be balanced? If a buyer of labor is in a position to take a few months off from buying l ...[text shortened]... nisms of government are not available to them seems to empty democratic government of any value.

Doesn't the power relationship of the two parties need to be balanced?

The balance of power varies according to market conditions. Management is empowered by a glut of labor, particularly low skilled labor. Labor is empowered by a scarcity of labor, particularly high skilled labor.

If a buyer of labor is in a position to take a few months off from buying labor, leaving a company town hungry, is the agreement of the buyer and seller on price still valid?

This hypothetical assumes a static market. In few cases can an employer stop production, and expect that competitors will not take over his market share. The labor force isn't static either. They seek alternative work, and probably will not be available when production resumes.

This is why each side tries to influence government to get its way. It's a tool of democracy just as much as a tool of dictatorship.

It is as valid, and very much comparable to getting help from the mob, or forming a violent gang to enforce your wishes. I prefer to at least hope that people can bargain in good faith without the threat or reality of violence.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Most people are wage earners, and their wages are the result of a complex process involving the supply and demand of labour, cultural values, the availability of information, business culture, etc. etc. etc. The value of the products and services they (help) provide are only very loosely related to their wage at best. We've been through this before.

I agree that there are plenty of factors involved in wage negotiations, as well as factors favoring each side of the bargaining. If there was no value to labor in producing products and services, there would be no production. In short, people can be overpaid, or under paid relative to their productive value. It is widely presumed among liberals that producers have an unlimited pot of gold from which to pay labor.

The only way for a laborer to increase his value and so wages, is to improve his productivity, either individually or collectively.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
and loans don't need to be paid?

The governments can keep their creditors happy as long as the interest is paid. When the goverments get too far in debt to pay all the interest, then the default will begin to escalate to look like a falling line of dominos. 😏

Originally posted by Eladar
You pay loans with money do you not?

The government can print its own money.

"The government can print its own money"
you might be trolling. but you also might be this stupid. whatever the case, i don't have to waste my time with you.

Originally posted by normbenign
I agree that there are plenty of factors involved in wage negotiations, as well as factors favoring each side of the bargaining. If there was no value to labor in producing products and services, there would be no production. In short, people can be overpaid, or under paid relative to their productive value. It is widely presumed among liberals that pr ...[text shortened]... ase his value and so wages, is to improve his productivity, either individually or collectively.

Wages and productivity have been decoupled for at least 35 years in the US. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/what-happened-to-the-wage-and-productivity-link/

Since 1979, hourly wages have lagged far behind the growth in productivity. While productivity grew 64.9 percent in the period 1979-2013, hourly pay for production and non-supervisory workers rose by just 8.0 percent. This differential has translated into a significant increase in the share of after-tax profits, reaching 10 percent in 2013, the first full year it has reached that level. Meanwhile, in 2013, the share of wages in the national economy fell to 42.5 percent, lower than any year previously recorded.

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/12/04/wage-d04.html

I know you don't do data, but there it is.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Wages and productivity have been decoupled for at least 35 years in the US. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/what-happened-to-the-wage-and-productivity-link/

Since 1979, hourly wages have lagged far behind the growth in productivity. While productivity grew 64.9 percent in the period 1979-2013, hourly pay for production and non-supervisory workers ros ...[text shortened]... /www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/12/04/wage-d04.html

I know you don't do data, but there it is.

I know you don't do data, but there it is.

I don't worship at the temple of statistics. They are too easily doctored, and manipulated.

Originally posted by normbenign
[b]I know you don't do data, but there it is.

I don't worship at the temple of statistics. They are too easily doctored, and manipulated.[/b]

In other words, you don't feel any need for your ideology to have any roots in actual reality.

Originally posted by no1marauder
In other words, you don't feel any need for your ideology to have any roots in actual reality.

Statistics aren't necessarily reality. They are a snapshots of it, and as we know snapshots depend on angle, and framing. I attempt to test statistics with logic to see if they are indeed reality.