The Progressive Income tax

Originally posted by no1marauder
How does government do this expanding in a representative democracy? To the extent it does (and there is no iron rule it will), it does so because that is what the People vote for. "Government" is not some foreign entity but the servant of the People's collective choices. You are guilty of personifying and caricaturing an institution which has no wishes and/or wants. Marx would call that "fetishism".

I am guilty of nothing but describing the truth. I have a job I can't spend 24 hours a day watching the government. If I did it would be far more efficient. The public knows the government cheats them that's why Clinton, Obama, Trump etc. all offer change.

Originally posted by quackquack
I am guilty of nothing but describing the truth. I have a job I can't spend 24 hours a day watching the government. If I did it would be far more efficient. The public knows the government cheats them that's why Clinton, Obama, Trump etc. all offer change.

Your "truth" is based on objectifying a thing in an irrational manner.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your "truth" is based on objectifying a thing in an irrational manner.

No the truth is that the government uses its power to enlarge so it has more power and we the citizens pay for it.

Originally posted by JS357
"There appear to be intractable issues with a flat amount tax, which might be addressed by smaller government, but you would hear outcries of how unfair that would be. "

Knee-jerk ractions to a flat-amount tax show a lack of willingness to think outside the box (I'm not accusing you). Just imagine the changes that would have to be made in values like basing wages on the value of work (a vague notion which isn't honored now).

Just imagine the changes that would have to be made in values like basing wages on the value of work (a vague notion which isn't honored now).

Any change as radical as a flat amount tax would require buffers, and a transitional period. In some areas people can live quite comfortably on what would be starvation in some big cities. My Social Security is less than $20k, and I lack for nothing.

How would the low income wage increase be synchronized with the flat amount tax. And, the big one is having government dictate what wages will be paid, not just an increase in minimum wage, but when minimum wage exceeds the wages of already employed people, government would have to dictate what their wage would be. Now if everyone on the low end of the scale gets a raise, can you imagine the howling for skilled trade workers, union auto workers and the like, wanting their raise as well. Essentially, everyone is going to want an increase in income if one is given to the bottom level. If business has difficulty in assessing the value of work, can you imagine government bureaucracy doing it?

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.

If the price of bananas at the store is too high, I simply do without them until the price drops. Same with other staples at the store. When they are on sale, I buy a few week's supply.

It doesn't seem either right or remotely possible for government to set the price of labor. It doesn't seem to even be able to manage its own labor issues well.

Originally posted by JS357
"...government expansion maximizes the utility of the government..."

This is the part I for one don't see. Do you mean maximizes its utility for the bill-footing citizen? If so, it's only rational for that citizen to happily foot the bill for that degree of expansion.

The number of people that derive some benefit from government, or at least break even, dictates what government can do. Those that are net contributors are, and likely always will be in the minority.

he Originally posted by quackquack
No the truth is that the government uses its power to enlarge so it has more power and we the citizens pay for it.

Repeating an irrational statement repeatedly doesn't make it any more true. We have a representative democracy; what the government does in the long run is what the People want it to do. Your bitch isn't really with the "government" but with the majority of the People who reject your sycophantic idolization of the wealthy and desire policies that ameliorate the harsh results that obtain from laissez faire capitalism.

Originally posted by normbenign
The number of people that derive some benefit from government, or at least break even, dictates what government can do. Those that are net contributors are, and likely always will be in the minority.

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.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
so what is fair? you would rather take pocket change from poor people and leave them to struggle to pay for food for their children (a college education to get out of poverty is out of the question) rather than have those that already contribute more anyway give several points of percentage more even though they would still be left with tons of money .

I want a system where people get to keep the fruits of their labor and are treated equally. Your idea that one group would not miss their money is offensive. We should have gratitude as a society for those who pay the most and not continually dream up reasons for giving them a larger bill.

Originally posted by quackquack
I want a system where people get to keep the fruits of their labor and are treated equally. Your idea that one group would not miss their money is offensive. We should have gratitude as a society for those who pay the most and not continually dream up reasons for giving them a larger bill.

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

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

Your salary is what you get in the free market. It seems far more meaningful to discuss and accurate to measure than your personal conception of what the fruits of a person's labor is.

Originally posted by quackquack
Your salary is what you get in the free market. It seems far more meaningful to discuss and accurate to measure than your personal conception of what the fruits of a person's labor is.

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?

Originally posted by normbenign
[b] Just imagine the changes that would have to be made in values like basing wages on the value of work (a vague notion which isn't honored now).

Any change as radical as a flat amount tax would require buffers, and a transitional period. In some areas people can live quite comfortably on what would be starvation in some big cities. My Social Se ...[text shortened]... to set the price of labor. It doesn't seem to even be able to manage its own labor issues well.[/b]

"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 labor, leaving a company town hungry, is the agreement of the buyer and seller on price still valid? This is why the labor force organizes. 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.

If the buyer and seller are the proper arbiters of the cost of labor, what tools that each wants to use for influence, are "valid"? If both sides appeal to government bodies to advance their interests, isn't this a valid thing for them to do? Telling either side or both sides that the mechanisms of government are not available to them seems to empty democratic government of any value.

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.

norm and QQ have made clear that they are hostile to democracy. I think their preferred form of government would be some sort of "Board of Directors" chosen from the elite. Naturally the government itself would have little power over the elite but would be necessary to enforce "law and order" over the common worker and discipline "parasites" and "moochers".

I think that form of government could be justly labelled "corporate fascism".

It is generally useless to try to explain to norm, QQ and their ilk that disparities in bargaining power, information and other factors lead to economic results that vary from the "perfect competition" model taught on the 1st day of ECO 101. And as to externalities i.e. the fact that economic transactions can have effects that go beyond the buyer and seller and are not reflected in their pricing (even if the simplifying assumptions of PC were met) and thus must be mitigated by 3rd parties, forget it - they simply cannot grasp such a concept.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Yes, labor laws and the labor movement. And trade unions. All those things that modern American right-wingers -- whose grasp of history and the bigger picture are limited to say the least -- have been trained to hate by the know-nothingism of the Republican Party and the oligarchy that controls it.