The Victory of Communism!

[Lincsong]

How will that work? If we all pay they same tax rate on our gross receipts and there are no business deductions, no allowances will be made for business owners that require tools, machinery, etc.

If 2 people both make $100K and one merely collects a salary while the other has to spend half of his gross buying tools, etc. for his business, he will have to pay tax on $100k but be making only $50K after all is said and done. How can that be fair?

If I'm misunderstanding your definition of "flat" tax please correct me.



jazzbass

But that machinery is going to increase his productivity thus his income. Why should the other people subsidize the guy who is buying machinery for his business? That's illogical and why Reagan deleted many deductions and simply lowered the marginal rates. People know what to do with their money a lot more than some bureucrat in Washington who thinks; well, if we keep MR. X's taxes high to subsidize MR. Y's purchase of machinery the economy will improve. The flat tax is the most fair and equitable system for all.

 

[Katt in Hat]

Herewith another "Good Thing" brought forth by NEW DEAL

The TVA Tennessee Valley Authority.

Unintended consequence: The Manhattan Project was a huge user of electricity, as much as 1/7 of all usage in the country. The "Socialistic" TVA enabled us to build the A-Bomb. Perhaps the New Deal gets another 5% for doing good, eh?

 

[jamespowers]

The TVA Tennessee Valley Authority.

Unintended consequence: The Manhattan Project was a huge user of electricity, as much as 1/7 of all usage in the country. The "Socialistic" TVA enabled us to build the A-Bomb. Perhaps the New Deal gets another 5% for doing good, eh?

Well, that depends if you owned the land that is now under water. Eminent Domain anyone? It also has a geo political grasp on an area the size of many states.
Recent grabs to do the same thing on the Columbia River but times have changed and people know now what they didn't then. CVA failed.
The TVA is best addressed by people more familiar with the idea than I however. You can read Dean Russell's The TVA Idea for yourself and see the general objections I have to it. Quoting from the author:
"....the TVA created a "hidden loss" by preventing the creation of "factories and jobs that would have come into existence if the government had allowed the taxpayers to spend their money as they wished."
Other studies show that, as most government run institutions, TVA inadequately manages the site. Public utilities like this spend far less on maintenance than privately owned enterprises of the same size and scope. TVA only spends 5% of its revenues on Maintenance. In another twenty years the machinery could well end the TVA if they don't get off their duffs and start keeping up the system. Power production sufffers when maintenance doesn't occur regularly. That means less power for more money. Is it any wonder that privately owned dams produce 20% more electricity than government owned ones? TVA's rates are also significantly more than private utilities nearby. Gee, they are really doing their ratepayers a great service. Thanks FDR for ripping them off. :eusa_doh:

Regards,

J

 

[deanglen]

You didn't think I could stay out of this one did you!!!

First off, there is no such thing as Communism! Communism is a theoretical concept of Marx anc Engels. Every attempt to create Communism has been hijacked by authoritarian dictators like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, ad infinitum. What one ends up with, on the road to Communism, is Socialism - in all it's various forms. (Even Russia called itself the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics!).

So to lend an opinion to the topic at hand; the socialist turn that our nation took in the 1930's (called the New Deal then, but eventually the New Frontier then the Great Society) has gradually undermined the values and the responsibilities of a free people. The philosophy of freedom (see Ayn Rand, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal") has been eroded and chiseled by intent. The victim, of course, becomes the "middle class", not only economically, but philosophically, as their values decline, their self-responsibility erodes, and their self-esteem evaporates. Once proud and strong, the middle class slowly, generation after generation, dissolves into the 'proletariat' (to use a Marxist term), accepting socialist and statist dictates as the norm and rejecting traditional American values and completing forgeting the philosophical underpinnings that were the cause behind the growth of this nation. You see this reflected in attitudes, dress, demeanor and work ethic. An illusionary sense of entitlement prevails.

If that's what you mean by "Communism", than that indeed is what we have. Awareness of is the first step towards reversing it. Care to join me?!!

Repectfully,
Dixon Cannon

Submitted early in this thread, a well written statement I firmly agree with. Good job, Dixon, I'm doing my part to reverse it.

 

[jamespowers]

I'm doing my part to reverse it.

:eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

Regards,

J

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Evidently, not always!!

This thread has gone way beyond the original topic, and it's become very interesting. After reading the last few pages, I was surprised to see that some are of the opinion that the victims of Katrina chose their fate and what happened to them is their own fault. That is plain stupid, and I don't often use this word. To wash one's hands of all responsability because "they chose to live there, they chose not to evacuate, they chose not to stock supplies" is very cynical. I don't believe that anyone chose to die, and yet many were left to die. There is no excuse for what happened during Katrina, and the whole world couldn't believe how such a thing could happen in a civilized country.

And connecting this with the original topic of communism, while all citizens of a country should be free, the government still has a responsability towards all its citizens, to protect them in cases of disaster and emergency. It's not up to the individual to protect himself against something like Katrina, because it's too big for the individual to handle. That's where the government moves in and takes responsibility. It seems to me that there is something of the old pioneer spirit left, when settlers were living by themselves in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by hostile tribes, and it was up to them to organize their defence, supplies, etc. That kind of thinking is archaic in this century.

In 1893, when a massive drought afflicted Texas farmers, Cleveland categorically refused to grant federal aid to the victims. He issued an eloquent written justification for his decision:

"I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit...The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune...Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthen the bond of a common brotherhood."

Cleveland's words skillfully represent the contrast between the effects brought about by the voluntary generosity of private parties and those created through the exercise of the coercive powers of government. Private individuals, when not hindered by government intervention, have a choice in how to allocate their funds among the various purposes that they deem to be of importance. Many of those individuals, as evidenced in the outpouring of private relief for the victims of the recent tsunami, consider assistance to those afflicted by such inadvertent calamities as a value and as a priority. In a free market, they have the full capacity to put their values into practice and organize effective aid to those they believe will benefit from it. It is no coincidence that, during the time of Grover Cleveland, the late nineteenth century, the majority of the vast private charities of our time, including the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie Foundations, the American Red Cross, and the Salvation Army, were founded. During that era, there existed virtually no government intervention in the realm of charity, yet people, of wealthy and moderate incomes alike, were far more eager to be generous with their funds than they are today, in an era of massive welfare-statism. The reason? In the late nineteenth century, government did not take away thirty percent of those people's incomes and thus leave them with fewer discretionary funds to spend on purposes outside their immediate needs. Today, however, the government not only appropriates these funds, but also deprives private individuals of the direct choice of how the funds are to be spent. In a private market, an individual can choose to finance innocent flood victims who wish to rebuild their lives, or struggling young geniuses assisting whom might pay off with later inventions and discoveries, and not choose to finance homeless drug addicts, seven-time rapists on rehabilitation, or chronic welfare bums. In a welfare state, the choice is made for the individual, and it is often a contrary choice to what he would make on his own. At the same time, while bureaucrats spend his money on unworthy purposes, the individual has less money to spend on ones he considers worthy. By Gennady Stolyarov II
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0105/0105relief.htm

-dixon cannon

 

[Lincsong]

John D. Rockefeller if only the grandsons were like him

Rockefeller was commmitted to streamlining production and eliminating waste. This paid off for him and for consumers. He managed to reduce the price of kerosene, which was a dollar per gallon when he began selling it, to a mere ten cents by the 1880's. Troubled by the disposal of the waste product that remained after the oil was refined, he produced 300 products out of the waste. People who went to bed when the sun went down could now illuminate their homes.

Prices declined throughout the period of Standard Oils dominance. By the time the feds dissolved Standard Oil in 1911, the company's market share had already been reduced to 25% as a result of normal market competition.

 

[deanglen]

Rockefeller was commmitted to streamlining production and eliminating waste. This paid off for him and for consumers. He managed to reduce the price of kerosene, which was a dollar per gallon when he began selling it, to a mere ten cent by the 1880's. Troubled by the idsposal of the waste product tht remained after the oil was refined, he produced 300 produt out of the waste. People who went to bed when the sun went down could now illuminate their homes.

Prices declined throughout the period of Standard Oils dominance. By the time the feds dissolved Standard Oil in 1911, the company's market share had already been reduced to 25% as a result of normal market competition.

:eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap :eusa_clap

 

[Section10]

There are plenty of private charities to give to right now. I'd like to see local charity in the hands of the church which is where it belongs, but people don't give enough to make that a reality and the American church is so confused as to its purpose it couldn't do it anyway.
The government isn't going to give up one inch of its welfare or its involvement in aid programs. It is a way to hold everyone hostage to itself. Should it run public education or fund highways or endless projects that consume far more than they're worth? I doubt it. But it makes no difference what anyone thinks. Big government is here to stay and it will only get bigger. It is the nature of it to take on a life of its own and no one can stop it from the inside.
The IRS is not going to back off and go with a flat tax because it would be too simple and simplicity is not the way of government -- any government. It is a leviathan and cannot be diverted or diminished.
"The poor you will always have with you."
What we have here is clearly better than Eastern bloc communism. I'm not a Libertarian and I do believe that the government is responsible for the welfare of its citizens in a crisis like in Louisiana. Why should I claim allegiance to a political institution that is not actively involved in my well-being? It doesn't mean I think things are better anywhere else on the planet. I'm just glad I have another vision of the way things are going and await the really New Deal.

 

[deanglen]

Dixon, thanks for that link. Good Stuff!

dean

 

[jazzbass]

I just don't get any of that rant. [huh] I suspect no one else does either!

-dixon cannon

No, you're just humor impaired....



jazzbass

 

[jazzbass]

But that machinery is going to increase his productivity thus his income. Why should the other people subsidize the guy who is buying machinery for his business? That's illogical and why Reagan deleted many deductions and simply lowered the marginal rates. People know what to do with their money a lot more than some bureucrat in Washington who thinks; well, if we keep MR. X's taxes high to subsidize MR. Y's purchase of machinery the economy will improve. The flat tax is the most fair and equitable system for all.

Who says? Some equipment may be needed to do the job. I'm not talking about expanding a business. Some trades need tools, and parts--and replacements. It seems totally unfair to not allow a deduction for this compared to someone who merely has to show up to work.


jazzbass

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Well, you certainly don't know me...

No, you're just humor impaired.... jazzbass

...any better than you know Ayn Rand, Objectivism, Free Market Capitalism, Libertarian principles and ideals...

-dixon cannon

 

[Dixon Cannon]

Mr. Deanglen....

Submitted early in this thread, a well written statement I firmly agree with. Good job, Dixon, I'm doing my part to reverse it.

You're a great thinker and your assistance is appreciated! Thanks for your support and your welcomed endorsement!!

Regards,
Dixon Cannon
Neo-Jeffersonian Constitutional Fundamentalist

 

[geo]

In 1893

It seems that I was right when I wrote

It seems to me that there is something of the old pioneer spirit left, when settlers were living by themselves in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by hostile tribes, and it was up to them to organize their defence, supplies, etc. That kind of thinking is archaic in this century.

 

[Lincsong]

Who says? Some equipment may be needed to do the job. I'm not talking about expanding a business. Some trades need tools, and parts--and replacements. It seems totally unfair to not allow a deduction for this compared to someone who merely has to show up to work.


jazzbass

So what? It's not unfair that someone has to maintain their own business. Running a business is just that. It's not up to the government to take Manny's money and give it to Louie to buy a hammer. Let Louie figure out to run his business profitably then he doesn't need Manny's money. For instance in my town the City is doling out loans to businesses who have been rejected by banks. So some high risk borrower gets $80K from the City for his business. He is inexperienced, doesn't know how to run the business, closes shop is 18 give-or-take months and leaves the taxpayer footing the bill.:rage:

 

[Lincsong]

Andrew Carnegie didn't need machinery deductions

He was an organizational genius, devising incentive structures to ensure that each of his various departments worked conscientiously for the good of the company. Like Rockefeller, Carnegie was a master of efficiency. With 4000 men at his Homestead Works in Pittsburgh, he could produce three times as much steel annually as could the 15,000 workers at Krupps steelworks, Europe's most modern and renowned facility.

The decrease in steel prices that occurred in the last quarter of the 19th Century, which was largely due to Carnegie's ideas, was another great benefit to ordinary Americans. Steel was absolutely fundamental to a modern economy, so a major cut in its production cost was a great boon. Any product or production process involving steel now cost less; these lower costs were in turn passed on to consumers.

Both Carnegie and Rockefeller were great philanthropists, giving away nearly a billion dollars between them and establishing a great variety of charitable, educational, and cultural foundations.