Frank Krygowski wrote:
> gwhite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have always had trouble
>>>> understanding how you can tax an economy into recovery.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And I have always had trouble understanding why people making
>>> hundreds of thousands of dollars per year need to pay less taxes.
>>
>>
>>
>> How do you figure they are paying "less taxes?" Less than who and by
>> how much?
>
>
> "Less" referred to "less than they did before the tax cut." I'm
> surprised there was anyone who couldn't figure that out!
Just as I thought. Taxes are not to be questioned, they are only to be
paid. The guvmint knows what is best for us.
> > What moron, rich, poor, or otherwise, wouldn't like to pay
>
>> less taxes?
>
>
> Since you ask: I'd think that people who had more money than they could
> ever hope of spending in any reasonable way, and who had some sense of
> social conscience, wouldn't care much about paying less taxes.
I see, they only need to be as moral (according to your description, of
course!), and have the grand social conscience that you do. I have no
idea of what "spending in any reasonable way" is. Once again we have
another rbt arbiter of "worth."
If anything is wrong, it is to unquestionably hand over money to the
guvmint if one does not have to. We don't need the guvmint to decide
how to redistribute the wealth, nor do we need grandstanders to decide
the appropriate social causes and force it through political rent
seeking. Giving money to the federal monolith guvmint amounts to a
concentration of economic power, which only leads to crushing political
power. For justifiable taxes, better pay the state than the federal,
and better pay the local than the state. In any case, justify the
taxation and *keep* justifying it (or else lose it).
> I'm nowhere close to the salary level that got big dollar amounts back
> from Bush's tax cut plan. But, as examples, I _always_ vote for school
> levies, library levies, etc.
My inclination is *not* to do so, even though the proclaimed goals
(rather than achieved goals) are often noble. What are these "big
dollar amounts," both in absolute and comparative (fractional) terms?
> These (and many others) are things I am
> happy to support with my money.
_You do not need to pay taxes to assist noble causes_.
> I'm aware, though, that we've had school levies defeated by the people
> living in the McMansions out in what were recently cornfields. They
> have enough money to buy those places (I don't) but they don't want to
> give any of their money to the community.
They are giving money to the community by virtue of them simply being
there -- you simply believe you are entitled to state when, where, and
how their money gets distributed. I have no idea what you have against
houses in cornfields. Just because *you* think the school levies are a
good idea doesn't mean someone else does. It is irrelevent what they
can afford compared to what you can afford. If you want the schools to
have more money, earn it and give it.
>> Your view isn't surprising since some of that wealth redistribution
>> ends up in your very own pocket as a state university employee.
>> Special interest groups really do look after their own interests.
>> This is why you want taxes to at least be untouchable and unquestionable.
>
> Um... right. I'm only in this business for the money. Ask any teacher,
> they'll say the same.
It sounds like you want to be in the business of someone else's money,
which isn't all that noble of a cause.
>> Instead of justifying the taxes _to begin with_, which is the proper
>> approach, you prefer to presume that the government is the warden of
>> the people: over and above them. This is an abomination to free people.
>
> I think you have very little ideea what I "prefer to presume."
You come off like a socialist, which is anti-freedom and anti-noble. I
believe you mean well, but unfortunately you are not educated in the
matter of political economy. If you were, you would change your tune.
You'll do more for schools and society by starting with your own
education. I suggest Hayek as a start.
http://www.hayekcenter.org/bookstore/hayek/hayek_books.html
~~~~~~~~~Quotes~~~~~~~~~
http://www.hayekcenter.org/friedrichhayek/who.html
Who is Hayek?
1. Lead role in the global revival of liberalism*
If you were to know only a single thing about Hayek, you might start
with this -- Hayek is regarded as a key figure in the 20th century
revival of liberalism. This has led some folks to suggest that the
works of Hayek are playing a role in our time something like the role
the works of Adam Smith and John Locke played in their own -- meaning
that Hayek's ideas are at the forefront of the movement towards a
society based on freedom of association and exchange according to the
rule of law, and away from the control of society from the center
according to the whim of government. So the first thing to know about
Hayek is that he has played a lead role in the current tide change away
from statism and back to liberalism* -- regarded by many as a defining
event of the 20th century."
http://www.hayekcenter.org/friedrichhayek/qs-20th.htm
Milton Friedman* (Economics, U. of Chicago)
" . . I think the Adam Smith role was played in this cycle [i.e. the
late twentieth century collapse of socialism in which the idea of
free-markets succeeded first, and then special events catalyzed a
complete change of socio-political policy in countries around the world]
by Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom."
"Over the years, I have again and again asked fellow believers in a free
society how they managed to escape the contagion of their collectivist
intellectual environment. No name has been mentioned more often as the
source of enlightenment and understanding than Friedrich Hayek's . . I,
like the others, owe him a great debt . . his powerful mind . . his
lucid and always principled exposition have helped to broaden and deepen
my understanding of the meaning and the requisites of a free society."
J. Bradford De Long* (Economics, UC-Berkeley)
"Hayek's adversaries -- Oskar Lange and company -- argued that a market
system had to be inferior to a centrally-planned system: at the very
least, a centrally-planned economy could set up internal decision-making
procedures that would mimic the market, and the central planners could
also adjust things to increase social welfare and account for external
effects in a way that a market system could never do. Hayek, in
response, argued that the functionaries of a central-planning board
could never succeed, because they could never create both the incentives
and the flexibility for the people-on-the-spot to exercise what Scott
calls metis.
Today all economists -- even those who are very hostile to Hayek's other
arguments .. agree that Hayek and company hit this particular nail
squarely on the head. Looking back at the seventy-year trajectory of
Communism, it seems very clear that Hayek .. [is] right: that its
principal flaw is its attempt to concentrate knowledge, authority, and
decision-making power at the center rather than pushing the power to
act, the freedom to do so, and the incentive to act productively out to
the periphery where the people-on-the-spot have the local knowledge to
act effectively."
~~~~~~~~~EndQuotes~~~~~~~~~
Do not confuse true liberalism with that co-opted by today's socialists;
they bear no resemblance:
~~~~~~~~~Quotes~~~~~~~~~
http://www.hayekcenter.org/friedrichhayek/liberalism.html
Liberalism
The word 'liberalism' is used around the world to
indicate a system of social organization characterized
by freedom of association & rule according to law
and not according to the caprice of authority. Liberalism
is also associated with a system of social organization
that provides for individual freedom, equality before the
law, representative decision-making in matters of law,
private property, and constitutionally secured limits on
governmental power.*
~~~~~~~~~EndQuotes~~~~~~~~~
>> > Unless, of course, one is hoping to garner
>> > political contributions from them.
>>
>> Name one politician who stands a chance in hell of winning a
>> presidential election without getting large contributions from those
>> able to make them.
>
> Personally, I think what you're hinting at is the root of a great many
> problems. However, I doubt you see it as a problem.
Oh, it is a problem all right. But in the matter of tradeoffs (and not
the elusive "solutions"), I don't know that there is anything better.
Also:
http://www.mises.org/
