fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jun 29, 2011 11:48:10 GMT -5
I am not endorsing picking winners or losers - I am edorsing taxing the hell out of speculation, privlege, monopoly - anything that does not create national wealth through the use of capital and labor. I think we should use tax to preserve that wealth that was created by the population. Already, the consumer pays all taxes through the products consumed. Speculation steals wealth created by labor and capital and employs neither. Why tax consumption if we have a problem with people not being able to consume enough - like food, housing...... Speculation does not steal wealth, how do you define privlege and the only monopoly is the government itself. It is true that the consumer ultimately does pay all corporate taxes, so lets make it simple and transparent and tax at the point of retail sale.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 29, 2011 11:50:21 GMT -5
I am not endorsing picking winners or losers - I am edorsing taxing the hell out of speculation, privlege, monopoly - anything that does not create national wealth through the use of capital and labor. I think we should use tax to preserve that wealth that was created by the population. Already, the consumer pays all taxes through the products consumed. Speculation steals wealth created by labor and capital and employs neither. Why tax consumption if we have a problem with people not being able to consume enough - like food, housing...... Speculation does not steal wealth, how do you define privlege and the only monopoly is the government itself. It is true that the consumer ultimately does pay all corporate taxes, so lets make it simple and transparent and tax at the point of retail sale. i don't think that government meets the definition of monopoly, as it is generally understood. by it's very nature and purpose, representative government can, and should have, no competitors.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jun 29, 2011 11:55:59 GMT -5
Speculation does not steal wealth, how do you define privlege and the only monopoly is the government itself. It is true that the consumer ultimately does pay all corporate taxes, so lets make it simple and transparent and tax at the point of retail sale. i don't think that government meets the definition of monopoly, as it is generally understood. by it's very nature and purpose, representative government can, and should have, no competitors. All monopolies are either the government itself, or licensed by the government. Monopolies can't exist in a free market for long, without government assistance.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Jun 29, 2011 11:56:56 GMT -5
i don't think that government meets the definition of monopoly - correct. Speculation does not steal wealth - it does by definition - wealth does not = money. how do you define privlege = Anyone who confessed to our law making body(s) that he could not conduct his affairs unless a special law was passed to protect him from the competition of another man who could operate without such protection.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 29, 2011 12:03:46 GMT -5
i don't think that government meets the definition of monopoly, as it is generally understood. by it's very nature and purpose, representative government can, and should have, no competitors. All monopolies are either the government itself, or licensed by the government. Monopolies can't exist in a free market for long, without government assistance. i am not sure that this is true either. in fact, i think it is more true that governments have a responsibility for interfering with monopolies. so did Jefferson.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jun 29, 2011 12:06:38 GMT -5
i don't think that government meets the definition of monopoly - correct. Only in the presence of government can a monopoly exist, in a free market it can notSpeculation does not steal wealth - it does by definition - wealth does not = money. S peculation is a free transaction between individuals, neither side would have made the trade if they did not feel they would benefit, i'm not going to sell my MS stock unless I feel i am better off with the money and somebody is not going to buy it unless they think it will be worth more later.how do you define privlege = Anyone who confessed to our law making body(s) that he could not conduct his affairs unless a special law was passed to protect him from the competition of another man who could operate without such protection. This makes no since, you have to give him a special law/tax code in the first place to tax him, simply don't give him the privlege.
Also, i'm not saying they shouldn't be taxed, only that they shouldn't be picked out and over taxed simply because you don't like the activities and they seem somehow inherently unfair or evil
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Jun 29, 2011 12:15:54 GMT -5
"Monopolies can't exist in a free market for long, without government assistance." Monopolies naturaly arise in a free market, they also continue to exist in a free market and do their most harm in a free market. "Free Market" the term can not exist in the real world - even if free market theories were forced into existence - it would not exist in the real world that is populated by people who trade for their needs. The existence of a Free Market is not possible on this planet. It is a myth.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Jun 29, 2011 12:19:28 GMT -5
The inherent thinking is that a free market is a good thing. A free market (even if it could exist - which it can't) does not mean that it would be good - in theory, a free market could, if left free, destroy the entire human race and, therefore itself.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 29, 2011 12:43:28 GMT -5
The inherent thinking is that a free market is a good thing. A free market (even if it could exist - which it can't) does not mean that it would be good - in theory, a free market could, if left free, destroy the entire human race and, therefore itself. correct. companies are always claiming that their goals contribute to the greater good, and that may generally be true. but without SOMETHING to challenge that, it is absolutely NOT guaranteed. there are only two entites that can challenge it- unions, and government. individuals are no match. if both unions AND government are weakened to the point where they are no match, we are finished, imo. and this is coming from a guy who stands to benefit hugely from NO regulation.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Jun 29, 2011 13:00:04 GMT -5
"only that they shouldn't be picked out and over taxed simply because you don't like the activities and they seem somehow inherently unfair or evil " I said speculation is theft and we(our government) seems unwilling to prosecute theft. I view fraud and theft as inherently evil. It's not how I feel - it's how most of humanity views it. So I say pick on them without mercy - Law and Taxes. - otherwise I infer that you would prefer anarchy as a true expression of freedom.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jun 29, 2011 13:04:39 GMT -5
The inherent thinking is that a free market is a good thing. A free market (even if it could exist - which it can't) does not mean that it would be good - in theory, a free market could, if left free, destroy the entire human race and, therefore itself. correct. companies are always claiming that their goals contribute to the greater good, and that may generally be true. but without SOMETHING to challenge that, it is absolutely NOT guaranteed. there are only two entites that can challenge it- unions, and government. individuals are no match. if both unions AND government are weakened to the point where they are no match, we are finished, imo. and this is coming from a guy who stands to benefit hugely from NO regulation. I guess I should clarify somewhat, monopolies could and do exist from time to time even in free markets, but that does not make them bad things, if a single entity produces a product or service clearly superior in all ways to any competitor then they will be a monopoly, but since they are producing the superior product in every way, then the consumer is certainly not harmed since they have access to the best product. However if the product or service is overpriced or of inferior quality then there will always be competition, unless prevented by the coercive effect of government. The market/consumer can certainly challenge a company that claims they are contributing to the greater good, it does not take the government to challenge somebody on whether they are contributing to the greater good, nor does it take a union.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jun 29, 2011 13:07:08 GMT -5
"only that they shouldn't be picked out and over taxed simply because you don't like the activities and they seem somehow inherently unfair or evil " I said speculation is theft and we(our government) seems unwilling to prosecute theft. I view fraud and theft as inherently evil. It's not how I feel - it's how most of humanity views it. So I say pick on them without mercy - Law and Taxes. - otherwise I infer that you would prefer anarchy as a true expression of freedom. Who is being stolen from? As I said it is a free transaction between two entities, the buyer and the seller, it doesn't make it inherently evil simply because they are trading pieces of paper. Speculation servers both a social good (helping to determine the value of stocks and commodities) and serves a specific good by mitigating risk.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 29, 2011 13:12:31 GMT -5
correct. companies are always claiming that their goals contribute to the greater good, and that may generally be true. but without SOMETHING to challenge that, it is absolutely NOT guaranteed. there are only two entites that can challenge it- unions, and government. individuals are no match. if both unions AND government are weakened to the point where they are no match, we are finished, imo. and this is coming from a guy who stands to benefit hugely from NO regulation. I guess I should clarify somewhat, monopolies could and do exist from time to time even in free markets, but that does not make them bad things, if a single entity produces a product or service clearly superior in all ways to any competitor then they will be a monopoly, but since they are producing the superior product in every way, then the consumer is certainly not harmed since they have access to the best product. actually, Jefferson was in favor of that, too. he called them "corporations for a specific purpose". but then again, Jefferson didn't believe in corporations with perpetuity, let alone ones that were endowed with personhood. he would probably be horrified by that.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Jun 29, 2011 13:22:33 GMT -5
Simple example - property values are affected by the community or, if you prefer, the presents of people. Without people the land would have no value - reason death valley land has no real value. I, the speculator, hold the property out of use because I know other people and services are moving in - I employ no-one and do nothing to the property except stand by and wait for others to create wealth - they build, they put in infrustructure, they do all the work while I sit back and do nothing. Then, when I sell, I pocket the wealth others have created - I take what others have produced - it is theft and, the poor guy behind me has less of his own product because he gave it to me.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Jun 29, 2011 13:25:22 GMT -5
What do derivatives squared have to do with the real economy and price discovery. What do people who don't take delivery on underlying assets do to price discovery. What about the carry trade in currencies.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Jun 29, 2011 13:30:33 GMT -5
Where did the financial services companies get us with their self invented - hands off - free market? The inventions of economic weapons of mass destruction
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jun 29, 2011 18:39:14 GMT -5
Simple example - property values are affected by the community or, if you prefer, the presents of people. Without people the land would have no value - reason death valley land has no real value. I, the speculator, hold the property out of use because I know other people and services are moving in - I employ no-one and do nothing to the property except stand by and wait for others to create wealth - they build, they put in infrustructure, they do all the work while I sit back and do nothing. Then, when I sell, I pocket the wealth others have created - I take what others have produced - it is theft and, the poor guy behind me has less of his own product because he gave it to me. So you stole the property, ok go to jail, otherwise if you own the property then you should be free to sale it for whatever someone is willing to pay. Don't you believe in owning property?
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jun 29, 2011 23:25:50 GMT -5
I am not endorsing picking winners or losers - I am edorsing taxing the hell out of speculation, privlege, monopoly - anything that does not create national wealth through the use of capital and labor. I think we should use tax to preserve that wealth that was created by the population. Already, the consumer pays all taxes through the products consumed. Speculation steals wealth created by labor and capital and employs neither. Why tax consumption if we have a problem with people not being able to consume enough - like food, housing...... I agree with this statement. BUT.......50% of the people pay no federal taxes. This has to stop also. I do not care if it is only $50 a year, everyone with income should pay something.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Jun 30, 2011 6:22:50 GMT -5
I agree with owning property - I am suggesting taking the incentive to speculate on property away. The theft is money being siphoned away from those who created the wealth into the hands of those who did not create wealth through speculation. If the community created the wealth then that community should retain the wealth - not some speculator. Speculation in real estate is what brought us to our economic precipice.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jun 30, 2011 6:45:45 GMT -5
I agree with owning property - I am suggesting taking the incentive to speculate on property away. The theft is money being siphoned away from those who created the wealth into the hands of those who did not create wealth through speculation. If the community created the wealth then that community should retain the wealth - not some speculator. Speculation in real estate is what brought us to our economic precipice. ...call me naive, but how would we go about taking away the incentive to speculate on property value?
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Jun 30, 2011 7:32:21 GMT -5
Tax it - if no one is living in the house - tax the note holder so he will not hold it out of use do not let him pass his tax obligation out of his hands. Bring on deflation in the real estate market to lower everyones taxes. Start removing taxes from the built environment and from labor and capital used to create wealth and place it on the land itself. You buy a second home to rent - tax the economic rent of the property. Tax income that is created through speculation, create a transaction tax when trading stock. Start looking at the source of income and if that income is not got by employing labor and capital in producing wealth - tax it heavy. We regulate monopoly to prevent its negative cosequeces - there is no better deterent to a practice than a tax. Today we have a system where we tax everything without looking at the source - Instead I propose taxing those things that are economically detrimental to the creation of wealth - like income and business taxes - repeal as many special privalege laws (loopholes) as possible, tax speculation, derivatives not solidly linked to actual products etc. -- shift taxes to where they ought to be - Taxes are the power to destroy - they should be applied to those things that are and have harmed this economy.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jun 30, 2011 7:41:31 GMT -5
Tax it - if no one is living in the house - tax the note holder so he will not hold it out of use do not let him pass his tax obligation out of his hands. Bring on deflation in the real estate market to lower everyones taxes. Start removing taxes from the built environment and from labor and capital used to create wealth and place it on the land itself. You buy a second home to rent - tax the economic rent of the property. Tax income that is created through speculation, create a transaction tax when trading stock. Start looking at the source of income and if that income is not got by employing labor and capital in producing wealth - tax it heavy. We regulate monopoly to prevent its negative cosequeces - there is no better deterent to a practice than a tax. Today we have a system where we tax everything without looking at the source - Instead I propose taxing those things that are economically detrimental to the creation of wealth - like income and business taxes - repeal as many special privalege laws (loopholes) as possible, tax speculation, derivatives not solidly linked to actual products etc. -- shift taxes to where they ought to be - Taxes are the power to destroy - they should be applied to those things that are and have harmed this economy. ...fwiw, I'm thinking about your suggestions...
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Jun 30, 2011 8:02:34 GMT -5
I know what I say may seem a bit radical but, this is not new thinking and previous efforts were made on this front - prior to swaps and derivatives squared, MBS and its offshoots and prior to our Fed reserve. We need new thinking (even if its old thinking) because, the path we are on is not sustainable - ultimatley. Sooner or later, our economic foundation will colapse because it's foundation is unsustainable. I have got to get to work and bring some cheese home. Later
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Jun 30, 2011 9:14:07 GMT -5
I know what I say may seem a bit radical but, this is not new thinking and previous efforts were made on this front - prior to swaps and derivatives squared, MBS and its offshoots and prior to our Fed reserve. We need new thinking (even if its old thinking) because, the path we are on is not sustainable - ultimatley. Sooner or later, our economic foundation will colapse because it's foundation is unsustainable. I have got to get to work and bring some cheese home. Later I also think we need new thinking and new method of taxation, which is why I think the fairtax would be fantastic for our country. We would change from primarily taxing income to taxing spending, which I think would be good in itself, but the some of the biggest advantages would be , First every time you buy something no matter what income level you where at, you would see this line blaring back at you on the receipt indicating how much tax is being paid. Second, Congress would no longer be able to utilize the IRS to reward/punish people as they deemed fit, this would also eliminate the majority of the lobbyists, since they primarily lobby for tax code changes to benefit them. There would be no loopholes, this would just in itself lower the cost of tax compliance which is in the billions currently. And since there would no longer be taxation on income/payroll, there would be a huge incentive for companies to expand or locate in the US, which would undoubtedly lead to more jobs, which would lead to more revenue to the government.
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Jun 30, 2011 9:43:54 GMT -5
A cosumption tax would be the most regressive tax. income being equall: those with four kids would pay a much higher tax than a single person. Those with extraordinary incomes would pay ecen less as a percentage of income. It stands today that the consumer of goods pays all taxes by way of the cost of the good consumed. I prefer to see taxes relieved from the labor and capital that creates wealth and have it fall on those who do not employ labor and capital to create wealth - speculators, monopolists, special privilege benificiaries etc. and land values (not buildings or improvements - they employ capital and labor to create wealth)
|
|