The Magic Caf
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » So what's the best income tax rate? (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..7..11..15..19..20~21~22~23 [Next]
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4841 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-19 10:52, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-18 18:50, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-18 11:49, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 16:03, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2010-12-17 15:56, landmark wrote:
Gdw said: "I advocate for a society in which there essentially is no "public" property. Any "property" you set foot on would be owned by someone, . . ."


Sorry but I find that notion absolutely nightmarish.

I don't even really feel like arguing it, because it seems so self-evident to me; I think there is a lot of good logic on this board, but we disagree a lot about what set of axioms we're going to start with.

Who gets the property? Who doesn't? Are the lucky ones those that can get to enclose the meadows?

They hang the man, and flog the woman,
That steals the goose from off the common;
But let the greater villain loose,
That steals the common from the goose.


There is a lot out there on this, from Lochian homesteading and beyond. How do you determine who "gets the property" now? The big difference is that you would acually OWN the land your home is on, as apposed to know where you are essentially renting it from the state, hence "property taxes" and the like.

The thing is, the idea of the "problem of the commons" is one that is created by the idea of "public property" to begin with.

As land is a finite resource, the privatization of all property will lead in the direction which we can already observe as present-day capitalism heads on: the concentration of wealth accruing to those who already have wealth. This is an inevitable consequence of capitalism. So while it may be good news to the 1% who will eventually own all the land that the land is truly theirs, it's not so great for the other 99%--no matter how much they may wish to homestead.


Gee, once again, that sounds an AWFUL lot like what we tend to get WITH governments.

Quite right, as I said, this a basic feature--or bug--of capitalism. What the evidence shows, however, is that the wealth gap between rich and poor slows down with governments that have more corporate regulation. And within the US we can see that the wealth gap increased significantly in the last 30 years since privatization and contracting out services increased dramatically. So any push for more privatization of property and services is going to increase the rate of wealth accumulation by those who already have.


No, this is a "bug" of corporatism. It's not just about regulation, but government involvement with private enterprise all together. Everything you have described has involved governments and corporations working together/corporations controlling government.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20986 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Critter you can't even see the flaw in your own point. Oh well.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5138 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
landmark:
Quite right, as I said, this a basic feature--or bug--of capitalism. What the evidence shows, however, is that the wealth gap between rich and poor slows down with governments that have more corporate regulation. And within the US we can see that the wealth gap increased significantly in the last 30 years since privatization and contracting out services increased dramatically. So any push for more privatization of property and services is going to increase the rate of wealth accumulation by those who already have.
Quote:
gdw:
No, this is a "bug" of corporatism. It's not just about regulation, but government involvement with private enterprise all together. Everything you have described has involved governments and corporations working together/corporations controlling government.

But the US government exists at this moment. Therefore, any privatization, at this point in the US will continue to increase the wealth gap. I'm going to assume we are trying to deal with our present day problems. Philosophy and speculation are certainly okay on a magic board, but I'm assuming that libertarians are talking about more than Gilligan's Island?
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4841 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-19 15:28, landmark wrote:
Quote:
landmark:
Quite right, as I said, this a basic feature--or bug--of capitalism. What the evidence shows, however, is that the wealth gap between rich and poor slows down with governments that have more corporate regulation. And within the US we can see that the wealth gap increased significantly in the last 30 years since privatization and contracting out services increased dramatically. So any push for more privatization of property and services is going to increase the rate of wealth accumulation by those who already have.
Quote:
gdw:
No, this is a "bug" of corporatism. It's not just about regulation, but government involvement with private enterprise all together. Everything you have described has involved governments and corporations working together/corporations controlling government.

But the US government exists at this moment. Therefore, any privatization, at this point in the US will continue to increase the wealth gap. I'm going to assume we are trying to deal with our present day problems. Philosophy and speculation are certainly okay on a magic board, but I'm assuming that libertarians are talking about more than Gilligan's Island?


Which is one of the reasons I consider anarchism, rather than just trying to do as best we can while dealing with a government.
But that's besides the point.

Simply taking the government out of property all together, especially that which people already own. You don't really own the land your house is built on.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
895 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
Gdw- I much prefer the native American version of that- you don't own the land; nobody owns the land. You're just borrowing it for a while. (Of course, built into that is the implicit belief that you better be a good caretaker while you're borrowing it.)
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Redshirt,

The problem with that is called the tragedy of the commons . . . when an individual owns something, he takes care of it. When nobody owns it, and nobody is responsible for it, nobody takes care of it.

Moreover, the fact that individuals don't own the land they live on is one of the major reasons so much of the world remains in poverty.

After the Mexican revolution of 1910, for example, when the great latifundias were expropriated by the government, the land was not turned over to invidiual peasants, but to communes, which held it in common. This was supposedly the ancient Indian way . . .

However, the system of communal land ownership permitted the establishment of a new oligarchy, and prevented industrious individuals from acquiring the benefits of their labor . . . leading to the development of the corrupt, failed state whose imminent collapse threatens the United States today.

A system in which an individual owns the results of his own hard work, energy, and initiative -- the free market -- has proven itself to be the system which produces more benefits for more people than any planned and controlled system, whether imperial, monarchial, or socialist.

Peace Out.

Woland
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16346 Posts

Profile of tommy
If you pay 100% you are either a complete Slave or Communist or a mix of both and a complete idiot if you don't know what the best rate is. Smile
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4841 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-19 20:55, Woland wrote:
Redshirt,

The problem with that is called the tragedy of the commons . . . when an individual owns something, he takes care of it. When nobody owns it, and nobody is responsible for it, nobody takes care of it.

Moreover, the fact that individuals don't own the land they live on is one of the major reasons so much of the world remains in poverty.

After the Mexican revolution of 1910, for example, when the great latifundias were expropriated by the government, the land was not turned over to invidiual peasants, but to communes, which held it in common. This was supposedly the ancient Indian way . . .

However, the system of communal land ownership permitted the establishment of a new oligarchy, and prevented industrious individuals from acquiring the benefits of their labor . . . leading to the development of the corrupt, failed state whose imminent collapse threatens the United States today.

A system in which an individual owns the results of his own hard work, energy, and initiative -- the free market -- has proven itself to be the system which produces more benefits for more people than any planned and controlled system, whether imperial, monarchial, or socialist.

Peace Out.

Woland


Very true. Although I still maintain that the entire idea of the "tragedy of the commons" is trumped up to begin with, and only really actualizes with the creation of "public property." It's a solution in search of a problem.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2010-12-19 20:55, Woland wrote:
Redshirt,

The problem with that is called the tragedy of the commons . . . when an individual owns something, he takes care of it. When nobody owns it, and nobody is responsible for it, nobody takes care of it.

Moreover, the fact that individuals don't own the land they live on is one of the major reasons so much of the world remains in poverty.

After the Mexican revolution of 1910, for example, when the great latifundias were expropriated by the government, the land was not turned over to invidiual peasants, but to communes, which held it in common. This was supposedly the ancient Indian way . . .

However, the system of communal land ownership permitted the establishment of a new oligarchy, and prevented industrious individuals from acquiring the benefits of their labor . . . leading to the development of the corrupt, failed state whose imminent collapse threatens the United States today.

A system in which an individual owns the results of his own hard work, energy, and initiative -- the free market -- has proven itself to be the system which produces more benefits for more people than any planned and controlled system, whether imperial, monarchial, or socialist.

Peace Out.

Woland


Woland, this is a rather gruesome mischaracterization of Garrett Hardin's argument in "The Tragedy of the Commons". Hardin is arguing that Rational Choice Theory predicts that commonly held goods such as clean air and fresh water will be damaged in the long term as agents act in their rational best interests in the short term. Hardin is explicitly arguing against policies that encourage individuals to work only for their own benefit and, in fact, argues that the tragedy of the commons dilemma supports strong central government to regulate resources.

You can read Hardin's article here. I have not read it in over 20 years, so I guess I'll take this opportunity to reread a classic.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4841 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-19 23:43, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
. . .

Woland, this is a rather gruesome mischaracterization of Garrett Hardin's argument in "The Tragedy of the Commons". Hardin is arguing that Rational Choice Theory predicts that commonly held goods such as clean air and fresh water will be damaged in the long term as agents act in their rational best interests in the short term. Hardin is explicitly arguing against policies that encourage individuals to work only for their own benefit and, in fact, argues that the tragedy of the commons dilemma supports strong central government to regulate resources.

You can read Hardin's article here. I have not read it in over 20 years, so I guess I'll take this opportunity to reread a classic.

John


Which is interesting considering how governments and regulations have actually slowed, and even STOPPED progress that was.is designed to improve on those very things.

We could have, and should have, been free of coal, and fossil fuel as energy sources decades ago. Electric cars were all but ready to ride the roads in the 90's, and yet, even now, we are really only just seeing "hybrids" enter the market.

Similarly, both for clean air, and individual health, government regulations are preventing the marketing and growth of the e-cig.

Again, I find the whole premise to be trumped up from the get go.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
GDW did you read the article? Or is it simply contrary to your ideology?

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Magnus,

Another old classic is Governor Bradford's diary of the early years of the Plymouth Colony. He describes how the initial intention of the Pilgrims was to establish a commune in which all goods would be held in common, in emulation of what they thought was described for the early Christians in Acts. However, about half of the colonists were not Pilgrims, and productivity was very poor; the industrious did not like working for the lazy, etc. When after a year or so, the colonists agreed that each man could cultivate his own land, and that the produce of a man's effort would belong to him, prosperity ensued.

A very interesting book is also Charles Nordhoff's account of the Communistic Societies of the United States. The USA was, in the XIXth Century, the world capital of communistic experiments. Today, only the goose-rearing communes of the Hutterites remain. Both German pietist communes, such as the Amana Farms, and new-age-ish free-love communes, such as Oneida, became corporations, with the shares distributed to the members. Others, such as Owen's New Harmony, simply failed.

Even the much-vaunted kibbutzim of Israel are disappearing.

On practical grounds alone, communism just does not work. It really is that simple.

Peace Out.

Woland
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Woland, I have no interest in discussing communism with you at this moment as isn't even part of the current discussion. All I did was point out that you misrepresented Hardin's article.
John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2010-12-20 06:28, Woland wrote:
Magnus,

Another old classic is Governor Bradford's diary of the early years of the Plymouth Colony. He describes how the initial intention of the Pilgrims was to establish a commune in which all goods would be held in common, in emulation of what they thought was described for the early Christians in Acts. However, about half of the colonists were not Pilgrims, and productivity was very poor; the industrious did not like working for the lazy, etc. When after a year or so, the colonists agreed that each man could cultivate his own land, and that the produce of a man's effort would belong to him, prosperity ensued.

Well, not exactly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/weekin......ike.html
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
From Bradford's journal:
Quote:
"Also ye people of ye plantation begane to grow in their owtward estats, by reason of ye flowing of many people into ye ****rie, espetially into ye Bay of ye Massachusets; by which means corne & catle rose to a great prise, by wch many were much inriched, and comodities grue plentifull; and yet in other regards this benefite turned to their hurte, and this accession of strength to their weaknes. For now as their stocks incresed, and ye increse vendible, ther was no longer any holding them togeather, but now they must of necessitie goe to their great lots; they could not other wise keep their katle; and having oxen growne, they must have land for plowing & tillage. And no man now thought he could live, except he had catle and a great deale of ground to keep them; all striving to increase their stocks. By which means they were scatered all over ye bay, quickly, and ye towne, in which they lived compactly till now, was left very thine, and in a short time allmost desolate. And if this had been it, it had been less, thoug to much; but ye church must also be devided, and those yt had lived to long togeather in Christian & comfortable fellowship must now part and suffer many divissions. First, those that lived on their lots on ye other side of ye bay (called Duxberie) they could not long bring their wives & children to ye publick worship & church meetings here, but with such burthen…"


From this excerpt it appears that their collective farming was very successful. So much so, in fact, that production outstripped the resources to maintain it. According to this excerpt (and I do not pretend to have read the Journal in its entirety) it was the need for new land that led to dispersal and individual farming, and it had absolutely nothing to do with any of the ideas Woland put forth.

Have you read the Journal, Woland? Perhaps you can find other entries that contradict this one.

John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Magnus,

1) The difference between a free market society, on the one hand, and a controlled statist society on the other hand (whether imperial, fascist, monarchial, socialist, or communist) is precisely the root of this entire discussion.

2) When I referred to the Tragedy of the Commons, I was using the term as it is used in everyday speech, not in reference to Hardin's article of the same title.

3) Don't have my copy of Bradford with me at the moment, but I shall certainly provide you with the particulars. However, I think the passage you bring forward describes a period 5 or 10 years after the Pilgrims abandoned collectivism, and refers not to the establishment of a commune, but to the establishment of new towns and settlements.

Here is what Bradford said about the socialism of the Plymouth Colony:

Quote:
"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense."


And the result of his ordaining a change to a policy of respecting private property:

Quote:
This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content."




Joseph Farah sumamrized Bradford's account in this article:

Quote:
The Pilgrims came to America for one reason – to form a separate community in which they could worship God as they saw fit. They had fled England because King James I was persecuting those who did not recognize the Church of England's absolute civil and spiritual authority.

On the two-month journey of 1620, William Bradford and the other elders wrote an extraordinary charter – the Mayflower Compact. Why was it extraordinary? Because it established just and equal laws for all members of their new community – believers and non-believers alike. Where did they get such revolutionary ideas? From the Bible, of course.

When the Pilgrims landed in the New World, they found a cold, rocky, barren, desolate wilderness. There were no friends to greet them, Bradford wrote. No houses to shelter them. No inns where they could refresh themselves. During the first winter, half the Pilgrims died of sickness or exposure –including Bradford's wife. Though life improved for the Pilgrims when spring came, they did not really prosper. Why? Once again, the textbooks don't tell the story, but Bradford's own journal does. The reason they didn't succeed initially is because they were practicing an early form of socialism.

The original contract the Pilgrims had with their merchant-sponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store. Each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community. Bradford, as governor, recognized the inherent problem with this collectivist system.

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years ... that by taking away property, and bringing community into common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God," Bradford wrote. "For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fir for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense ... that was thought injustice."

What a surprise! Even back then people did not want to work without incentive. Bradford decided to assign a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus turning loose the power of free enterprise. What was the result?

"This had very good success," wrote Bradford, "for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been."

As a result, the Pilgrims soon found they had more food than they could eat themselves. They set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London much faster than expected. The success of the Plymouth colony thus attracted more Europeans and set off what we call the "Great Puritan Migration."

But it wasn't just an economic system that allowed the Pilgrims to prosper. It was their devotion to God and His laws. And that's what Thanksgiving is really all about. The Pilgrims recognized that everything we have is a gift from God – even our sorrows. Their Thanksgiving tradition was established to honor God and thank Him for His blessings and His grace.


You might also be interested in this interview with the late Milton Friedman, in which he points out that "The central principle is that nobody takes care of somebody else’s property as well as he takes care of his own."

You can view it here.

Peace out.

Woland
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2010-12-20 14:00, Woland wrote:
Magnus,

1) The difference between a free market society, on the one hand, and a controlled statist society on the other hand (whether imperial, fascist, monarchial, socialist, or communist) is precisely the root of this entire discussion.


Uh, the topic at hand is income tax, not market-based vs. centrally planned economies. So far as I know, you are the only one to bring this up.

Quote:
2) When I referred to the Tragedy of the Commons, I was using the term as it is used in everyday speech, not in reference to Hardin's article of the same title.


I hadn't noticed the phrase being used regularly. Since Hardin's article actually introduced the phrase to our language, surely it is an important piece of information. It's pretty hard to google the phrase without finding reference to Hardin.

Quote:
3) Don't have my copy of Bradford with me at the moment, but I shall certainly provide you with the particulars. However, I think the passage you bring forward describes a period 5 or 10 years after the Pilgrims abandoned collectivism, and refers not to the establishment of a commune, but to the establishment of new towns and settlements.


The piece I quoted is from the Pilgrim Hall Museum website.

Here is what Bradford said about the socialism of the Plymouth Colony:

Quote:
"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense."


The bit you are quoting is not from his diary (or Journal) but from his "History of Plymouth Plantation" some 20 years after the Journal I quoted. From the same passage that you quoted, Bradford writes

"The Governor (with the advice of the chiefest amongst them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other thing to go on in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family."

Are you also advocating that land be divided equally according to the number of children a family has, and that no provision be made for inheritance? Or that everything other than corn farming "go on in the general way as before" (i.e. collectively)?


John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16346 Posts

Profile of tommy
Income tax or carbon tax whats the difference?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4841 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2010-12-19 23:58, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
GDW did you read the article? Or is it simply contrary to your ideology?

John


At the time of that post, no, I was addressing what you wrote in summary:
" Hardin is arguing that Rational Choice Theory predicts that commonly held goods such as clean air and fresh water will be damaged in the long term as agents act in their rational best interests in the short term. Hardin is explicitly arguing against policies that encourage individuals to work only for their own benefit and, in fact, argues that the tragedy of the commons dilemma supports strong central government to regulate resources."

I have since gone over the article briefly, and so far I think what I said still applies.
That is, it seems to only ever be a concern when we try to treat something as the "commons."
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
16346 Posts

Profile of tommy
The common is where the commoners live on the common land down the hill from the castle upon the hill, from where the tax collectors are sent by the elite to collect the tax from the commoners down there so to keep the elite in the manner to which they have become accustomed. Nothing has changed its as simple as that. The illusion is that that common people think they own bits of the common land that they can buy and sell to each other. The elite don't care what the commoner think so long as they keep paying their tax.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » So what's the best income tax rate? (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..7..11..15..19..20~21~22~23 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2022 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.11 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL