These people are our future

[WillburForce]

One random point: This not so hypothetical is one of the main reasons I can't support high taxes on the rich. Let's say someone creates a cure for cancer. He no doubt has spent most of his time, energy, and money researching and developing this cure. He sells it to people with cancer for a very large amount of money and becomes a billionaire. Tell me why this person does not deserve every cent of his billion dollars.

what about the people who can't afford to buy his cure?

[IowaSkinsFan]

what about the people who can't afford to buy his cure?

I would not mind if the government gave money to people who couldn't afford the cure, but I think the charitable route should be explored first.

I do have a more extreme POV on this but I'm not going to say it because I don't want to argue about it.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Wilbur, do you feel like the person who made the cure should pay taxes on his income from it?

[Duffryn]

Wilbur, do you feel like the person who made the cure should pay taxes on his income from it?

Do you think the offspring of the person who cures cancer should inherit billions and not pay taxes on it? If you are arguing that people should keep money they have earned for themselves, then do you agree with 100% inheritance taxes?

Of course people should benefit from their hard work and talent, but its I think its right that money is taken from those who have everything a person could want and given to those in need. How does Mr "Richman" having 10 yachts help the evolution of humankind? Educating a bright kid born in a slum may in fact reap the benefit of that kid using that education to cure cancer.

It's also right that the government takes some of this money, since then the whole populace (theoretically) has a say in how it is spent. I would like to see Tom Cruise and John Travolta taxed a lot more heavily as I bet a lot of their money goes to the Church of Scientology and I would much prefer the American Government, whatever its flaws, to be spending it.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Do you think the offspring of the person who cures cancer should inherit billions and not pay taxes on it? If you are arguing that people should keep money they have earned for themselves, then do you agree with 100% inheritance taxes?

Of course people should benefit from their hard work and talent, but its I think its right that money is taken from those who have everything a person could want and given to those in need. How does Mr "Richman" having 10 yachts help the evolution of humankind? Educating a bright kid born in a slum may in fact reap the benefit of that kid using that education to cure cancer.

It's also right that the government takes some of this money, since then the whole populace (theoretically) has a say in how it is spent. I would like to see Tom Cruise and John Travolta taxed a lot more heavily as I bet a lot of their money goes to the Church of Scientology and I would much prefer the American Government, whatever its flaws, to be spending it.

So the whole populace should have a say on how I spend my money in your theory correct? So basically, I should cede control of my own decisions on how to spend my money to the governments approximation of what is right and good? The problem I have with this is that the government fails to spend money in this fashion, at least in terms of my values. This approximation need not take place anyways.

I'm sure you would like to see John Travolta and Tom Cruise be less rich. Unfortunately for you, you represent the tiniest percent of the human race. On the other hand, anyone who sees a John Travolta or Tom Cruise movie, whether they actually want them to be rich or not, are sanctioning TC and JT to be rich. They are buying that $9 movie ticket in exchange for their entertainment and consequently in exchange for JT and TC's decision on how to use that money. Now if you then tax JT and TC a shitload, you are taking away the responsibility of the people for their own actions. And when people are not responsible for their own actions, there is no incentive to evolve.

[WillburForce]

I'm sure you would like to see John Travolta and Tom Cruise be less rich.

Nothing wrong with them being rich - but tax them a fair amount. And by that I don't mean what they'd consider fair. I'd start at around 65% and poss more.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Nothing wrong with them being rich - but tax them a fair amount. And by that I don't mean what they'd consider fair. I'd start at around 65% and poss more.

Explain why they, or anyone, should be taxed on income at all?

[Duffryn]

So the whole populace should have a say on how I spend my money in your theory correct? So basically, I should cede control of my own decisions on how to spend my money to the governments approximation of what is right and good? The problem I have with this is that the government fails to spend money in this fashion, at least in terms of my values. This approximation need not take place anyways.

I'm sure you would like to see John Travolta and Tom Cruise be less rich. Unfortunately for you, you represent the tiniest percent of the human race. On the other hand, anyone who sees a John Travolta or Tom Cruise movie, whether they actually want them to be rich or not, are sanctioning TC and JT to be rich. They are buying that $9 movie ticket in exchange for their entertainment and consequently in exchange for JT and TC's decision on how to use that money. Now if you then tax JT and TC a shitload, you are taking away the responsibility of the people for their own actions. And when people are not responsible for their own actions, there is no incentive to evolve.

No, the government has the right to take a proportion of your money and spend it. So you think that there should be no taxation and therefore no government?

No-one is ever going to say that they are happy with the way any government spends every cent. But I would rather a Government is in charge of spending money for the common good than to be reliant on a collection of wealthy individuals accountable to no-one. That's the main point about Tom Cruise and John Travolta. You want the only option for the education of your children to be in a Scientology school? Or muslim/atheist/catholic/mormon/whatever depending on the religion/non religion of your local benefactor?

Actually, I think a huge majority of the world's population would want John Travolta and Tom Cruise to be less rich. The rewards they receive are out of proportion. You really think the millions around the world living on less than $1 a day or less think its great that John Travolta has two jumbo jets parked in his back yard?

The idea that buying something is wholesale acceptance of any associated practice is bizarre. Going to see a Tom Cruise film is not endorsement of Scientology or the way he spends his money. That's like saying that voting means you agree with all that a Government does.

[IowaSkinsFan]

No, the government has the right to take a proportion of your money and spend it. So you think that there should be no taxation and therefore no government?

No taxation of income. There should be little taxation and little government.

No-one is ever going to say that they are happy with the way any government spends every cent. But I would rather a Government is in charge of spending money for the common good than to be reliant on a collection of wealthy individuals accountable to no-one. That's the main point about Tom Cruise and John Travolta. You want the only option for the education of your children to be in a Scientology school? Or muslim/atheist/catholic/mormon/whatever depending on the religion/non religion of your local benefactor?

Rich people are accountable to everyone. Present and future cash flow is dependent on the voluntary exchange of money from people other than yourself. For example, I'm sure Mel Gibson is making much less money since everyone realize he was a wack job, same as JT and TC. Also, the hypothetical you put forth is impossible unless a majority of the nation, likely 95% if not greater, were all one specific religion. If that was the case, I would not feel entitled for them to forgo their beliefs and offer me a school of a different religion. For example, if there were 3 people in the US who believed in bananas as God, and had scripture that devoted their faith to bananas, are they entitled to be offered a banana school?

Actually, I think a huge majority of the world's population would want John Travolta and Tom Cruise to be less rich. The rewards they receive are out of proportion. You really think the millions around the world living on less than $1 a day or less think its great that John Travolta has two jumbo jets parked in his back yard?

I think they probably think its terrible. But JT and TC have not done anything more to keep those people poor than the people who bought their movie tickets instead of helping those poor people. JT and TC are simply using the money in the same "worthless" way.

The idea that buying something is wholesale acceptance of any associated practice is bizarre. Going to see a Tom Cruise film is not endorsement of Scientology or the way he spends his money. That's like saying that voting means you agree with all that a Government does.

Let me propose a basic hypothetical. Someone offers you a stereo system for $100. You know that he stole this stereo and this is why you can buy it at such a low price. You buy it. Did you not endorse stealing? If not, now lets say that nearly everyone in the world declined to buy stolen merchandise, would the amount of stealing in the world be more, less, or the same than it is now?

[Renton]

One might suggest that one of the things that makes America great is that anyone can use their ingenuity and build a fortune from nothing, and that one of the reasons for that is that there is policy that alleviates financial burden from the poor and onto the rich.

[IowaSkinsFan]

One might suggest that one of the things that makes America great is that anyone can use their ingenuity and build a fortune from nothing, and that one of the reasons for that is that there is policy that alleviates financial burden from the poor and onto the rich.

Can you explain this further? Why does building a fortune require the alleviation of financial burden from the poor?

[Renton]

Can you explain this further? Why does building a fortune require the alleviation of financial burden from the poor?

Because if the poor had to pay substantially higher taxes than they do (read: ANY taxes) then they might be in such abject poverty that it would be impossible to aspire to anything.

I, for example, having grown up in a poor family, may not have been able to go to college because I'd have to have dropped out of high school to get a job and help keep the lights on.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Because if the poor had to pay substantially higher taxes than they do (read: ANY taxes) then they might be in such abject poverty that it would be impossible to aspire to anything.

I, for example, having grown up in a poor family, may not have been able to go to college because I'd have to have dropped out of high school to get a job and help keep the lights on.

Fair enough, I don't disagree with anything you said. No one should have to pay any income taxes. Any funding needed to give people enough opportunity can come from other tax sources.

[boost]

Danny, I am not well versed in economics, so I am trying to stick to the sidelines here.

However there are a few points that you have kept hammering away at that stand out to me as being flat out wrong. One of them being the idea that charity can make up for the financial deficit created in the absence of income taxes. At best, as I believe Wilbur pointed out, we would have a blotchy landscape of well funded schools with special interest leanings in some regions and woefully underfunded schools in other regions. Or, there could be a central charity (government run? independent? not sure it matters) that would distribute the charitable donations more evenly. Yet I still fail to be convinced that you truly believe that these charitable donations would be enough to fund schools to today's levels (woefully underfunded) much less to the standards that they should be funded.

You keep suggesting that the window to peoples values is a view of their check book. Yet you are missing a fundamental concept in that when a person becomes rich and can afford the highest private school for his child without even blinking, he has no reason to value a public school system. So without a need, we have no value; without value, we have no charity. So essentially the schooling of the less than rich is left to the less than rich. Maybe you think this is fair, but it just divides the classes further and makes the classes more self perpetuating through the generations than they already are.

Another underlying concept that seems to support your theories is the idea that having earned an amount of money, it is yours to do with as you please. I can see how you come to this conclusion, but it again is way off base. If we can imagine that only one person existed in the world, we can clearly agree that he is neither rich nor poor. Therefore a person needs society to be rich, and therefore is in debt to society. I understand that this is super simplified and turns economy into a zero sum game, but I think it proves my point just the same.

I think the strongest counter to your argument as a whole is that people pay taxes. If you can claim that, despite being threatened with starvation, the poorest person still has a choice between monsanto and the higher-priced/harder-to-come-by local organic and in making that choice is supporting the practices and ideals of the producer; then the flip side of the coin is that Joe Billionaire is making a choice to pay taxes, and by making that choice is supporting where those taxes go by choice. He is threatened with jail time, and they are threatened with death.

The libertarian house is built on a sandy lot.. it looks like a great place to live, but even the most superficial inspection reveals that the foundation is sinking.


side notes: I do not think either of you (max/danny) have rebutted the theory that a strong middle class is necessary for a strong economy and therefore is beneficial to the upper class. That of course goes hand in hand with the theory that a strong middle class is created by social safety nets funded by taxation. As far as I know (and like I said, I am not very well versed in economics) this is theory insomuch as the theory of evolution is theory.

Also I do not believe either of you have commented on the question about a 100% inheritance tax.

[wufwugy]

If we can imagine that only one person existed in the world, we can clearly agree that he is neither rich nor poor. Therefore a person needs society to be rich, and therefore is in debt to society.

I really like this. Examples and analogies often need elements of extremism in order to more obviously illustrate the point. The whole "it takes two to tango" thing is lost on so many people. The amount of factors which other people are "responsible" for that promote an individual's level of wealth are innumerable

[Numbr2intheWorld]

Another underlying concept that seems to support your theories is the idea that having earned an amount of money, it is yours to do with as you please. I can see how you come to this conclusion, but it again is way off base. If we can imagine that only one person existed in the world, we can clearly agree that he is neither rich nor poor.

Read my post above. If there is one person in the world he can be rich or poor. He can grow a lot of vegetables, hunt a lot, he can make a game to pass the time, basically, he could work so he can be happy and healthy which are two things he probably values. If he works hard and makes a lot of things that make him happy and healthy, he is wealthy. If he doesn't work, doesn't grow shit, and doesn't do anything to help entertain himself, he's gonna be poor. And probably depressed.

[wufwugy]

Read my post above. If there is one person in the world he can be rich or poor. He can grow a lot of vegetables, hunt a lot, he can make a game to pass the time, basically, he could work so he can be happy and healthy which are two things he probably values. If he works hard and makes a lot of things that make him happy and healthy, he is wealthy. If he doesn't work, doesn't grow shit, and doesn't do anything to help entertain himself, he's gonna be poor. And probably depressed.

Human history has had ample experimentation with regards to this. The solitary man cannot get even remotely a fraction of the level of richness than is possible with the kind of society we live in today.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

Human history has had ample experimentation with regards to this. The solitary man cannot get even remotely a fraction of the level of richness than is possible with the kind of society we live in today.

I was merely pointing out that boosts idea, that one man on his own living in a world can not be rich or poor, was incorrect.

[Lyric]

Human history has had ample experimentation with regards to this. The solitary man cannot get even remotely a fraction of the level of richness than is possible with the kind of society we live in today.

Correct. More people living together can grow exponentially more wealthy via trade and exchange of information and technology, but a solitary man can still create wealth alone on an island.

[wufwugy]

Correct. More people living together can grow exponentially more wealthy via trade and exchange of information and technology, but a solitary man can still create wealth alone on an island.

Yet still not price-able

This whole idea is seriously woo woo territory. It's like thinking you can cut a cell with a knife because you can cut skin with a knife

[a500lbgorilla]

Correct. More people living together can grow exponentially more wealthy via trade and exchange of information and technology, but a solitary man can still create wealth alone on an island.

I like this sentence. I wish I understood it more deeply.

The solitary man is easy to understand.

But as you add more people, the problem of where this wealth came from becomes obvious. Unless you can trace back all this wealth to renewable (in human terms) springs or infinite (in human terms) resources, I don't follow how more people living together can grow exponentially more wealthy.

[Lyric]

However there are a few points that you have kept hammering away at that stand out to me as being flat out wrong. One of them being the idea that charity can make up for the financial deficit created in the absence of income taxes.

Most of the richest men in the modern era have given away most of their fortunes at the end of their lifetimes. Rockefeller earned 900 million and gave away 550 million before his death.

Carnegie invented the public library, funding 3,000 libraries and funding them with 250,000 to 500,000 dollars each. He promoted spelling and literacy and before him books were not easily accessible to the lower classes. He gave away 351 million before he died, and his last 30 million was donated to charity after his death.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet plan to give away their entire fortunes before they die, and are actively persuading the world's other billionaires to do the same.

The great thing about these guys giving away money is that they are often very shrewd gamblers/assessors to risk and reward. They have a keen mind and use it to put money where it will help society the most. Charities and government may not have the same abilities or strong desires to help the world -- they may be motivated by religion or helping advance political or business agendas.

Most billionaires of the modern era end up giving away much of their fortunes before they die.

[a500lbgorilla]

Most of the richest men in the modern era have given away most of their fortunes at the end of their lifetimes. Rockefeller earned 900 million and gave away 550 million before his death.

Carnegie invented the public library, funding 3,000 libraries and funding them with 250,000 to 500,000 dollars each. He promoted spelling and literacy and before him books were not easily accessible to the lower classes. He gave away 351 million before he died, and his last 30 million was donated to charity after his death.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet plan to give away their entire fortunes before they die, and are actively persuading the world's other billionaires to do the same.

The great thing about these guys giving away money is that they are often very shrewd gamblers/assessors to risk and reward. They have a keen mind and use it to put money where it will help society the most. Charities and government may not have the same abilities or strong desires to help the world -- they may be motivated by religion or helping advance political or business agendas.

Most billionaires of the modern era end up giving away much of their fortunes before they die.

Post more, please.

I was going to make the point that: doesn't that mean it's ok to tax the rich if they all see their wealth as too much but I ran my self through to the conclusion that: if they decide that, let them decide how to spend it, not the people. I can only wonder about the people who become billionaires and do not seek charitable endeavors.

[wufwugy]

Post more, please.

I was going to make the point that: doesn't that mean it's ok to tax the rich if they all see their wealth as too much but I ran my self through to the conclusion that: if they decide that, let them decide how to spend it, not the people. I can only wonder about the people who become billionaires and do not seek charitable endeavors.

The whole charity idea and how some very wealthy people have given away fortunes is rather skewy. It sounds good on the surface, but doesn't work systemically, and if it either did work or was even possible to work, results would almost definitely be different today.

Charity as anything other than a small segment of economic activity is unsustainable and has a much lower multiplier than other known factors like progressive taxation. The numbers also appear much bigger than they really are since most wealth is not as "disposable" as people may think. But really the lack of sustainability is an enormous negative with replacing strong policy with charity

[a500lbgorilla]

The whole charity idea and how some very wealthy people have given away fortunes is rather skewy. It sounds good on the surface, but doesn't work systemically, and if it either did work or was even possible to work, results would almost definitely be different today.

Charity as anything other than a small segment of economic activity is unsustainable and has a much lower multiplier than other known factors like progressive taxation. The numbers also appear much bigger than they really are since most wealth is not as "disposable" as people may think. But really the lack of sustainability is an enormous negative with replacing strong policy with charity

But isn't it also true that if you create an authoritative body to oversee the distribution of resources to the needy based on the demands of voters, that that system also has obvious short comings similar to just hoping the super rich find themselves in a charitable mood?

edit, though I guess I don't have a good sense of how well charity could weigh against gov't programs.

edit edit and even the charities you give the money to are exposed to the similar shortfalls as the gov't. Hmmm.

[Lyric]

The whole charity idea and how some very wealthy people have given away fortunes is rather skewy. It sounds good on the surface, but doesn't work systemically, and if it either did work or was even possible to work, results would almost definitely be different today.

Charity as anything other than a small segment of economic activity is unsustainable and has a much lower multiplier than other known factors like progressive taxation. The numbers also appear much bigger than they really are since most wealth is not as "disposable" as people may think. But really the lack of sustainability is an enormous negative with replacing strong policy with charity

This is nonsense. We are human beings. 90% of us will help others near us if we see them suffering or in need. Rich men generally realize that they get more pleasure from giving away the money instead of spending ever increasing amounts of it, and that makes sense -- after spending a billion dollars, the next 30 billion just doesn't seem so exciting. It would seem like more fun to help people, better the world, and create a lasting positive legacy for your family name.

[boost]

Most of the richest men in the modern era have given away most of their fortunes at the end of their lifetimes. Rockefeller earned 900 million and gave away 550 million before his death.

Carnegie invented the public library, funding 3,000 libraries and funding them with 250,000 to 500,000 dollars each. He promoted spelling and literacy and before him books were not easily accessible to the lower classes. He gave away 351 million before he died, and his last 30 million was donated to charity after his death.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet plan to give away their entire fortunes before they die, and are actively persuading the world's other billionaires to do the same.

The great thing about these guys giving away money is that they are often very shrewd gamblers/assessors to risk and reward. They have a keen mind and use it to put money where it will help society the most. Charities and government may not have the same abilities or strong desires to help the world -- they may be motivated by religion or helping advance political or business agendas.

Most billionaires of the modern era end up giving away much of their fortunes before they die.

You have given four examples, yet have made a truly fantastical claim. I hope you can understand that I do not believe this claim in the least bit.

sidenote: I do have a great amount of respect for the charitable nature of the men mentioned.

[Lyric]

Another underlying concept that seems to support your theories is the idea that having earned an amount of money, it is yours to do with as you please. I can see how you come to this conclusion, but it again is way off base. If we can imagine that only one person existed in the world, we can clearly agree that he is neither rich nor poor. Therefore a person needs society to be rich, and therefore is in debt to society. I understand that this is super simplified and turns economy into a zero sum game...

One man on an island can be rich or poor. He can by lazy -- catching one fish per day and have nothing, or he can work every day and build a comfortable house, clothing, running water, bathrooms and sewage. He can domesticate animals for food, eggs, milk. He can build a small farm and store grains for later use. He can create drugs and medicines by experimenting with plant life and create alcohol by fermenting grains. He can bake bread, and make cheese for long term storage of milk.

He can begin to accumulate wealth on the island even as one man, and enjoy a life of luxury through hard work and storage of food (saving).

[a500lbgorilla]

One man on an island can be rich or poor. He can by lazy -- catching one fish per day and have nothing, or he can work every day and build a comfortable house, clothing, running water, bathrooms and sewage. He can domesticate animals for food, eggs, milk. He can build a small farm and store grains for later use. He can create drugs and medicines by experimenting with plant life and create alcohol by fermenting grains. He can bake bread, and make cheese for long term storage of milk.

He can begin to accumulate wealth on the island even as one man, and enjoy a life of luxury through hard work and storage of food (saving).

Chinese fortune cookie say: Find yourself posting more, good happiness come to all.

[wufwugy]

One man on an island can be rich or poor. He can by lazy -- catching one fish per day and have nothing, or he can work every day and build a comfortable house, clothing, running water, bathrooms and sewage. He can domesticate animals for food, eggs, milk. He can build a small farm and store grains for later use. He can create drugs and medicines by experimenting with plant life and create alcohol by fermenting grains. He can bake bread, and make cheese for long term storage of milk.

He can begin to accumulate wealth on the island even as one man, and enjoy a life of luxury through hard work and storage of food (saving).

Only a fraction of this stuff is possible for one man, would require virtually all his time, and the technology to do so is on the backs of preexisting society. Luxury and wealth really are not ideas that came about until societies began developing elaborately

[Lyric]

Only a fraction of this stuff is possible for one man, would require virtually all his time, and the technology to do so is on the backs of preexisting society. Luxury and wealth really are not ideas that came about until societies began developing elaborately

You're missing the point. A man alone on an island can accumulate wealth with hard work, even without "technology on the backs of preexisting society."

[boost]

One man on an island can be rich or poor. He can by lazy -- catching one fish per day and have nothing, or he can work every day and build a comfortable house, clothing, running water, bathrooms and sewage. He can domesticate animals for food, eggs, milk. He can build a small farm and store grains for later use. He can create drugs and medicines by experimenting with plant life and create alcohol by fermenting grains. He can bake bread, and make cheese for long term storage of milk.

He can begin to accumulate wealth on the island even as one man, and enjoy a life of luxury through hard work and storage of food (saving).

lol.. You cannot be serious? Nearly none of these things are possibly accomplished by one man in one life time. Develop medicines? Really? Do you not recognize how many thousands of years it took people to develop herbal remedies, half of which were not remedies at all but just simply old wives tales. Do you propose that this sole human is just born with the knowledge of basic architecture? How many different styles of homes do you think were created before a given culture found a relatively easy to make and safe one? What happens when Joe Islander twists his ankle after hopping down from harvesting coconuts? Hes dead.. that's what happens.

Even so, we could ignore the absurd claims to Joe's potential accomplishments and just say that he could forage for the bare minimum of fruits/nuts/vegetables per day or he could get a little extra. That little extra would allow him to have some free time in the following day or week. So yes, he can be "richer" to and extent, but just barely. And even if we go back and accept your claims of his potential accomplishments, as wuf said, he still cannot possibly be anywhere near as rich as he could be with a society to prop him up. So while you have technically countered my analogy, you have done so in the weakest fashion. As far as I can see my point still stands.

[Lyric]

lol.. You cannot be serious? Nearly none of these things are possibly accomplished by one man in one life time. Develop medicines? Really? Do you not recognize how many thousands of years it took people to develop herbal remedies, half of which were not remedies at all but just simply old wives tales. Do you propose that this sole human is just born with the knowledge of basic architecture? How many different styles of homes do you think were created before a given culture found a relatively easy to make and safe one? What happens when Joe Islander twists his ankle after hopping down from harvesting coconuts? Hes dead.. that's what happens.

Even so, we could ignore the absurd claims to Joe's potential accomplishments and just say that he could forage for the bare minimum of fruits/nuts/vegetables per day or he could get a little extra. That little extra would allow him to have some free time in the following day or week. So yes, he can be "richer" to and extent, but just barely. And even if we go back and accept your claims of his potential accomplishments, as wuf said, he still cannot possibly be anywhere near as rich as he could be with a society to prop him up. So while you have technically countered my analogy, you have done so in the weakest fashion. As far as I can see my point still stands.

We're talking about a fictitious island where a modern man is shipwrecked, and talking about the possible wealth he may develop on the island alone or with a few other people. It is not relevant to our economics discussion how long it took to develop knowledge of plants, wine making, or architecture. What is relevant is how the men interact and weather or not one man can create and save "wealth" alone on the island.

Regardless of how much wealth he may be able to accumulate, it would be directly related to his intelligence, the amount of labor he put into it each day, his knowledge, and technical and physical skill. It would have nothing to do with other people or taking advantage of anyone.

The more people arrive on the island the better the quality of life will be, in general, as long as they are allowed to exchange the fruits of their labor with each other, as discussed in my other post about how wealth and quality of life exponentially grows with each new person added to the island.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

lol.. You cannot be serious? Nearly none of these things are possibly accomplished by one man in one life time. Develop medicines? Really? Do you not recognize how many thousands of years it took people to develop herbal remedies, half of which were not remedies at all but just simply old wives tales. Do you propose that this sole human is just born with the knowledge of basic architecture? How many different styles of homes do you think were created before a given culture found a relatively easy to make and safe one? What happens when Joe Islander twists his ankle after hopping down from harvesting coconuts? Hes dead.. that's what happens.

Even so, we could ignore the absurd claims to Joe's potential accomplishments and just say that he could forage for the bare minimum of fruits/nuts/vegetables per day or he could get a little extra. That little extra would allow him to have some free time in the following day or week. So yes, he can be "richer" to and extent, but just barely. And even if we go back and accept your claims of his potential accomplishments, as wuf said, he still cannot possibly be anywhere near as rich as he could be with a society to prop him up. So while you have technically countered my analogy, you have done so in the weakest fashion. As far as I can see my point still stands.

You said a man can not be rich or poor if he's alone. Lyric said this isn't true and pointed out how he can be rich or poor. The amount he can do or what he can do was not his point, in fact I'm pretty sure from the points he's making he agrees a man can become much richer when there are more people in society, although I doubt he views this as "society propping him up."

Anyways, my point is that I don't get why you are so seemingly outraged by his answer. I'm also surprised that you think that most people are so dumb that if one was on an island, all he or she could figure out is how to forage for enough berries to survive leaving him 5 minutes to jerk it every once in a while.

[a500lbgorilla]

lol.. You cannot be serious? Nearly none of these things are possibly accomplished by one man in one life time. Develop medicines? Really? Do you not recognize how many thousands of years it took people to develop herbal remedies, half of which were not remedies at all but just simply old wives tales. Do you propose that this sole human is just born with the knowledge of basic architecture? How many different styles of homes do you think were created before a given culture found a relatively easy to make and safe one? What happens when Joe Islander twists his ankle after hopping down from harvesting coconuts? Hes dead.. that's what happens.

Even so, we could ignore the absurd claims to Joe's potential accomplishments and just say that he could forage for the bare minimum of fruits/nuts/vegetables per day or he could get a little extra. That little extra would allow him to have some free time in the following day or week. So yes, he can be "richer" to and extent, but just barely. And even if we go back and accept your claims of his potential accomplishments, as wuf said, he still cannot possibly be anywhere near as rich as he could be with a society to prop him up. So while you have technically countered my analogy, you have done so in the weakest fashion. As far as I can see my point still stands.

To me, this seems like how applicable the island is to reality, because it isn't one man finding himself working hard and creating a home on the first try, nor is he discovering medicines on the first try, but if you have enough mans attempting enough herbal remedies, attempting enough lumber combinations, you will find one wealth creator building homes and one wealth creator making medicines.

This post yields a question that I have: for however much society props him up, what props up society? My answer is that wealth creation leads to the opportunity to govern leads to the creation of society which leads to the opportunity for wealth creation. That every step of the way, order is increased, wealth is increased.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Boost, sorry this got washed away in the midst of tons of posting. I'd like to comment on it.

Danny, I am not well versed in economics, so I am trying to stick to the sidelines here.

However there are a few points that you have kept hammering away at that stand out to me as being flat out wrong. One of them being the idea that charity can make up for the financial deficit created in the absence of income taxes. At best, as I believe Wilbur pointed out, we would have a blotchy landscape of well funded schools with special interest leanings in some regions and woefully underfunded schools in other regions. Or, there could be a central charity (government run? independent? not sure it matters) that would distribute the charitable donations more evenly. Yet I still fail to be convinced that you truly believe that these charitable donations would be enough to fund schools to today's levels (woefully underfunded) much less to the standards that they should be funded.

There would be tons of money to go around to the public school system without income tax. There are tons of unneccessary things the government pays for that should be cut, which would make up for the loss of revenue from income taxes.

You keep suggesting that the window to peoples values is a view of their check book. Yet you are missing a fundamental concept in that when a person becomes rich and can afford the highest private school for his child without even blinking, he has no reason to value a public school system. So without a need, we have no value; without value, we have no charity. So essentially the schooling of the less than rich is left to the less than rich. Maybe you think this is fair, but it just divides the classes further and makes the classes more self perpetuating through the generations than they already are.

I don't think without a need we have no value. I value the the opportunity for children to go through school even though I wouldn't die if it didn't happen. I value gambling without needing to do it. I also disagree with the assessment that schooling the less than rich is up to the less than rich. My high school was very poor, yet ran almost solely on charitable donations of the rich people in the communities money. At the same time, if a hole is there was I assume it was in the past, I think schools can be helped by tax money, as I assume happened.

Another underlying concept that seems to support your theories is the idea that having earned an amount of money, it is yours to do with as you please. I can see how you come to this conclusion, but it again is way off base. If we can imagine that only one person existed in the world, we can clearly agree that he is neither rich nor poor. Therefore a person needs society to be rich, and therefore is in debt to society. I understand that this is super simplified and turns economy into a zero sum game, but I think it proves my point just the same.

A person is much better off with a society to trade with. In fact, everyone is. But a rich person isn't in debt to society. He become rich through the voluntary exchange of money from goods or services he created or helped create. The people who worked for him voluntarily exchanged their time and effort for his money. Everyone is free to end this contract anytime. For example, a chef could stop working for an owner of a restaurant who is making tons of money while the chef doesn't make much and open his own restaurant. But what he will find is that the owner of the restaurant he previously worked for did not just have money fall into his lap because he owned the means of production. He took on a shitload of risk and was able to run his business well, not an easy thing to do.

I think the strongest counter to your argument as a whole is that people pay taxes. If you can claim that, despite being threatened with starvation, the poorest person still has a choice between monsanto and the higher-priced/harder-to-come-by local organic and in making that choice is supporting the practices and ideals of the producer; then the flip side of the coin is that Joe Billionaire is making a choice to pay taxes, and by making that choice is supporting where those taxes go by choice. He is threatened with jail time, and they are threatened with death.

The difference between these two examples is joe billionaire is threatened by force of the state and the poor person is not.

The libertarian house is built on a sandy lot.. it looks like a great place to live, but even the most superficial inspection reveals that the foundation is sinking.

I don't think this is true but there's nothing really to argue here.


side notes: I do not think either of you (max/danny) have rebutted the theory that a strong middle class is necessary for a strong economy and therefore is beneficial to the upper class. That of course goes hand in hand with the theory that a strong middle class is created by social safety nets funded by taxation. As far as I know (and like I said, I am not very well versed in economics) this is theory insomuch as the theory of evolution is theory.

I was not aware that a strong middle class is necessary for a strong economy. I do believe however the middle class would be stronger without taxation and safety nets.

Note this argument I'm about to use is likely flawed because I'm not an economic expert.

Businesses currently pay about 33% of their income in taxes. That's a lot of money. Because less taxes create a more profitable market, more businesses will start up to compete and grab their share. This would add competition to salaries, increasing wages in that industry. Businesses also would have more money to provide health care to their workers. Any owner who decided to hoard this money instead would lose his market to better businesses. Also, because profits are large, goods and services could be offered for cheaper, benefitting the poor.

Also I do not believe either of you have commented on the question about a 100% inheritance tax.

This is my comment. A person who has earned money can do whatever they want with it, including giving it to their children or wife.

[WillburForce]

This is my comment. A person who has earned money can do whatever they want with it, including giving it to their children or wife.

This has been a huge problem in Britain, were we have a long history of classes. Take an upper class familoy as an example - 300 hundred year ago, their great, great etc grandfather fucked over a load of peasants and had a huge estate with a huge stately home.

300 years later his family is still living off that money. All the generations have gone to the best schools in the country, have the best connections and all the trappings of wealth. After school they go to Oxbridge and get a top degree. They go on to become become prime minister using their connections and wealth, reduce taxes (including inhertitance tax of course) and look after there chums who had the same privildges as above.

As for someone like myeslf - I might well be brighter and more motivated than the above person, but due to my great great etc grandfather being one of the people his great, great etc grandfather fucked over all those years ago, I go to a shit school and live on a rough estate. I need to leave school at 16 and get a job to help pay to feed the family....problem is there are no jobs because the prime minsters chums siphoned off all the wealth in the country in some mortgage scheme I don't understand, but has ended up losing my home etc etc

Welcome to England and the unfair weath distributution and why I think we should raise the inheritance tax higher...(obv along with other reasons).

[IowaSkinsFan]

This has been a huge problem in Britain, were we have a long history of classes. Take an upper class familoy as an example - 300 hundred year ago, their great, great etc grandfather fucked over a load of peasants and had a huge estate with a huge stately home.

300 years later his family is still living off that money. All the generations have gone to the best schools in the country, have the best connections and all the trappings of wealth. After school they go to Oxbridge and get a top degree. They go on to become become prime minister using their connections and wealth, reduce taxes (including inhertitance tax of course) and look after there chums who had the same privildges as above.

As for someone like myeslf - I might well be brighter and more motivated than the above person, but due to my great great etc grandfather being one of the people his great, great etc grandfather fucked over all those years ago, I go to a shit school and live on a rough estate. I need to leave school at 16 and get a job to help pay to feed the family....problem is there are no jobs because the prime minsters chums siphoned off all the wealth in the country in some mortgage scheme I don't understand, but has ended up losing my home etc etc

Welcome to England and the unfair weath distributution and why I think we should raise the inheritance tax higher...(obv along with other reasons).

What are some other reasons?

Good counter example. You should certainly do your part and try to not accept money from people who gained it from illegitimate means. However, i think in this case its not that necessary. First, inflation is huge, money gained 300 years ago is not going to be worth as much as it is now. Second, that money has been spent and has been put into to different hands. Its almost certainly the case. The money your actually referring to is likely money that these people gained by perpetuating legitimate uses of their wealth to the benefit of society. Owning property and good investment is a great example of activities that benefit society. They may seem easy and unfair but they are not. Owning property is a gigantic risk, which is why it has a nice reward. Investing is the same thing. Most do not succeed in these endeavors.

Referring to the bolded quote: Youre saying they were able to do shady shit because they are the prime ministers chums, and you want to give the government more power?

[WillburForce]

What are some other reasons?

Good counter example. You should certainly do your part and try to not accept money from people who gained it from illegitimate means. However, i think in this case its not that necessary. First, inflation is huge, money gained 300 years ago is not going to be worth as much as it is now. Second, that money has been spent and has been put into to different hands. Its almost certainly the case. The money your actually referring to is likely money that these people gained by perpetuating legitimate uses of their wealth to the benefit of society. Owning property and good investment is a great example of activities that benefit society. They may seem easy and unfair but they are not. Owning property is a gigantic risk, which is why it has a nice reward. Investing is the same thing. Most do not succeed in these endeavors.

Referring to the bolded quote: Youre saying they were able to do shady shit because they are the prime ministers chums, and you want to give the government more power?

The future generations may well have earned more money through legitimate means, but by having access to better schooling, better health care and a general better roll of the dice it is inheritanly unfair. So whislt yes, the money spent has helped society in a round about way, by having a distinct heirachy, it ensures that sections of society will always be blighted.

To quote L Cohen: "The poor stay poor, the rich get rich, thats how it goes, everybody knows"

Why should my next door neighbours child have a worse education than my child because I have more money? Is my child more deserving?

With regards the government and more power - well I hate the UK's current government and despise all that they stand for and would like to seem them and their Eton chums stripped of all their welth...but I'm a left wing socialist at heart (who also likes to drink Pol Roger and gamble)...

[a500lbgorilla]

This has been a huge problem in Britain, were we have a long history of classes. Take an upper class familoy as an example - 300 hundred year ago, their great, great etc grandfather fucked over a load of peasants and had a huge estate with a huge stately home.

300 years later his family is still living off that money. All the generations have gone to the best schools in the country, have the best connections and all the trappings of wealth. After school they go to Oxbridge and get a top degree. They go on to become become prime minister using their connections and wealth, reduce taxes (including inhertitance tax of course) and look after there chums who had the same privildges as above.

As for someone like myeslf - I might well be brighter and more motivated than the above person, but due to my great great etc grandfather being one of the people his great, great etc grandfather fucked over all those years ago, I go to a shit school and live on a rough estate. I need to leave school at 16 and get a job to help pay to feed the family....problem is there are no jobs because the prime minsters chums siphoned off all the wealth in the country in some mortgage scheme I don't understand, but has ended up losing my home etc etc

Welcome to England and the unfair weath distributution and why I think we should raise the inheritance tax higher...(obv along with other reasons).

But doesn't this kind of make sense that this is how Utopian designs intersect with reality?

That an ancestor does terrible things to guarantee his kin a better lot in life, a better chance to succeed, to cement himself as a strong link in the unbroken chain of life?

We're always going to be people, it's hard for me to imagine righting these wrongs permanently. You could do well to act today and rebalance the game which could endure for hundreds of years, but people will always move to threaten that balance.

I don't like it, but it seems like how it's going to be, to me.

[wufwugy]

It's going to be tough to break down the discussion I've missed so far, but I'll try

This not so hypothetical is one of the main reasons I can't support high taxes on the rich. Let's say someone creates a cure for cancer. He no doubt has spent most of his time, energy, and money researching and developing this cure. He sells it to people with cancer for a very large amount of money and becomes a billionaire. Tell me why this person does not deserve every cent of his billions of dollars.

Because of inequality. Not only is life naturally very unequal, but due to things like finiteness and feedback loops in economics, the scenario you describe furthers inequality. ISF, in all the debate we've had, you've unwittingly been arguing for special rights and totalitarianism. As soon as you replace arbitrary philosophizing with how real society and real econ works, I think you'll begin to realize this. Part of me thinks you may actually agree with special rights and totalitarianism, though. If that's the case then I'll just shut up

I'm not trying to be rude. The majority of people unwittingly support policy that promotes special rights and totalitarianism. The human brain is normally very selfish, and our thoughts reflect that. It's only when we look at the real world evidence that we can begin seeing how the real world actually works


The rest of the post is more general than pointing fingers at any individuals


RE: cure for cancer. It is incredibly rare for private industry to provide much R&D into things like this, and really about anything. Private industry cares about profit above all. R&D is incredibly unprofitable. When the cure for cancer comes, here's what's gonna happen: 1) the vast, vast majority of R&D was public funding i.e. taxes, and 2) pharmaceutical companies are going to jump in ASAP in attempt to acquire as much profit as possible, then eventually everybody will again believe that the private company was responsible for the cure in the first place

Science and technology development is almost entirely publicly funded. Private industry jumps in at the final stages when it's time to create and distribute product. In a "tax-free" utopia, you'll find that advancing technology comes to an abrupt halt. R&D is RIDICULOUSLY expensive, and the one and only way to tackle it is via public funding. Private funding does exist, but it's a small portion of total technological R&D that doesn't revolve around a specific distributable product

The only example I know of when private funding was most important in developing a cure was when the entire nation was scared to death that their kids would become deformed by polio. A rich guy paid Jonas Salk to develop a vaccine, they did, then gave it away for free. A highly rare occurrence, and Salk was already very hard on the heels of the vaccine in the first place

Big fat chance at that happening today. Pharmaceutical companies are too busy robbing old people of hundreds of millions of dollars to do something that actually helps people



RE: deservedness. This idea really needs to be abandoned. It's about as arbitrary as it gets. Let me use the exact same logic used by anybody who believes that deservedness should play a pivotal role in resource acquisition to illustrate why it's silly

What does Isaac Newton deserve? He's the father of physics after all. Without him, Bill Gates would be flipping burgers. Without Newton, there is no Wall Street, no F-22s, no oil refineries. Now, let's quantify how much money Newton (or his offspring because estate taxes are wrong ldo) "deserves" based on the exact same criteria we determine how much Buffet or Gates or the Koch brothers or anybody else "deserves"

After crunching all the unfathomable numbers, would we find that a thousand trillion $$ is way too tiny to cover all that Newton "deserves"? This ideology is arbitrary, unsustainable, irrational, and silly. After we give Newton's estate everything it "deserves" we've created a totalitarian regime.

Deservedness should play some role because it's an important factor in how humans work, but we've taken it waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too far, and created a society where the guy at the right place in the right time with the right parents and right upbringing is worth 53 billion



RE: income taxes. By far the most correct taxes available. Real world society cares about how things actually work, and taxes based on relative social operation capacity and burden are the most fair. Things like flat tax actually disproportionately decrease burden on the luckiest while increasing burden on the unluckiest.

I mean I just don't get this. How is it possible for people to think that somebody who lives at the low end of social structure needs to pay a huge chunk of their worth on taxes, while somebody who lives far above normal social structure shouldn't have to pay as much? People struggling for food pay substantially higher relative taxes than Warren Buffet who couldn't imagine what struggling for food is, unless it's similar to struggling to beat the other guy at the auction for that prized yacht he's gonna add to his collection

Not to mention the self-perpetuating qualities of inequality. The wealthy are supposed to pay a ton in taxes because if they don't then everybody else is born into squalor, then whoosh out the window flies any semblance of free market, equality, or anything other than totalitarianism. And this "ton" in taxes still provides for the wealthy to still live substantially above median and in mansions with hookers and blow and stuff. Also, the kind of wealthy I'm referring to is the mega wealthy. Not the people with a million or so to their name, but the people who make so much they can buy islands. Wasn't 100M the average income of Wall Street CEOs last year? I love how we pay guys to steal from us

No matter how you slice it, the people who acquire more do so with the aid of those who acquire less. No matter how you slice it, the lucky ride on the backs of the unlucky. These factors are not the only at play, but they are among the most significant. When somebody claims you should pick yourself up by you own bootstraps, maybe point out to him that he never did, so why should I



None of this is new information. It's been standard knowledge for quite some time. But just like how there's still creationists, global warming deniers, flat-earthers, alternative medicine hippies, there's still denial of the real evidence and real facts of how society works


Also, I want to add that some people are so rich that they make more by just letting their money sit in the bank than the annual incomes of everybody on this board right now. And they pay substantially lower taxes on it than some illegal immigrants who barely get by. This shit is wrong

[Lyric]

No matter how you slice it, the people who acquire more do so with the aid of those who acquire less. No matter how you slice it, the lucky ride on the backs of the unlucky.

A man who arrives on an island alone and builds a home, farms, makes tools, etc is creating wealth for himself and is not riding on the back of anyone else.

If two men are on the island and one fishes a little and sleeps on the beach, and the other man works hard on the other side of the island, how is the working man riding on the back of the other man?

[wufwugy]

A man who arrives on an island alone and builds a home, farms, makes tools, etc is creating wealth for himself and is not riding on the back of anyone else.

If two men are on the island and one fishes a little and sleeps on the beach, and the other man works hard on the other side of the island, how is the working man riding on the back of the other man?

Still a straw man when compared to modern society. Like, a huge one, at that. You're pretty spot on in your scenario, but its comparison to modern economies is unfounded

[Lyric]

Still a straw man when compared to modern society. Like, a huge one, at that. You're pretty spot on in your scenario, but its comparison to modern economies is unfounded

I've found that analyzing complex problems is easier if it is reduced to its most basic form and building up from there. Understanding is more easily lost if we attempt to start at complex.

We can continue to add people to the island, but the ideas apply to modern society as well as they do here on a two man island. See my above example regarding a legless man and two normal men arriving on the island.

[wufwugy]

I've found that analyzing complex problems is easier if it is reduced to its most basic form and building up from there. Understanding is more easily lost if we attempt to start at complex.

We can continue to add people to the island, but the ideas apply to modern society as well as they do here on a two man island. See my above example regarding a legless man and two normal men arriving on the island.

Your idea of breaking things down is correct, but your application is like understanding microbiology by breaking down cosmology. Modern society and your small island society operate on very different paradigms. Don't kid yourself into thinking you can cross compare to come up with any semblance of a conclusion

[IowaSkinsFan]

Capitalism Magazine - "Francisco's Money Speech"

[a500lbgorilla]

Cool stuff, I feel like I learned something important today. Thanks, Lyric.

Mainly that: wealth is like the opposite of entropy. Entropy is a description of the increasing disorder of all closed systems, wealth is a measure of the "order." I put it in quotes because it isn't a true value but a judged one.

[wufwugy]

Regulation should be viewed like rules and referees in a sporting event. Without it, the game doesn't work, the players are capable of "making their own rules", and getting away with a ton of foul play, etc.

On the flip side, stupid rules and stupid referees can really harm the system. Bring in a rule for the NFL that every fifth step an athlete takes he has to spike the ball then you get something fucking retarded and will ruin the entire thing.

Regulations and intervention are absolutely necessary in order for any economic system, it's just about regulating intelligently. On that point, I watched an interview with chief "de-regulation" libertarian Peter Schiff, and he unwittingly belied his own position by stating "we need less regulation but smarter regulation". Apparently, he either doesn't realize or slipped up in not openly acknowledging that quantity of regulation is inconsequential, but quality is what's important

Libertarians are closet socialists, they just don't know it nor how to implement their ideas correctly. But that's true about most self-identifying conservatives as well. Polling that negates prejudices shows that people who vote all over the political spectrum and claim to have all these different ideas, really don't, and are actually strongly liberal and socialist and all that stuff. The disconnect is primarily in inability to correctly compare politics and policy

[a500lbgorilla]

Regulation should be viewed like rules and referees in a sporting event. Without it, the game doesn't work, the players are capable of "making their own rules", and getting away with a ton of foul play, etc.

On the flip side, stupid rules and stupid referees can really harm the system. Bring in a rule for the NFL that every fifth step an athlete takes he has to spike the ball then you get something fucking retarded and will ruin the entire thing.

Regulations and intervention are absolutely necessary in order for any economic system, it's just about regulating intelligently. On that point, I watched an interview with chief "de-regulation" libertarian Peter Schiff, and he unwittingly belied his own position by stating "we need less regulation but smarter regulation". Apparently, he either doesn't realize or slipped up in not openly acknowledging that quantity of regulation is inconsequential, but quality is what's importantly

This is how I feel the free market need collide with reality right now. But I can't really say I fully understand either the free market or reality.

[Lyric]

Regulation should be viewed like rules and referees in a sporting event. Without it, the game doesn't work, the players are capable of "making their own rules", and getting away with a ton of foul play, etc.

On the flip side, stupid rules and stupid referees can really harm the system. Bring in a rule for the NFL that every fifth step an athlete takes he has to spike the ball then you get something fucking retarded and will ruin the entire thing.

Regulations and intervention are absolutely necessary in order for any economic system, it's just about regulating intelligently. On that point, I watched an interview with chief "de-regulation" libertarian Peter Schiff, and he unwittingly belied his own position by stating "we need less regulation but smarter regulation". Apparently, he either doesn't realize or slipped up in not openly acknowledging that quantity of regulation is inconsequential, but quality is what's important

Libertarians are closet socialists, they just don't know it nor how to implement their ideas correctly. But that's true about most self-identifying conservatives as well. Polling that negates prejudices shows that people who vote all over the political spectrum and claim to have all these different ideas, really don't, and are actually strongly liberal and socialist and all that stuff. The disconnect is primarily in inability to correctly compare politics and policy

We need referees to make sure no one is stealing or knocking over market tables or putting up roadblocks or extorting money from people. We don't need referees to do 99% of the things regulators currently do.

People generally care about the welfare of others who they consider to be similar to them and are near them. Socialists, libertarians, and conservatives all care about the general welfare. Socialists want to force people to do certain things with their money, conservatives generally want to force people to do certain things with their morality, and libertarians generally want to force people to avoid robbing, murdering or enslaving their neighbors.

[wufwugy]

We need referees to make sure no one is stealing or knocking over market tables or putting up roadblocks or extorting money from people. We don't need referees to do 99% of the things regulators currently do.

If this were actually true then history would be different. You can't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining, likewise you can't leverage a system, watch as it crashes due to the leveraging, then claim it wasn't because of leveraging. I can't believe the bullshit people buy. When you purchase a car you would go apeshit if it didn't have the tons of regulations in place that keep you from crashing, yet magically when liars tell you the economy needs no regulations you just hand them your wallet

With that, I'm done with this topic. I can only handle so much illusion and stalwart ignorance of the facts. Do some actual research on the real economy instead of repeating fairy tales

This is actually beginning to become a Poe, but I know it's not

[Lyric]

If this were actually true then history would be different. You can't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining, likewise you can't leverage a system, watch as it crashes due to the leveraging, then claim it wasn't because of leveraging. I can't believe the bullshit people buy. When you purchase a car you would go apeshit if it didn't have the tons of regulations in place that keep you from crashing, yet magically when liars tell you the economy needs no regulations you just hand them your wallet

With that, I'm done with this topic. I can only handle so much illusion and stalwart ignorance of the facts. Do some actual research on the real economy instead of repeating fairy tales

This is actually beginning to become a Poe, but I know it's not

Auto safety and technology came along well before the government got involved. I would be happy to pay $2,000 (avg cost added by regulations to each car) less for my car if the gov't stepped out of the way. Volvo was making safe cars and advertising that to people before the gov't mandated it. Today many auto makers are making vehicles that sense a crash and apply the brakes, and are introducing new safety features at a breakneck pace because that's what car buyers value. The government does not have to force them to install these technologies!

The government being involved only makes the process slower and makes it cost more.

[a500lbgorilla]

Auto safety and technology came along well before the government got involved. I would be happy to pay $2,000 (avg cost added by regulations to each car) less for my car if the gov't stepped out of the way. Volvo was making safe cars and advertising that to people before the gov't mandated it. Today many auto makers are making vehicles that sense a crash and apply the brakes, and are introducing new safety features at a breakneck pace because that's what car buyers value. The government does not have to force them to install these technologies!

The government being involved only makes the process slower and makes it cost more.

Where does the 2k number come from?

[CoccoBill]

Auto safety and technology came along well before the government got involved. I would be happy to pay $2,000 (avg cost added by regulations to each car) less for my car if the gov't stepped out of the way. Volvo was making safe cars and advertising that to people before the gov't mandated it. Today many auto makers are making vehicles that sense a crash and apply the brakes, and are introducing new safety features at a breakneck pace because that's what car buyers value. The government does not have to force them to install these technologies!

The government being involved only makes the process slower and makes it cost more.

You're using confirmation bias to prove your point. Let's phrase your argument another way: "Only Volvo was making safe cars and advertising that to people before the gov't mandated it". That is exactly why regulation is needed; to ensure that ALL manufactured cars are safe, not just some variably sized sample of them, who decide to use that as their competing edge and marketing strategy. This in itself demonstrates, that safety is not something the auto industry is automatically interested in, unless enough people die for the general populace to notice and start boycotting them, or the government steps in. Even with regulation in place you can be sure that the mass models on the lower end of their product spectrum aim to just barely achieve the minimum baseline, since anything over that eats into their profits, ie. is bad business.

[surviva316]

lyric, you can't be serious about being so stubborn with how your 5-man island is even remotely comparable to modern economics (not to mention the fact that the "if a gov't were formed where the rich guy had to cut up his assets evenly amongst the lazy asses, then the rich guy wouldn't work anymore" thing trying to be analogous with progressive taxes is a retardedly obvious strawman).

drop bill gates on the island. boom, all he has to do is donate 1% of his billions of fish and everyone is fed for the rest of their lives and NO ONE has to work again, so who gives a shit about motivation. that's just an example (and far from the best one) as to how this scenario isn't analogous at all.

one could argue (and that's as far as I'm willing to say, 'cause even the statement to follow is arguable, especially considering YOU'RE the one arguing that humans are so naturally nice and charitable) that in your scenario where the other four islanders eat solely of the fish provided by the hard-working islander, then both sides would be de-incentivized. again, this has nothing to do with progressive taxation, though. let's say mark zuckerburg were to have a magic crystal ball, and he simoltaneously lived in two different worlds:

World 1) he makes 2 billion dollars off of his pet project called Facebook.

World 2) he makes 1 billion dollars off of his pet project because the rest has been taxed off.

according to your island "analogy", in world 1 zuckerburg's like ZOMFG YEAH SNAPCALL! I'M GONNA WORK MY BUNS OFF FOR THIS PROJECT, and in world 2 he's like "fuck that, i don't wanna be a billionaire, if there's free money out there to be spent, i'm gonna fake a crack addiction like dennis and dee did in that one episode and live off of enough money to feed myself with mac n chz and live in a studio apartment the rest of my life. FREE MONEY FOR THE WIN!"

this is only point one of how your analogy is an exaggeration at the very very very very best: for the 10th time, wuf's not talking about rich people like the small business owner who's raking 500k a year or durrr or anything liek that, he's talking people who have so much money that if you were to decimate it, you still would have nfi what to fucking spend all that much money on--it's unfathomable.

maybe it's tough to conceptualize as a poker player, because if your inverse equity in a pot (in other words, risk of ruin in the business world) were to be the same, yet the amount you stand to win (or how much net worth your company can have after taxes, etc) were to be cut in 1/2, then you would be VERY de-incentivized to get involved in that pot. EV's don't work like that in the real world, though. if a magic genie were to pop up and grant you a wish and you ask for $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 and the genie's like, "wait you said $100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, right?" and you'd be like "i think you missed a zero, thus fucking DECIMATING how much money i get in this deal, yet i don't care because it's still more money than i can use or even generations of my family can possibly use, so sure i'll take it"

again, pointing out how the proportionality in your argument doesn't match up, isn't even the biggest incongruity to be pointed out in your analogy. things like, the fact that this society is too small to even necessitate currency, much less banks, much less credit, much less legacies of debt, and that assets and value are simply and purely based in how much edible shit you got, etc etc etc are even much bigger glaring differences.

e.g. explain to me the recent financial crisis in the terms of your hypothetical island and explain to me which governmental system, or lack thereof would do best to prevent/alleviate/recover from it. in b4 an lolable post that's like "surely if they don't band together and make a gov't and just keep it a free flowing market, then that'll prevent the rich guy from making risky investments on the armless guy's sharpened stick and sell it to the legless guy..."

[IowaSkinsFan]

drop bill gates on the island. boom, all he has to do is donate 1% of his billions of fish and everyone is fed for the rest of their lives and NO ONE has to work again, so who gives a shit about motivation. that's just an example (and far from the best one) as to how this scenario isn't analogous at all.

Actually, your example is impossible, and totally unanalogous to the real world. bill gates doesnt have a billion fish. And they dont just magically appear to him. This is what I think is the biggest disconnect between progressive liberals and libertarians. Libertarians look at a rich man and sees he earned his wealth. Liberals see that it magically appeared to him. Yet, in cases where it magically appears to the rich, the power of the government had a role to play. Nonetheless, you want to give the government more power?

[Numbr2intheWorld]

Actually, your example is impossible, and totally unanalogous to the real world. bill gates doesnt have a billion fish. And they dont just magically appear to him. This is what I think is the biggest disconnect between progressive liberals and libertarians. Libertarians look at a rich man and sees he earned his wealth. Liberals see that it magically appeared to him. Yet, in cases where it magically appears to the rich, the power of the government had a role to play. Nonetheless, you want to give the government more power?

QFT

[surviva316]

Actually, your example is impossible, and totally unanalogous to the real world. bill gates doesnt have a billion fish. And they dont just magically appear to him. This is what I think is the biggest disconnect between progressive liberals and libertarians. Libertarians look at a rich man and sees he earned his wealth. Liberals see that it magically appeared to him. Yet, in cases where it magically appears to the rich, the power of the government had a role to play. Nonetheless, you want to give the government more power?

my post had very little to do, if at all with my view of the world and was simply demonstrating that lyric's island analogy that he was so certain could solve all the complex problems of economics was incongruous because, for one reason, the proportionality of wealth demonstrated is way off. in other words, bill gates doesn't just have 4 fish and he shares 2 of those--one each--with his other two island comrades, and is left with 2 fish, the exact equal amount as the other islanders.

i'm not AT ALLLLLLL even coming close to even trying to bring into the example how the bill gates islander come upon these fish or whether his work was legitimately a million times more deserving than the others, etc. in fact, scratching this issue only goes further to prove my point that the island scenario isn't comparable to modern economics, regardless of whether or not you think bill gates' wealth is deserved or not.

point is, for the purpose of my post, i don't give a shit whether it's deserved or not.

[Lyric]

lyric, you can't be serious about being so stubborn with how your 5-man island is even remotely comparable to modern economics (not to mention the fact that the "if a gov't were formed where the rich guy had to cut up his assets evenly amongst the lazy asses, then the rich guy wouldn't work anymore" thing trying to be analogous with progressive taxes is a retardedly obvious strawman).

drop bill gates on the island. boom, all he has to do is donate 1% of his billions of fish and everyone is fed for the rest of their lives and NO ONE has to work again, so who gives a shit about motivation. that's just an example (and far from the best one) as to how this scenario isn't analogous at all."

Dropping bill gates onto our island isn't applicable. First, you're assuming that there is so much wealth being horded by the ultra wealthy that if we just took all their money and gave it to everyone we wold all be rich. That is not the case; each American would have a net worth of about $20,000 if we did that in the United States which is hardly enough to retire and live a happy life.

There is no Bill Gates in the world with enough money to do that, even if we divided all wealth on earth equally.

Second, I am not arguing against progressive income tax. I am arguing against an income tax in the first place; when a government taxes the income of the wealthy more than everyone else it is analogous to the islanders taxing the hard working islander and not themselves. I don't see how this is a straw man; I think it is a valid argument against an income tax. A straw man argument involves painting an inaccurate picture of your argument and tearing it apart; I think five men on an island is directly comparable to the world we live in today.

Please continue with why you think it does not apply; Gates can't work because there is no analogous situation in the real world -- not enough wealth to affect the poor in the same way that Gates would be able to affect islanders.

[Lyric]

things like, the fact that this society is too small to even necessitate currency, much less banks, much less credit, much less legacies of debt, and that assets and value are simply and purely based in how much edible shit you got, etc etc etc are even much bigger glaring differences.

Assets and value on the island relate to tools, houses, weapons, medicines, drugs, alcohol, services (labor) and food. All of them have values, not just the food. The point is to make it easy to understand, and we con proceed with five people to create a bank and currency. We can also have credit and debt.

[Lyric]

e.g. explain to me the recent financial crisis in the terms of your hypothetical island and explain to me which governmental system, or lack thereof would do best to prevent/alleviate/recover from it. in b4 an lolable post that's like "surely if they don't band together and make a gov't and just keep it a free flowing market, then that'll prevent the rich guy from making risky investments on the armless guy's sharpened stick and sell it to the legless guy..."

The recent financial crisis was caused by two extraordinary popular delusions. The first was the stock market internet mania, the second was the housing mania. Both supported by government interventions -- it restricts the average person to investing in stocks, bonds, and mutual funds, which creates abnormal demand for stocks and moves investments away from hedge funds.

The housing bubble was supported by laws literally forcing banks to make bad loans to poor people who would probably not be able to make the payments, government endorsed low interest rates, reduced taxes for people who have mortgage loans, and loan guarantees by Freddie and Fanny.

These bubbles have existed since the beginning of time. Check out a book titled "Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds" for a good historical rundown. You've probably heard about tulip mania in Holland, but this stuff happens over and over again.

It could happen on an island as well, but without government support and intervention, it would be shorter and smaller.

The "bailout" was even more unconscionable, taking millions of our dollars and handing them over to the banks. It's a giant mess and the government is in the middle of the whole thing -- forcing banks to make bad loans and then keeping them alive when they die because of the bad loans.

There is no way to stop bubbles and manias, but the best option we have is to avoid having the government support some businesses instead of others, as they do with the modern mutual fund and home loan businesses -- without those supports bubbles are less likely and less severe.

Additionally, the Fed -- a pseudo government agency, is responsible for bubbles and crashes to some extent as well when it manipulates interest rates and the money supply. This is a complex subject, but our island analogy will help us understand it on its most basic level.

We don't need a government to have currencies and banks. On an island one man could set up a strong stone building and start a bank that would issue currency. There are two ways to do it. Remember that the purpose of money is to make it easier for people to trade -- uniform small chunks of wealth = money.

1. The banker can take things of value and hold them in his stone building, issuing chunks of gold corresponding to the value of the item. He would effectively be "buying" your wheel of cheese and giving you gold in small pieces in exchange. This doesn't work very well because many wheels of cheese and wine and so forth are stuck in the bank instead of being enjoyed by the people. Additionally, he can't put your house that you spent the last year building into his bank -- he needs a better solution.

2. The solution is to purchase the home you built with a loan agreement. He agrees to loan you gold corresponding to the value of your house and you agree that he owns the house until you pay him back. In this way he effectively trades gold for your home on paper, and you continue to live in the house, enjoying its value, but you can also spend the money. In this way we have money and things of value on the island at the same time.

We can also create a paper currency on the island but it is more complex; the simple form of paper would be the banker issuing certificates of deposit, denominated in anything of value. It could be cheese denominated -- the currency could say "five pounds of cheese." It would mean that the note entitles you to go to the bank and get five pounds of cheese for the piece of paper.

In the past we used gold in this way. Today we don't use anything -- the banker can print as much money as he wishes and we have no way to stop him and no idea what his currency is really worth, all we can do is watch how much money he is spending and assume that he's printing more than he holds in his stone hut -- which is the situation with our current system.

[wufwugy]

The recent financial crisis was caused by two extraordinary popular delusions. The first was the stock market internet mania, the second was the housing mania. Both supported by government interventions -- it restricts the average person to investing in stocks, bonds, and mutual funds, which creates abnormal demand for stocks and moves investments away from hedge funds.

The housing bubble was supported by laws literally forcing banks to make bad loans to poor people who would probably not be able to make the payments, government endorsed low interest rates, reduced taxes for people who have mortgage loans, and loan guarantees by Freddie and Fanny.

Ho

Lee

Shit

Ladies and gentlemen, the definition of brainwashed.

In other news, burning coal is the only way to keep vegetation alive, women showing too much skin causes earthquakes, and masturbation is a sin.

I really have no words. There are literally zero credible professional economists who think that the above, as well as most of what you say, is true. You don't see it because you don't want to. As it is in most other cases of people adamantly holding ridiculous positions, no argument, no demonstration of fact, nothing, can change their position.


I must commend you on your expert Poe, however. It's nearly impossible to tell if you're real or parody, so good job there

[Lyric]

I really have no words. There are literally zero credible professional economists who think that the above, as well as most of what you say, is true. You don't see it because you don't want to. As it is in most other cases of people adamantly holding ridiculous positions, no argument, no demonstration of fact, nothing, can change their position.

"The problem was that not only were these mortgages based on housing prices inflated by the Federal Reserve's low-interest rate policies, many of the home buyers had been granted mortgages under federal government pressures on lenders to lend to people who would not ordinarily qualify, whether because of low income, bad credit history or other factors likely to make them bigger credit risks.
This was not something that federal regulatory agencies permitted. It was something that federal regulatory agencies -- under pressure from politicians -- pressured and threatened lenders into doing in the name of "affordable housing."
The housing market collapse was set off when the Federal Reserve returned interest rates to more normal levels, but it was a financial house of cards that was due to collapse, sending shock waves through the economy. It was just a matter of when, not if."

--THOMAS SOWELL, PHD Economics, senior fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He graduated from Harvard University in 1958, magna cum laude with a BA in Economics. He received his masters in Economics from Columbia University in 1959, and PHD in Economics from the University of Chicago. He has taught Economics at Howard University, Cornell University, Brandeis University, and UCLA.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

"The problem was that not only were these mortgages based on housing prices inflated by the Federal Reserve's low-interest rate policies, many of the home buyers had been granted mortgages under federal government pressures on lenders to lend to people who would not ordinarily qualify, whether because of low income, bad credit history or other factors likely to make them bigger credit risks.
This was not something that federal regulatory agencies permitted. It was something that federal regulatory agencies -- under pressure from politicians -- pressured and threatened lenders into doing in the name of "affordable housing."
The housing market collapse was set off when the Federal Reserve returned interest rates to more normal levels, but it was a financial house of cards that was due to collapse, sending shock waves through the economy. It was just a matter of when, not if."

--THOMAS SOWELL, PHD Economics, senior fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He graduated from Harvard University in 1958, magna cum laude with a BA in Economics. He received his masters in Economics from Columbia University in 1959, and PHD in Economics from the University of Chicago. He has taught Economics at Howard University, Cornell University, Brandeis University, and UCLA.

Come on, Stanford? Harvard? Magna Cum Laude in Economics? This can't possibly be right.

[wufwugy]

"The problem was that not only were these mortgages based on housing prices inflated by the Federal Reserve's low-interest rate policies, many of the home buyers had been granted mortgages under federal government pressures on lenders to lend to people who would not ordinarily qualify, whether because of low income, bad credit history or other factors likely to make them bigger credit risks.
This was not something that federal regulatory agencies permitted. It was something that federal regulatory agencies -- under pressure from politicians -- pressured and threatened lenders into doing in the name of "affordable housing."
The housing market collapse was set off when the Federal Reserve returned interest rates to more normal levels, but it was a financial house of cards that was due to collapse, sending shock waves through the economy. It was just a matter of when, not if."

--THOMAS SOWELL, PHD Economics, senior fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He graduated from Harvard University in 1958, magna cum laude with a BA in Economics. He received his masters in Economics from Columbia University in 1959, and PHD in Economics from the University of Chicago. He has taught Economics at Howard University, Cornell University, Brandeis University, and UCLA.

I said credible professional economists. Not a political professional Senior Fellow of a conservative think tank

There's a whole lot of people with academic economic history or positions. Some of them are credible, some of them are politicians or politically motivated. Make sure to distinguish between the two



Oh wait no you're right, the big bad gubmint forced the banks to bribe politicians like Rubin and Gramm to undo the regulations keeping them from merging commercial and speculative banking, the big bad gubmint forced the banks to bribe the SEC to release regulations keeping them from capping derivative leverage, the big bad gubmint forced the banks to sneak around insurance law by devising credit default swaps, and the big bad gubmint forced the banks to bet against the mortgages

Utter hogwash.

Besides, the banks own the fucking Fed anyways. You've bought propaganda, and the big bad gubmint is the scapegoat

[Numbr2intheWorld]

As has been stated many times over in this thread, if someone is mega wealthy, it probably means that many people have voluntarily exchanged money with them or their company in exchange for a good or service. Especially people that everyone seems to be using as examples, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Zuckerburg, etc. We use Windows because it allows us to know that our computer will be compatible with any new technology that comes up. We use facebook because it allows us to connect with people we could have never connected with before. If you don't want to use these things, you are perfectly free to do so. But what you're saying is you want to pay these people for these awesome services, then take the money, that we all voluntarily paid them, back.

You're trying to have your cake and eat it to.

[WillburForce]

good debate BTW.

[wufwugy]

You guys are going to have to forgive me, I get very irritated at this point in an economics "debate" with libertarian ideas. I'm not trying to be mean, but libertarianism, no matter how much sense it may make to any given person, is about as accurate an understanding of econ as flat-earth is of geography. Making the correct points only to get hand-waved aside by robot drivel is disheartening. Some of what has been posted has been okay, but the stuff that is irritating me is also some of the best potential econ Poe I've seen. So I'll just go ahead stop trying to argue about it

I say "debate" because this isn't a debate. Arguing against taxation as a role in econ is like arguing against gravity as a role in physics. It's just not freaking possible.

Zero percent of the time can you live in a system that isn't run on government. Zero percent of the time can you be involved in any system not determined by regulations. Zero percent of the time can you live in modern society without taxation. These things are just not possible. A lot of the disconnect comes from simply misunderstanding what things like "government", "regulation", and "taxation" mean. Libertarianism unwittingly misunderstands basic concepts and science then they fabricate make-believe fantasy worlds where things that are not even possible magically exist.

As much as libertarians wish they were arguing for lower/no taxes or reduced/no government, they're unwittingly arguing for regressive taxation and special government. You cannot find one single large society in the history of the planet that didn't run on taxation, and 100% of the time the society perpetuated for some time with an effective regressive taxation model, the society became more and more totalitarian; on the flip side, when progressive taxation is pushed, the society becomes more egalitarian.

[Lyric]

You guys are going to have to forgive me, I get very irritated at this point in an economics "debate" with libertarian ideas. I'm not trying to be mean, but libertarianism, no matter how much sense it may make to any given person, is about as accurate an understanding of econ as flat-earth is of geography. Making the correct points only to get hand-waved aside by robot drivel is disheartening. Some of what has been posted has been okay, but the stuff that is irritating me is also some of the best potential econ Poe I've seen. So I'll just go ahead stop trying to argue about it

I say "debate" because this isn't a debate. Arguing against taxation as a role in econ is like arguing against gravity as a role in physics. It's just not freaking possible.

Zero percent of the time can you live in a system that isn't run on government. Zero percent of the time can you be involved in any system not determined by regulations. Zero percent of the time can you live in modern society without taxation. These things are just not possible. A lot of the disconnect comes from simply misunderstanding what things like "government", "regulation", and "taxation" mean. Libertarianism unwittingly misunderstands basic concepts and science then they fabricate make-believe fantasy worlds where things that are not even possible magically exist.

As much as libertarians wish they were arguing for lower/no taxes or reduced/no government, they're unwittingly arguing for regressive taxation and special government. You cannot find one single large society in the history of the planet that didn't run on taxation, and 100% of the time the society perpetuated for some time with an effective regressive taxation model, the society became more and more totalitarian; on the flip side, when progressive taxation is pushed, the society becomes more egalitarian.

What is "special government?"

A flat tax is not a regressive tax.

An island with five men can exist without taxation indefinitely. How big does the island economy have to get before taxation is necessary? The five men have no government. How big does it have to get before it needs a government?

I think these are fascinating ideas to ponder; I'm curious as to why you don't bother to elaborate on anything, instead choosing ad hominem attacks against libertarians in general, and proclaiming that economies are so complex that no one can understand them except perhaps Krugman.

It seems clear to me that you are repeating what you have learned in school; you don't seem willing or able to engage in a discussion about basic wealth creation and exchange between real people in a simple economy.

There is a lot of talk about taxation being as basic as gravity, but no evidence offered for why this might be true. You speak of libertarianism leading to horrible things but don't offer any evidence or even a basic argument. I would invite you to begin with arguments instead of brushing valid analogies aside as overly simplistic because they do not fit your world view.

[a500lbgorilla]

As much as libertarians wish they were arguing for lower/no taxes or reduced/no government, they're unwittingly arguing for regressive taxation and special government. You cannot find one single large society in the history of the planet that didn't run on taxation, and 100% of the time the society perpetuated for some time with an effective regressive taxation model, the society became more and more totalitarian; on the flip side, when progressive taxation is pushed, the society becomes more egalitarian.

I want to know more about this.

[wufwugy]

I want to know more about this.

My references to taxation are not about any specific tax code, but about collective social and economic activity that creates different levels of effective taxation on different classes. Even without an explicit tax collection criteria (which is still unheard of in any large society) it's about power distribution and how that itself effects into economic taxation.

Policy that effects into regressive taxation consolidates power into the special, policy that effects into progressive taxation redistributes power into the general. The effects are also strongly perpetual until a massive jolt like rebellion from the general (like what happened back in 1776) or trickery from the special (like modern corporatism). When power pushes towards consolidation into the special, things like human rights and free market and all that go by the wayside due to the general being born into powerless enough positions. When power pushes towards redistribution into the general, that trend reverses, and the gap between lucky/unlucky tightens.

When it boils down to it, the reason real taxation on what people "earn" is paramount is because the deservedness "system" is imbalanced, and if we don't artificially push power towards those who don't "deserve" it, we've inadvertently created an oligarchy where the vast majority of people born into the society do so with less rights and opportunity than average

[wufwugy]

When it boils down to it, the reason real taxation on what people "earn" is paramount is because the deservedness "system" is imbalanced, and if we don't artificially push power towards those who don't "deserve" it, we've inadvertently created an oligarchy where the vast majority of people born into the society do so with less rights and opportunity than average

This point really needs to be hit. I'm not sure how many people realize that in the US, average wealth is substantially higher than median wealth. This is a regressive society where the majority of kids are born into a position below average and a handful of special kids are born into a position above average. A primary purpose of progressive taxation is to tighten the gap so it becomes fair for those who haven't even been born yet.

Puts a taint on the deservedness idea, doesn't it? When everybody gets to keep too much of what they "earned", future generations suffer

[Lyric]

This point really needs to be hit. I'm not sure how many people realize that in the US, average wealth is substantially higher than median wealth. This is a regressive society where the majority of kids are born into a position below average and a handful of special kids are born into a position above average. A primary purpose of progressive taxation is to tighten the gap so it becomes fair for those who haven't even been born yet.

Puts a taint on the deservedness idea, doesn't it? When everybody gets to keep too much of what they "earned", future generations suffer

Who decides how much is "too much," and why do you think you are entitled to any of the cheese I make with my own two hands? Why do other islanders have a right to go into my hut and take my wine and cheese that I made with my own labor?

The island would be defined as "regressive" in your view as well, because the prolific worker would skew the average wealth higher than the median wealth, even on a five man island.

[boost]

Ok, so at some point one of you said "well the government should pay for schools through taxation, its the other stuff that they waste tax dollars on that takes away from school funding."

So I'd like a list of areas it is acceptable for the gov't to spend tax money.

In advance I would just like to point out that whatever area it is not ok (in your libertarian view) for the gov't to spend tax money on, I'll just plug into my previous argument wherever "school" was used.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Ok, so at some point one of you said "well the government should pay for schools through taxation, its the other stuff that they waste tax dollars on that takes away from school funding."

So I'd like a list of areas it is acceptable for the gov't to spend tax money.

In advance I would just like to point out that whatever area it is not ok (in your libertarian view) for the gov't to spend tax money on, I'll just plug into my previous argument wherever "school" was used.

I don't think I can provide you with a list, it would take too much time for me to look at everything. I find very little of it to be ideal. There are some things, such as public transportation and public schools which I find acceptable.