We have been discussing the tax policies of President Francois Hollande’s Socialist government — a record that I have criticized as ruinous from an economic standpoint. A recent report indicates that for some high-earning families — more than 8,000 — the Hollande policies impose a 100% tax. It is the ultimate “eat the rich” policy. Even for those families facing a 75% rate, it is unclear why they would continue to work in the country. Many are not. France is experiencing a flight of both high earners and companies.
The bizarre 100% tax is the result of a one-off levy last year on 2011 incomes for households with assets of more than 1.3 million euros ($1.67 million). The surcharge was imposed shortly after Hollande took office on a promise to hit the rich with high taxes. The Hollande 75% direct tax was so unfair that the Constitutional Council struck it down. However, this report states that the one-off levy effectively pushed some families to a 100% tax.
The newspaper Les Echos found that nearly 12,000 households paid taxes last year worth more than 75 percent of their 2011 revenues due to the exceptional levy. ($1 = 0.7798 euros).
Putting aside how many families are impacted by taxes above 75%, it is in my view an insane, self-destructive economic policy for France. I just spent an evening with a friend and his parents discussing the situation in France. This is a moderate family politically that has long fished in French waters. My friend is now an American citizen but his parents and family remain in France. They recounted how they had to destroy half of their ships because of taxes. They are seeing other businesses doing the same or simply moving out of France. These a patriotic and proud French people but they are watching their government cannibalize off the economy. The government is getting instant revenue while killing revenue producing businesses. It is like eating the grapes and roots of the vineyards of Bordeaux for food and leaving the fields barren.
As someone who truly loves visiting France, it is disheartening to watch Hollande’s cultural war on the wealthy. I favor higher taxes as part of a comprehensive package of reforms in this country and other countries. However, Hollande’s expressed hatred of the rich resulted in a political success and now an economic disaster. It is also grossly unfair to wealth French who love their country and are not opposed to making sacrifices. Hollande played the class card and told the French that their problems were due to a sinister upper class rather than France’s high labor costs and burgeoning budgets. Even if one dismisses this study and the one-year levy, there are still many thousands of families and businesses who face a government demanding 75 percent tax rates.
These policies however will only lengthen the economic crisis. Indeed, France is already viewed as a hostile country for business and that is likely to continue under Hollande who is fighting the French judges to impose taxes higher than what is viewed as constitutional or fair by the courts.
Source: Reuters
Blouise: I was thinking in the sense that whether you practice 90 hours or zero hours, all that matters to the audience is the result on stage. If a musician fumbles through their performance, the audience doesn’t give them extra credit for having practiced really hard. And I think that, as in singing, if a musician just doesn’t have the aptitude, no amount of practice can make them a virtuoso.
What part of “syncretic” and “in practice” escapes you, David?
Besides all of it.
And by all means quote Sowell (via Donald, Tulsa), that darling of the Austrian School, who is barely an economist much less a political scientist. That’s the fallacy of appeal to authority writ large. He’s not an authority on political science. I’m willing to bet the anonymous “Tom, London” isn’t an expert either, nor is the pseudonymous “Eustace Tuttle” or “Stuart from Manchester”. However, I am. I didn’t need to show you Wiki as proof, I showed it as an example illustrating that you don’t even know the encyclopedic definition of fascism. You don’t even know the dictionary definition as pointed out above by OS. And let’s see what the OED says about it:
fascism /ˈfaʃɪz(ə)m, -sɪz(ə)m/, n.,
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization: (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices:
One cannot by definition be a democratic socialist (a center left position) let alone an egalitarian and be a fascist. Your attempt at epithet fails as badly as your made up definition.
Don’t quote non-experts as your authority and compound the error by relying upon blog comments as a source of legitimate authority because they happen to agree with your misconceptions. That’s cherry picking.
It’s bad form and a double fallacy to boot.
The diverse opinion on the roots of fascism are an inherent result of the syncretic nature of the ideology.
There is no debate among political science experts that fascism is far right in application.
Try again.
Gene H –
Surely by now you realize that I am well aware of dictionary definitions and encyclopedic entries regarding fascism before you even present them here in this forum. I do not lightly say that I disagree with someone as knowledgeable as you. I say that I disagree to point out that I am one of those who disagrees with the dictionary and common viewpoint held by most of society. To be quite frank, your failure to recognize the debate about fascism and where I am in that debate makes me question exactly who you are and your ability to understand the diversity of opinions that exist in this world.
Mussolini defined fascism through various writings that certainly attempted to move people away from what we think of as the left and toward the right. No doubt about it. However, he also tempered this with comments that fascism does not necessarily have to go toward the right. The fact also still remains that both Mussolini and Hitler were socialists before they moved toward fascism. These men were left leaning individuals who tired of how democracy put the focus on the individual and they experimented with the idea of making the good of the State the supreme goal. It is self evident that democracy weakens a State by the nature of so many competing voices. They wanted a strong State, so they departed from democracy and embraced fascism, and the language of Mussolini to define the doctrine of fascism was particularly strong toward moving people away from the liberalism, socialism, and democracy of the 18th century. Mussolini made fascism a religion more than a political system. At its core is the idea that the State trumps all rights of the individual. The individual rights exist only by virtue of how they help the State. Mussolini wanted people to have a religious fervor of nationalism for their country and be willing to sacrifice life itself for it.
A broad perspective of fascism is not just the Italian Mussolini concept of it, but it incorporates the core idea of fascism which is the collective being the goal and purpose rather than the individual. As such, fascism is not at all right leaning or left leaning. It depends upon the context. I understand that you see it different, and that anybody who disagrees with you is an idiot and just plain wrong.
Gene H –
One more thing.
In my lifetime, President Obama is the most fascist of any President that I have known. Never before had I seen schools putting up pictures of the President in the classrooms like I have seen with this man. I never before saw school children singing songs about the sitting President. Never have I seen people rise up with national pride and hope for a great change in the country that focused on the collective good of the nation. The number of pictures of President Obama’s face popping up on walls, buttons, bumper stickers and the like quite literally reminded me of many pictures seen of Saddam Hussein around Iraq. Yet, I consider President Obama to be left leaning, not right leaning. Would you consider President Obama to be left or right politically?
DavidM: Do you believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing, miracle-working and supernatural God? What is prohibited to that God that IS possible with magic? I presume nothing, if you believe He is all-powerful and can work miracles; the ability to work magic is subsumed by the ability to do anything. Thus you believe in a God with magical powers. That is a magical belief system. If you find that to be a denigration, so be it, the problem is in the connotations within your head, not mine. If you believe in miracles, you believe in magic.
Tony C wrote: “DavidM: Do you believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing, miracle-working and supernatural God?”
No, I do not believe in that description of God.
I do not pretend to know the exact nature of God. I sincerely doubt that he is all-powerful. I doubt that he is all-knowing, but if the description of him by Jesus is accurate, he probably knows all that is knowable.
God is all knowing perfectly in Jesus represented perfectly by Jesus. Whoever has Jesus in them are learning what God knows. He will teach whoever what they need to know. The prophets of old who saw God without his glory would have immediately recognized him had they be alive when Jesus walked the earth. Know Jesus Knoiw God. It is a lie to think God is unknowable.
DavidM: First, I think if the government is of the people and by the people, then everyone ought to have skin in the game so to speak.
What is “skin?” How does a billionaire contributing money he will never miss (other than as a number in an account) compare to a destitute homeless woman “contributing” ten dollars that then forces her to choose between food for her child or food for herself? How is that equal “skin” even if the percentages are exactly equal?
DavidM: It doesn’t matter if the poorest only puts in one nickel, that poor person should be given the privilege of contributing to the government that one nickel.
Oh, now its a “privilege.” Bull, everybody in the country already has the privilege of contributing as much as they desire to the support of city, county, state or federal coffers. So you are making a ludicrous attempt at defining coercion as a privilege.
DavidM: The principle of giving is empowering to individuals,
No, it isn’t. Everybody already has the power to give if they want.
DavidM: and making people dependent on government or any charity for their existence is demeaning to their character.
No, it isn’t. Does supporting my child demean their character? Support is not demeaning in the least, and the people that need support should not feel that way. Support is our human obligation, and what you are saying is just a disguise for brutality and selfishness, the equivalent of “I’m sorry, I can’t save your life because I don’t want you to feel ashamed that somebody had to save your life. Plus I’m a little more focused on myself right now.”
We have a shared obligation to preserve life, and I think a shared obligation to preserve human potential, and when we can, to prevent catastrophic cascades of misfortune; to step in and keep one fallen domino in somebody’s life from knocking down all the rest in a chain reaction. Like an illness costing them a job that costs them their house, retirement, and marriage.
DavidM: So it seems to me that a flat percent for everyone is a little more fair for everyone than just exempting some and heavily taxing others.
That wasn’t my proposal; my proposal was fair across the board for everyone: There is a deductible upon which you pay zero tax, and then you pay a 50% tax on everything else. The only people “heavily taxed” are those that earn the most. If the deductible is $50,000 and you earned $50,010, you pay $5 in tax.
DavidM: One big change in my mind is to make every person sign the check to the government at the same time they receive their check so they can pay the government directly the same way that a business owner like me does.
I think that is ridiculous paperwork. What if the check bounces? What if they refuse to sign it, is their pay withheld? It would still be coercion.
DavidM: when I think of your proposal, I think that is way more money than government needs.
Then just raise the deductible to the point that the 50% tax over the deductible is precisely what the government needs.
This whole idea of shrinking government by starving it of funds is ludicrous; the government should be precisely as big as voters want it to be, and we elect our representatives to be full time students of the budget and make intelligent decisions for us. We WANT social security and medicare, it is the most popular government program EVER. Apparently we also want a large military, and the various other programs of government. Your ideology does not trump the will of the people, it simply adds a note to it, and that note happens to be drowned out by others. I will also point out it is others that pay taxes and are voting for representatives they want to spend taxes on the poor and destitute; very few of whom actually vote themselves. The average voter is a wage earner and taxpayer (or was their entire life), not a welfare recipient.
DavidM: It seems to me that we can come to no clear agreement until we first all acknowledge that government is extremely wasteful in their spending and habits.
I refuse to acknowledge what is false. I have worked for the government in several roles, as a soldier, as a DoD contractor, as a contractor at the state level for a prison system and as a reduced-rate contractor for a state welfare system.
I have also worked as a consultant for many large corporations, and I see less work ethic there than I ever saw in the welfare offices. You are drinking right wing koolaid, a larger percentage of people that work on behalf of society to relieve poverty and suffering are committed and dedicated to their cause, than there are similar-wage employees of a corporation committed and dedicated to their cause of lining the pockets of owners. A bookkeeper or office manager gets nothing out of working harder and often resents the demands for greater effort; a welfare worker helping people survive often gets the emotional benefit of having provided aid.
DavidM: We have to establish better the baseline of how much money the government actually needs.
I already did, it needs enough to cover what we ask it to do. It isn’t the budget that is broken, it is the link between what we want and what we get, and the reason that is broken is because the wealthy have corrupted it out of greed.
DavidM: So I think they should be able to give to causes that they think are needed and work for the community.
Except the sociopaths rise to the top and do not wish to give anything, they wish to be free riders and enjoy all the benefits of society while paying none of the costs.
DavidM: I wonder what you think about government taxes being voluntary the way charities are?
I think that is supremely stupid, for the reason stated above. Sociopathy rises; without restraint it is a sharp competitive edge against those weighed down by empathy, sympathy, caring or morals.
If you want to be ruled by the most brutal people on the planet, you can start by making government support voluntary, and you will finish in chains.
Tony C –
I still think we are not that far apart. Most of your rant is not against my position, but against your stereotype of what you think my position is.
I agree with your points about the poor giving more than the billionaire. Nevertheless, I did not say there should be equal skin. That is your assumption. I just think everyone needs to be givers.
I have been involved in charity work for much of my life. One of the most difficult things for me was the first time a poor woman from the projects walked up to me and handed me two dollars. She wanted to help support the work I did there among the poor. I didn’t want her money. I didn’t need her money to continue. But to refuse that two dollars would have been an injustice to her. Yeah, it was something I had read in the Bible spoken by Jesus that convinced me of this principle. So what. Don’t hate me just because of where I learned this principle. In any case, the principle was, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” We can get wrapped up in helping people and think that the greatest blessing is for us to give to these people in need, but in fact there is this principle that people are more blessed when they give. Who was I to rob this woman of her blessing by giving me that two dollars. I could do all I could to give back to her through other means, but the right thing for me to do is accept her giving of that two dollars because without me accepting it, she cannot give it.
Last week I saw a woman sitting beside the road with her head in her hands crying. I pulled my car over and asked her if she was okay. Well, it turned out that at 27 years old, she had learned that she had only months left to live because of cancer. On top of that, she had just been thrown out by her parents who she was staying with and she had nowhere to go. I offered her assistance. I maintain a guest room at my home for strangers and offered it to her. She needed money, but she had problems receiving handouts. I told her I had light cleaning that needed done at my office if she wanted to come work. She gladly received that kind of help. Many people are like this; they have better self esteem when they feel they are earning their way. We even talked about it when she came to work, and how much better she felt to work for it rather than just take a handout.
I regularly help homeless people, help them get jobs and get their new apartment and become functional in society. Some of them are mentally ill and need housing provided for them, but even among them, many want to volunteer and give back. In whatever ways we can allow an individual to give, we should support this because happiness is sure to follow that individual.
It seems contradictory to me that you said taxes are not forced, but then you referred to my expecting the poor to pay taxes as coercion. Maybe you can explain that. Did you change your mind and now agree that taxes are forced? I am a little surprised because you went through many paragraphs defining the paying of taxes as not force but a privilege. Maybe you see paying taxes as a privilege for the rich but as coercion if expected by the poor? Does the economic status of the citizen affect what the paying of taxes is? I need more explanation to understand your perspective.
Tony wrote: “Does supporting my child demean their character?”
Support for a child does not demean the character of a child because that child is utterly dependent upon you, but when that child becomes an adult, you expect that person to leave the household and provide his own way. If you have a normal healthy son who stayed in your household through his 30’s and 40’s and 50’s, always expecting you to provide for him, something would be terribly wrong. Something would be wrong with the character of that person, and something would be wrong with you as a parent to cause that to happen.
You responded to my saying a flat percent for everyone being a little more fair with saying that this wasn’t your proposal. I know that. I’m saying that your proposal takes away the giving obligations of the poor. I think it would be more fair for everyone to pay something in. The rich should give more, so rather than telling everyone to put in the same amount, we use a percentage rate instead so that the rich put in more than the poor.
I understand that your proposal treats everyone the same with the same deductible, but it still takes away the aspect of the poor being able to give. I realize that you do not understand the psychological and social advantages offered by that, but it is something important that I have observed by working closely with the poor. The poor want to be able to say, “I am a taxpayer too!”
As for my ideology of smaller, more efficient government, I understand that I am but one voice and that my perspective may be trumped by the will of the voters. That does not mean that I should be silent and say, “oh well, the voters have spoken.” I’m still going to advocate for smaller and more efficient government which is not run by sociopaths who line their pockets with money taken from me by force. It is puzzling to me that you see the sociopaths in corporations who receive their wealth through people who voluntarily give in exchange for services, but you seem to be blind to the sociopaths in government who forcefully take from us whether we want their services or not. Why is that?
I have interfaced with government workers frequently in my work with the poor. Sometimes I have interacted with mayors, city councilmen, county commissioners, and even once with a sitting US President, but most of the time, I do not hobnob with the movers and shakers that you interface with. Rather, I am dealing with the people on the bottom who are earning just above minimum wage, those who actually approve the assistance being sought. Most of them do not care. Some do, and I am very appreciative when I find them, but most are just trying to earn a living for themselves. I find it in stark contrast to some charities on shoestring budgets who believe in their cause. Of course, there are other charities where it is just a job for them too. Your experience apparently differs from mine, or you interpret your experiences differently, but please do not describe my viewpoint developed from many years of experience as being a result of drinking right wing Kool-Aid. That is not accurate.
As for the sociopaths not giving as they should, I think you create a rather broad stereotype which unfortunately probably is more true that most of us like to admit. However, from where I sit, I wish I could take some of the money I give to the government and put it to better causes. I could hire several more employees right away if my tax burden were not so high. I would train new employees also, to learn a trade in software development. I would be able to give more work to common laborers also that I meet all the time, whether it is to cut the lawn, trim hedges, build additions, paint buildings, or whatever. It is far better than some politician getting his portrait done or fancying up his bathroom at an expense many times higher than normal workers get. I wonder what CEO is lining his pocket with that money. Certainly won’t be the actual laborer, which it would be if I were hiring him instead.
So I took all this time hopefully to help you understand that we really are not that far apart in our goals and idea of what society ought to look like. We seem to agree that an economically egalitarian society is not the goal. We recognize that there will be rich, middle class, and poor. However, the rich should distribute what they have to others in such a way that nobody has any lack for the things they need. We probably disagree about whether that should be done by force through government or voluntarily through good will, but it seems like it would not take too much discussion to come up with an actual model of something that would work.
Let me ask you this. Suppose a person just becoming wealthy has an extra $10,000 that would be given as tax under your proposed new tax scheme. Would you be open to the idea that if he gave that $10,000 to a charity, that he perhaps could deduct that as a tax credit from his tax bill? If not that, what about having the option to give half to his favorite charity and half to government?
This comment come from the “Florida HS Student Expelled…..” thread where Nick was complaining of his abuse on this thread. I think it is helpful to post it here also.
“This is Viagra for some of the folks here who love the “tax man.” They will next want the first male child of the wealthy.”
Nick Spinelli attack 1 on the other thread he refers to. At this point no one had addressed him in any comment.
“They certainly don’t want anecdotes offered as evidence either, nick.
And you can take your personal aside and stuff it, you snide prick.”
Gene’s response to Nick’s attack.
““I think I’m pretty unique”
Yes it is quite obvious that you think so. You give yourself far more credit than you deserve based on written performance.”
My response to Nick.
“Bron, You’ve just been spoken to by the judge, jury and executioner. You should genuflect. “Winning” here is vital for people who lose everywhere else. And it’s easy when you unilaterally proclaim victory. It’s debating and judging all rolled into one. Not like the real world, where you have to produce and your work is judged by clients, customers, etc.”
Nick, insult and attack number two.
nick,
““‘Winning’ here is vital for people who lose everywhere else.”
That sure explains why you’re so desperate to win here.
Just because you understand argumentation, logic and evidence even less than Bron (and by a long shot) is no reason to be jealous.
He at least tries. Which is far more than you can say.
Now please, regale us with more of your unsubstantiated anecdotes as evidence and false claims about people whom you know nothing about.
People don’t like Bron’s philosophical basis because they’re based in the fantasies of a sociopath, but they do like Bron as a person. From what I’ve seen here, no one particularly likes you. They tolerate you. I bet IRL is no different. Yet you never pause to question why that is, only sniping and being snide to others because it must be their fault they don’t like such a “fascinating” person such as yourself and take every one of your unsubstantiated dribbles as gospel fact.
It’s all only moderately interesting and completely transparent.
People don’t win or lose here, nick. That’s your misconception.
Arguments and evidence win or lose here.
That you never have any of your own is your undoing.
Carry on.”
Gene’s response to Nick.
“I’m sure for some people who lived off he public trough their entire career, hard work is a myth.”
Nick’s response to a comment I made to Bron, knowing full well that I worked for the government for 32 years. This is an example of Nick’s snide and cowardly method of attack. He injects himself into long discussion threads, this one being particularly an interesting one with a wide range of views and attacks people gratuitously. Then of course when a response is made the “Macho Male” plays innocent victim.
“mark2575, Please stay here. Some of these bozos will try and run your off, they like a tight circle..like their asses.”
Another attack comment from Nick two comments later.
“mark2575, And understand the back story. For some, certainly not all, they are seeing the President they voted for twice, and even knocked on doors for, pissing on both his legs while shitting his pants. It’s a stressful episode in their lives, so we should be empathetic.”
The next comment from “poor innocent nick”
““Never once WON an argument.” A phrase oft repeated by yourself. I have often said I don’t look upon this as a debate w/ win or lose, but a discussion.”
The next comment by Nick.
“Who could argue with such a critique of pure reason? So much evidence, so artfully presented! Absurd, yet flaccid!
:roll:”
Gene’s response.
“I’m sure you have flaccid on your mind. Tell her it’s just whiskey dick, you’re really a man.”
Nick’s reply
“You don’t want to play dozens w/ me.”
Nick’s follow up reply. I not that “dozens” is a game that has its origins in Black culture and typically played there one brings in the others family in sexual terms. Nick was in effect challenging Gene to play “dozens” with him and Gene did as follows:
Actually I chose the word flaccid after discussing you with your daughter.
As for the capacity to insult? You aren’t my match there either.
However, what is manifestly apparent is that you’ve completely ignored all warning about your propensity to go ad hominem in this forum.
How’d that work out for you last time?
You’ll only get so many of those warnings, nick.”
Nick’s response and the “poor me” game begins:
“My dead sister and now my daughter. You win!”
To which Gene rightly replies:
“I’m so disturbed by your manufactured outrage. Awwww. Po’ lil’ ol’ youz. 🙄
You reap what you sow, nick.
You seem to want to be able to insult others all you like but whine when you get back what you give.
None of those lessons about the Ethic of Reciprocity ever sink in?”
After this Nick made no more comments on that thread, once again being chastened. This has been Nick’s MO since he has come to this blog. He came in trying to play Alpha male and thus rise to prominence. His performance was weak both logically and in his ability to make any case other than anecdotes for his arguments. You will not on the excellent thread on French Taxation that has generated many comments there has been a rather lively and civil debate, other than Nick’s comments and replies to them by Gene and by me. Otherwise Gene who has contributed much to the intellectual discussion there has been civil towards both Bron and DavidM. The fact is that first I and then Gene have been calling out Nick for his dismal and deceitful performance since he has arrived here. I’m not against a lively debate, nor am I against people vigorously attacking others positions. I disagree with Bron for instance politically, but I like his persona here. DavidM and I certainly differ philosophically, but I welcome his civil comments. Hell I even disagree with JT at times and he not only runs this blog, but it is his sufferance that allows me to be a guest blogger. I see Nick, however, as a dishonest player and a typical bully. Unfortunately for him he is in a milieu where there are many who not only see through him, but are far more logical and skillful opponents.
Within the context of the “dozens” game he was dared to play by Nick, Gene’s response was perfectly appropriate.
“This is Viagra for some of the folks here who love the “tax man.” They will next want the first male child of the wealthy.”
Nick Spinelli attack 1 on the other thread he refers to. At this point no one had addressed him in any comment.
“They certainly don’t want anecdotes offered as evidence either, nick.
And you can take your personal aside and stuff it, you snide prick.”
Gene’s response to Nick’s attack.
““I think I’m pretty unique”
Yes it is quite obvious that you think so. You give yourself far more credit than you deserve based on written performance.”
My response to Nick.
“Bron, You’ve just been spoken to by the judge, jury and executioner. You should genuflect. “Winning” here is vital for people who lose everywhere else. And it’s easy when you unilaterally proclaim victory. It’s debating and judging all rolled into one. Not like the real world, where you have to produce and your work is judged by clients, customers, etc.”
Nick, insult and attack number two.
nick,
““‘Winning’ here is vital for people who lose everywhere else.”
That sure explains why you’re so desperate to win here.
Just because you understand argumentation, logic and evidence even less than Bron (and by a long shot) is no reason to be jealous.
He at least tries. Which is far more than you can say.
Now please, regale us with more of your unsubstantiated anecdotes as evidence and false claims about people whom you know nothing about.
People don’t like Bron’s philosophical basis because they’re based in the fantasies of a sociopath, but they do like Bron as a person. From what I’ve seen here, no one particularly likes you. They tolerate you. I bet IRL is no different. Yet you never pause to question why that is, only sniping and being snide to others because it must be their fault they don’t like such a “fascinating” person such as yourself and take every one of your unsubstantiated dribbles as gospel fact.
It’s all only moderately interesting and completely transparent.
People don’t win or lose here, nick. That’s your misconception.
Arguments and evidence win or lose here.
That you never have any of your own is your undoing.
Carry on.”
Gene’s response to Nick.
“I’m sure for some people who lived off he public trough their entire career, hard work is a myth.”
Nick’s response to a comment I made to Bron, knowing full well that I worked for the government for 32 years. This is an example of Nick’s snide and cowardly method of attack. He injects himself into long discussion threads, this one being particularly an interesting one with a wide range of views and attacks people gratuitously. Then of course when a response is made the “Macho Male” plays innocent victim.
“mark2575, Please stay here. Some of these bozos will try and run your off, they like a tight circle..like their asses.”
Another attack comment from Nick two comments later.
“mark2575, And understand the back story. For some, certainly not all, they are seeing the President they voted for twice, and even knocked on doors for, pissing on both his legs while shitting his pants. It’s a stressful episode in their lives, so we should be empathetic.”
The next comment from “poor innocent nick”
““Never once WON an argument.” A phrase oft repeated by yourself. I have often said I don’t look upon this as a debate w/ win or lose, but a discussion.”
The next comment by Nick.
“Who could argue with such a critique of pure reason? So much evidence, so artfully presented! Absurd, yet flaccid!
:roll:”
Gene’s response.
“I’m sure you have flaccid on your mind. Tell her it’s just whiskey dick, you’re really a man.”
Nick’s reply
“You don’t want to play dozens w/ me.”
Nick’s follow up reply. I not that “dozens” is a game that has its origins in Black culture and typically played there one brings in the others family in sexual terms. Nick was in effect challenging Gene to play “dozens” with him and Gene did as follows:
Actually I chose the word flaccid after discussing you with your daughter.
As for the capacity to insult? You aren’t my match there either.
However, what is manifestly apparent is that you’ve completely ignored all warning about your propensity to go ad hominem in this forum.
How’d that work out for you last time?
You’ll only get so many of those warnings, nick.”
Nick’s response and the “poor me” game begins:
“My dead sister and now my daughter. You win!”
To which Gene rightly replies:
“I’m so disturbed by your manufactured outrage. Awwww. Po’ lil’ ol’ youz. 🙄
You reap what you sow, nick.
You seem to want to be able to insult others all you like but whine when you get back what you give.
None of those lessons about the Ethic of Reciprocity ever sink in?”
After this Nick made no more comments on that thread, once again being chastened. This has been Nick’s MO since he has come to this blog. He came in trying to play Alpha male and thus rise to prominence. His performance was weak both logically and in his ability to make any case other than anecdotes for his arguments. You will not on the excellent thread on French Taxation that has generated many comments there has been a rather lively and civil debate, other than Nick’s comments and replies to them by Gene and by me. Otherwise Gene who has contributed much to the intellectual discussion there has been civil towards both Bron and DavidM. The fact is that first I and then Gene have been calling out Nick for his dismal and deceitful performance since he has arrived here. I’m not against a lively debate, nor am I against people vigorously attacking others positions. I disagree with Bron for instance politically, but I like his persona here. DavidM and I certainly differ philosophically, but I welcome his civil comments. Hell I even disagree with JT at times and he not only runs this blog, but it is his sufferance that allows me to be a guest blogger. I see Nick, however, as a dishonest player and a typical bully. Unfortunately for him he is in a milieu where there are many who not only see through him, but are far more logical and skillful opponents.
Within the context of the “dozens” game he was dared to play by Nick, Gene’s response was perfectly appropriate.
“This is Viagra for some of the folks here who love the “tax man.” They will next want the first male child of the wealthy.”
Nick Spinelli attack 1 on the other thread he refers to. At this point no one had addressed him in any comment.
“They certainly don’t want anecdotes offered as evidence either, nick.
And you can take your personal aside and stuff it, you snide prick.”
Gene’s response to Nick’s attack.
““I think I’m pretty unique”
Yes it is quite obvious that you think so. You give yourself far more credit than you deserve based on written performance.”
My response to Nick.
“Bron, You’ve just been spoken to by the judge, jury and executioner. You should genuflect. “Winning” here is vital for people who lose everywhere else. And it’s easy when you unilaterally proclaim victory. It’s debating and judging all rolled into one. Not like the real world, where you have to produce and your work is judged by clients, customers, etc.”
Nick, insult and attack number two.
nick,
““‘Winning’ here is vital for people who lose everywhere else.”
That sure explains why you’re so desperate to win here.
Just because you understand argumentation, logic and evidence even less than Bron (and by a long shot) is no reason to be jealous.
He at least tries. Which is far more than you can say.
Now please, regale us with more of your unsubstantiated anecdotes as evidence and false claims about people whom you know nothing about.
People don’t like Bron’s philosophical basis because they’re based in the fantasies of a sociopath, but they do like Bron as a person. From what I’ve seen here, no one particularly likes you. They tolerate you. I bet IRL is no different. Yet you never pause to question why that is, only sniping and being snide to others because it must be their fault they don’t like such a “fascinating” person such as yourself and take every one of your unsubstantiated dribbles as gospel fact.
It’s all only moderately interesting and completely transparent.
People don’t win or lose here, nick. That’s your misconception.
Arguments and evidence win or lose here.
That you never have any of your own is your undoing.
Carry on.”
Gene’s response to Nick.
“I’m sure for some people who lived off he public trough their entire career, hard work is a myth.”
Nick’s response to a comment I made to Bron, knowing full well that I worked for the government for 32 years. This is an example of Nick’s snide and cowardly method of attack. He injects himself into long discussion threads, this one being particularly an interesting one with a wide range of views and attacks people gratuitously. Then of course when a response is made the “Macho Male” plays innocent victim.
“mark2575, Please stay here. Some of these bozos will try and run your off, they like a tight circle..like their asses.”
Another attack comment from Nick two comments later.
“mark2575, And understand the back story. For some, certainly not all, they are seeing the President they voted for twice, and even knocked on doors for, pissing on both his legs while shitting his pants. It’s a stressful episode in their lives, so we should be empathetic.”
The next comment from “poor innocent nick”
““Never once WON an argument.” A phrase oft repeated by yourself. I have often said I don’t look upon this as a debate w/ win or lose, but a discussion.”
The next comment by Nick.
“Who could argue with such a critique of pure reason? So much evidence, so artfully presented! Absurd, yet flaccid!
:roll:”
Gene’s response.
“I’m sure you have flaccid on your mind. Tell her it’s just whiskey dick, you’re really a man.”
Nick’s reply
“You don’t want to play dozens w/ me.”
Nick’s follow up reply. I not that “dozens” is a game that has its origins in Black culture and typically played there one brings in the others family in sexual terms. Nick was in effect challenging Gene to play “dozens” with him and Gene did as follows:
Actually I chose the word flaccid after discussing you with your daughter.
As for the capacity to insult? You aren’t my match there either.
However, what is manifestly apparent is that you’ve completely ignored all warning about your propensity to go ad hominem in this forum.
How’d that work out for you last time?
You’ll only get so many of those warnings, nick.”
Nick’s response and the “poor me” game begins:
“My dead sister and now my daughter. You win!”
To which Gene rightly replies:
“I’m so disturbed by your manufactured outrage. Awwww. Po’ lil’ ol’ youz. 🙄
You reap what you sow, nick.
You seem to want to be able to insult others all you like but whine when you get back what you give.
None of those lessons about the Ethic of Reciprocity ever sink in?”
After this Nick made no more comments on that thread, once again being chastened. This has been Nick’s MO since he has come to this blog. He came in trying to play Alpha male and thus rise to prominence. His performance was weak both logically and in his ability to make any case other than anecdotes for his arguments. You will not on the excellent thread on French Taxation that has generated many comments there has been a rather lively and civil debate, other than Nick’s comments and replies to them by Gene and by me. Otherwise Gene who has contributed much to the intellectual discussion there has been civil towards both Bron and DavidM. The fact is that first I and then Gene have been calling out Nick for his dismal and deceitful performance since he has arrived here. I’m not against a lively debate, nor am I against people vigorously attacking others positions. I disagree with Bron for instance politically, but I like his persona here. DavidM and I certainly differ philosophically, but I welcome his civil comments. Hell I even disagree with JT at times and he not only runs this blog, but it is his sufferance that allows me to be a guest blogger. I see Nick, however, as a dishonest player and a typical bully. Unfortunately for him he is in a milieu where there are many who not only see through him, but are far more logical and skillful opponents.
Within the context of the “dozens” game he was dared to play by Nick, Gene’s response was perfectly appropriate.
“BTW, your profession is similarly outcome based, I think.” (Tony C.)
True, but heavily dependant on the work product of others who are not in front of the curtain.
No. It would lead to me handing you your butt on a plate based on your lack of evidence (again), David.
You made the claim, you bear the burden of proof.
If you are unwilling and/or unable to meet that burden, then your assertion is prime facie baseless.
“I disagree with your perception of fascism.”
Disagree all you like, however, it’s not my perception in question, it’s your lack of understanding of the definition of fascism in relevant and accepted poli sci nomenclature.
“Your attempt to make it an extreme right wing issue far removed from liberalism is based in your bigotry against right wing ideology and your desire to distance yourself from the label of fascism.”
I didn’t make fascism far right in practice. It did that all by its lonesome. However, if you assume I’m a bigot because I’m a social liberal, I plead guilty. I’m far more interested in human and civil rights than right wing authoritarianism. As for your mislabel, it’s clear over the course of time and my posting here that I am a centrist social democrat, not a fascist. Nice try though. And by nice I mean really weak, Karl Rove.
“Fascism plain and simple has to do with making the collective all important and putting the needs of the collective as a whole above the needs of the individual.”
No. It puts the desires of the few above the needs of the many. That’s oligarchy, not collectivism.
“It is characterized by nationalism, everyone working for the common good of the collective.”
You apparently don’t know what nationalism is either.
“It emphasizes individuals making sacrifices, even extreme sacrifices, for the good of the collective. That might take the form of governments ruling nations, or as you point out, it might take the form of corporations with employees. It also is applicable to churches who choose to live in communes, and also applicable to how a Kibbutz is run.”
No. Nationalism emphasizes loyalty to the nation as paramount. It features the supremacy of the nation’s claims over other claims to individual allegiance, and which features full sovereignty as the persistent aim of its political program which is authoritarian.
“Fascism can be left or right, liberal or conservative.”
No. It can’t. It is a syncretic ideology that draws from both left and right but eschews both and it is always far right in practice. That’s the simple political science reality of the definition of fascism.
“Your perspective that the right of no one individual supersedes the rights of the collective moves you far over to the fascist side in my perspective.”
Straw man. That’s a material misrepresentation of my perspective. The rights of the one and the rights of the many are always a balancing act and I know this because the social compact model of government tells me so as well as the Constitution. All individual rights are retained unless we agree as a society that a limitation – a law – gains sufficient mutual advantage in a rational manner as to merit said restriction and all such restrictions should be tailored to minimally infringe upon retained rights.
“I am not saying that as a pejorative but rather by way of simple analysis of your philosophical system of politics.”
Bullshit. Or either you really don’t understand political science. Probably both.
By the way, you should at least Wiki a term you don’t understand like “fascism” before you say something categorically untrue.
“Position in the political spectrum
Fascism is commonly described as “extreme right”[34][35] although some writers have found placing fascism on a conventional left-right political spectrum difficult.[36][37][38][39][40] Fascism was influenced by both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational.[38] A number of historians have regarded fascism either as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine which mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both of those things.[39][40] Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views.
Fascism is considered by certain scholars to be right-wing because of its social conservatism and authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism.[41][42] Roderick Stackleberg places fascism—including Nazism, which he says is “a radical variant of fascism”—on the right, explaining that “the more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be.”[43]
Italian Fascism gravitated to the right in the early 1920s.[44][45] A major element of fascism that has been deemed as clearly far-right is its goal to promote the right of claimed superior people to dominate while purging society of claimed inferior elements.[46]”
Also see:
syncretism /ˈsɪŋkrɪtɪz(ə)m/, n.,
1:the amalgamation or attempted amalgamation of different religions, cultures, or schools of thought:
What is pertinent about fascism isn’t its convoluted basis in the left/right axis. What is pertinent is that it is always far right in practice because it is oligarchical, usually plutocratic, anti-liberal, anti-democratic, anti-socialist, nationalistic, militaristic and authoritarian. All of which are far right characteristics when implemented. Fascism has mixed ideological parentage for certain, but it is a creature of the far right in practice whether you like it or not.
But please, keep making up definitions for word you don’t understand.
It’s funny.
Gene H –
It is interesting how you quote from a wiki that indicates debate over whether or not fascism is right wing, yet do not acknowledge that such debate exists. You pretend that I am making my position up. As your quotes rightly show, I am not the only one, nor even the first one, to consider fascism something independent of right wing or left wing characterizations.
At least you dug in further than a simple quote from a corrupted dictionary like OS is prone to do.
Following are a few selecte quotes from an article by the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8316271.stm
“One of the greatest mistakes that people make concerning fascism is associating it with “right wing” ideology. In fact fascism and right wing thought are completely opposed to each other in terms of their fundamental goals and ideal (their roots). To put it as simply as possible fascism is a political force that wishes to begin a new state of equality in a sort of national rebirth. This is different from right wing thought because it wishes to preserve a sort of “status quo” and the stability of a traditional order.
Thomas, Massachusetts”
” “Fascism” these days is taken to be synonymous with the Far Right, but in fact it is and always was a socialist movement. Both fascist and Nazi parties advocated a state-controlled and planned economy, centralised authority and collectivism (sacrificing individual liberty to the ends of society). In fact, the only difference between fascism and communism was the group that was to be favoured in the revolution: for the fascists it was defined by race; for the communists, by class. But in practice even this distinction was blurred.
Tom , London”
“Fascism simply means extreme collectivism. The individual is worthless and all that matters is the group – in most cases the nation. Nazis are just one type of fascist and it also includes communists and those traditionally believed conceived as being on the extreme left. They also believe in giving absolute power to the state, shutting down debate and “removing” individuals seen as disruptive to the “good of the whole”.
Chris, London”
“I like to use Thomas Sowell’s definition as he is an economist who has written extensively on this subject. Fascists, communists and Nazis are all socialists, which has as its central doctrine totalitarian dictatorship, centrally planned economy, and ownership of the means of production of the government. The difference between them is merely membership. The communist doctrine is by class, by Nazism by race (regardless of what race) and fascism by corporate membership (by fact of citizenship or physical presence). By these definitions it is easy to identify the flavour of socialist one may be. It also reminds us of the core values of each type: government ownership of everything including human and civil rights. this is why the government can kill off those who don’t fit the definition they have chosen.
Donald, Tulsa, United States”
“When I was at school we were taught a definition of fascism as “a system of government that sanctifies the interests of the state over those of the individual”.
Eustace Tuttle, London”
“I’m going to use the biological to explain fascism. Fascia is an uninterrupted, three-dimensional web of tissue that extends from head to toe, from front to back, from interior to exterior. It is responsible for maintaining structural integrity; for providing support and protection; and acts as a shock absorber. Fascia comes from the Latin for a band, if you look at your image of the axe and rods there is a band surrounding it. Therefore fascism is the binding of society into a collective with structural integrity that works together for a common cause, whether that cause is good or bad.
Stuart, Manchester”
fas·cism
/ˈfaSHizəm/
Noun
1. An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
2. (in general use) Extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.
DavidM: !?!?! WTF …. (…Tony be patient and wait for Gene’s answer…)
Blouise: Precisely. 🙂
BTW, your profession is similarly outcome based, I think.
“The further up the professional chain one goes, the less we pay for physical action and the more we pay for results. By the time we are hiring degreed professionals, we are primarily paying for results, and the more money they charge, the more important the result and the less important the effort involved.” (Tony C.)
DavidM: Government takes the fruit of our labors by force.
No, it doesn’t. It takes the fair share of the people by force. The government, as an agent of the people, provides you with an environment in which your labor is multiplied into value; in many cases without that environment, your labor would be entirely worthless.
The government as an agent of the people provides the infrastructure you need to work, the roads, police, zoning, safety in food and products and property, the police, the courts that enforce the contracts, the military that protects you from invasion, the inspectors that try to minimize your chances of being killed in a building collapse, poisoned by the food you eat or medicine you take, killed by a faulty product, ripped off by a fraud or liar, and on and on. The government tries and convicts and controls predators so you can work and play and be reasonably safe from their predations.
The government is analogous to the operators of a mall that demand a commission or percentage of sales from their tenants (as most do). You are a tenant in that mall, and periodically you have to pay that commission, equivalent to common area expense, collective insurance, your share of common security, common advertising, etc. You also have to abide by the rules of marketing the mall has set up; you cannot enter other stores in an attempt to steal customers, you cannot be too loud, you may not be able to leave your own premises to hand out samples, your advertising display cannot extend into the common area, etc.
The government doesn’t take your taxes by force. You are legally obligated to pay the taxes as your fair share of the common expenses of building and maintaining our infrastructure, and breaking that law is an attempt at theft and that is what we will attempt to rectify with force, if necessary.
Tony C –
If government prescribes imprisonment and fines for not paying taxes, that is collecting taxes by force. The separation of church and state powers is based upon this criterium. Government is about what people are forced to do under the threat of imprisonment or fines. Religion is about persuading people to do the right thing voluntarily without the use of force. So government forcefully takes taxes from citizens, but religion passes the collection plate or collects voluntary dues.
“Religion is about persuading people to do the right thing voluntarily without the use of force”
DavidW,
If that was true how do you classify the “Inquisition”, Islam spreading Allah’s word by sword, or even the crusades. In our country there are many examples of religion trying to make people “believe” involuntarily, from the Salem Witch trials, to justifying slavery, to the anti-abortionists murdering Physicians. By the way, it is well known here that I am not an atheist, or agnostic, yet I’m outspoken on the harm organized religion has done.
Really? Classic religious mentality. People unwittingly make the bible into a born not a balm. John 18 >>14,Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.
Mark 14:1-9, the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death, John 12;10 the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; Luke 22:2:And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people. Change it be a Christian. When you get hateful people carrying signs against the gay, zoosexual, bestialist etc it is on the same lines as these four verses.
Mike Spindell wrote: “If that was true how do you classify the “Inquisition”, Islam spreading Allah’s word by sword, or even the crusades.”
During the Inquisition, the church had no power to execute anybody. They had to go to the civil authorities for that power. Perhaps you have read Foxe’s Book of Martyrs? It is a fascinating account written contemporaneous with the inquisition that explains this aspect very clearly. The Islamic powers also come through civil authority, through government, not their religion per se. Their religious ideology might fuel what they do, but their legitimate power to use force comes through government. That is why they create Islamic Republics where all the laws must agree with the Koran.
In our country, we rightly developed an ideology that keeps the powers of religious institutions separate from the powers of the State. The reasoning behind this is that the mind might be free from coercion, that individuals might decide for themselves what is true regarding God and religion without the threat of fines or imprisonment. Such also prevents the abuses that you mention.
So in a Jeffersonian society like ours, government uses force whereas religion uses persuasion. Such a view actually developed from tenets of Christianity, where it is very clear that words and persuasion are considered the sword of the Spirit. As the apostle Paul wrote, “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal,” meaning physical. Paul also wrote how the civil government was ordained as the sword of God for the lawless, which defined a separation of powers between civil and religious authority. In practice, these religious people used the art of public oration and never used violence, though they suffered violence perpetrated from society and government, and sometimes they were accused falsely of causing violence and riots.
“During the Inquisition, the church had no power to execute anybody.”
DavidM,
They had the power to torture and that often led to death. David, really are you defending the inquisition?
As for you two comments they wrongly got sent to spam and I’m trying to get them posted.
Mike Spindell –
Don’t bother with those two posts because they will just duplicate what already posted.
Mike Spindell wrote: “David, really are you defending the inquisition?”
No, not at all. I am just explaining my perception, that their evil actions were empowered from their entanglement with civil government. I find it abhorrent that men were burned at the stake for not believing in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or for not believing in the Doctrine of the Trinity.
I think rightly practiced religion should focus on the heart of man, to do what is right by example, and to seek to persuade men to do what is right voluntarily. When men do not do that which is right, the civil government is there with the law to bring punishment to those who do evil.
The power to kill or torture is the power of the devil through bodies that are dark inside in more ways than one. God is not in it.
Mike,
Begging for discussion in a debate is a tactic oft employed by those who cannot debate or cannot formulate an argument sufficient to win a debate. It seeks to put their logically or evidentiary challenged assertions on par with assertions of sound logic and evidence by removing the judgement aspect of debate. It’s an attempt to subordinate logic and evidence to their personal opinion. It’s roughly analogous to the fiction writer asking for a suspension of disbelief, but weakly employed to rhetorical ends.
“It seeks to put their logically or evidentiary challenged assertions on par with assertions of sound logic and evidence by removing the judgement aspect of debate.”
Gene,
Exactly. It is the whole false equivalency “logic” that seems to have captured the thought processes of those whose ignorance encompasses an inability to question their own premises.
davidm: We are probably not that far apart, except on a few issues:
Since you disagree with every major position I hold, you must be using a very interesting metric function for computing the distance between us.
To clarify on one of your comments, I do not see socialized medicine as requiring anybody to undergo treatment they do not want; I see it as a means of providing treatment to any that want it. I also think assisted suicide should be an option for those that want it, some conditions are inevitably fatal and painfully so, and I personally feel like the choice to end my life at a point when there is nothing left to me but pain and suffering should be my choice, without consequence to others. I also think that medical certification of such a terminal condition should not invalidate my life insurance policy by reason of suicide.
You have my sympathy for being conned into faith, but I know it gives some people comfort to live in denial of the truth, and it is not my place to deny people comfort, even if I believe it is false and dangerous. I reject your attempts to coerce me into abiding by your magical belief system.
Tony C –
And I reject your attempts to denigrate my rational opinions by calling it a “magical belief system.” 🙂
As for the socialized medical system, I am not talking about just a chosen treatment. I am talking about the entire medical system. Why should the government get to decide who is trustworthy for my health? I think government has no more business choosing health care for me than choosing my religion for me.
For example, suppose a person sees the medical profession as sophisticated witchcraft (the Greek word for witchcraft is the same word from which we get our word pharmacy), why should we give the government power to force that individual to submit to that medical system for his health needs? It would be unconscionable for government to force them to turn to witches. Why is it not also unconscionable for making them submit to medical doctors? The difficulty in seeing this is only because the embrace of the medical community is so pervasive in society that few even consider it a choice of the individual. They rush to make it accessible for everyone, disregarding the few who might not want anything to do with it. The next step is to criminalize those who might shun the medical system, claiming that they are mentally ill or negligent.
“Why should the government get to decide who is trustworthy for my health?”
DavidM,
You are using a straw man argument. The government doesn’t get to decide who is trustworthy for your health, or whether or not you choose to use health care at all. However, the government is saying that if you choose not to have health care insurance, then you are freeloading on society and the rest of us. That is so because should you get into a medical emergency you will be taken to and treated at a local hospital. If you have no insurance then it would be the rest of us paying to treat you.
Mike Spindell wrote:
” the government is saying that if you choose not to have health care insurance, then you are freeloading on society and the rest of us.”
Please, I am not presenting a strawman argument. I know the government is saying that, but I see such as a false narrative. It is government propaganda. Nobody has demonstrated this actually happens. People who get treated will get a bill from the hospital. If they were freeloading, they would not get a bill, and it would not show up on their credit report if they fail to pay the bill. In my particular case, I know for a fact that I am not a freeloader and I object to my government calling me one because I object to buying health insurance.
I am 53 years old and have raised a family with five children. Never have I used health insurance for anything, nor am I inclined to do so ever. I sometimes might consult with a medical person or seek treatment, if I think they offer something I need. Two of my daughters had accidents where they broke their arms. I had them treated, x-rays, put a cast on their arm, etc. But I paid for everything directly. I always pay all my bills. I have not freeloaded on anybody.
I see insurance as a bet against myself. It is a bet that bad things will happen to me more than it will to others. The insurance companies calculate the odds and make a profit by determining the odds of bad things happening. It is not much different from what Casinos do and how they make a profit. The problem is that because the insurance industry is good at calculating the odds, and because most people are very fearful that something bad is going to happen to them, the profits for the insurance companies have been very good. So the price for medical services has skyrocketed because the ability to pay is present. They claim that technology is expensive, but the real reason is that insurance creates the ability to pay more for medical services. If the insurance companies did not exist, there is no way the medical companies would charge what they do for their services, and many unnecessary procedures would not be done, and many of those physicians earning millions of dollars a year would earn a little less.
I find it ironic that the industry that has caused high medical costs is the industry the politicians have bailed out by forcing everyone to participate. I would have much less problem with a general monetary pool for medical services and eliminating the need for insurance rather than forcing people to take that bet with the insurance company. But even in that solution, I want the freedom not to be taken automatically to the hospital, nor being forced to seek medical procedures for every health issue that I might face.
Have you ever considered this? One could argue easily that forcing people who do not want medical services to buy insurance for it is a way for the insurance buyers to freeload off of those who do not want to take the bet that misfortune will plague them more than it does the rest of society.
“I am 53 years old and have raised a family with five children. Never have I used health insurance for anything, nor am I inclined to do so ever. I sometimes might consult with a medical person or seek treatment, if I think they offer something I need. Two of my daughters had accidents where they broke their arms. I had them treated, x-rays, put a cast on their arm, etc. But I paid for everything directly. I always pay all my bills. I have not freeloaded on anybody.”
DavidM,
How extraordinarily lucky for both you and your family. Almost all Americans though, know someone who has had catastrophic illness and/or injury. Among my friends, every one I know has been touched by serious medical problems at one time or another and they are generally a healthy and athletic lot. Therefore you luck is on the extreme end of the health spectrum. Good luck with its continuance and may you all live long lives. As for the rest of us I think that medical insurance is a quite intelligent choice, unless of course you happen to be quite wealthy, which perhaps is your situation.
This is one of those rare threads, entertaining, informative, and thought provoking. Excellent material to go with my morning latte.
davidm: I agree with Gene H and Tony C that the balance is in the middle somewhere, but exactly where is debateable.
Then why not skip the debate and employ a system of middles as “close enough?”
One would be no taxes for those earning less than the middle (called median). Then 50% of the earnings in excess of the middle. No exceptions, deductions, or excuses, for persons or corporations, foreign or domestic. (“Earnings” implies deductions for legitimate business expenses, of course.)
Alternatively, charge everybody, persons and corporations, 50% after normal business expenses: Let people, like corporations, deduct as a “business expense” their cost of shelter (leased or bought by mortgage), interest expenses, energy expenses, transportation, food, cleaning, maintenance and professional services expenses, and training and travel expenses (which would include school for themselves or kids), and clothing (which is similar to PR or decorations for a business) and a depreciation allowance on all of it (which would protect from taxes a certain level of savings). So we have no arbitrary deductible, but we can set the depreciation allowance such that those that spend 80% of their pay on survival necessities do not pay income taxes; and those that spend more than that can get assistance with their survival necessities.
Even though I would be paying taxes under that scheme, I would be happy with it as a fair tax system; and that is a proposal separate from proposing any limit on income.
(I do not think “fair” is defined as equal dollar amounts or equal percentages; I think “fair” in taxation boils down to equal degrees of deprivation. Thus any tax on those that spend every dollar on survival creates an unequal deprivation with those not in that situation. So the idea here is to tax only the income in excess of the survival requirements; which is basically what we do for corporations by allowing them to deduct all business expenses and depreciate their assets over time.)
Tony C –
I appreciate your stab at explaining what a fair tax system would be, but I think it over simplifies certain aspects.
First, I think if the government is of the people and by the people, then everyone ought to have skin in the game so to speak. That means nobody should be exempt from supporting it. Clearly those who are able to contribute more should contribute more, but we have to be careful not to completely exempt anyone. It doesn’t matter if the poorest only puts in one nickel, that poor person should be given the privilege of contributing to the government that one nickel. The principle of giving is empowering to individuals, and making people dependent on government or any charity for their existence is demeaning to their character.
So it seems to me that a flat percent for everyone is a little more fair for everyone than just exempting some and heavily taxing others. One big change in my mind is to make every person sign the check to the government at the same time they receive their check so they can pay the government directly the same way that a business owner like me does. I think it is exceedingly deceptive the way pay is withheld, often higher than needed, and the employee gets a “bonus” from the IRS when taxes are due. This leads employees to think that voting for bigger government and higher taxes leads to them getting bigger bonus checks every year.
Second, when I think of your proposal, I think that is way more money than government needs. It seems to me that we can come to no clear agreement until we first all acknowledge that government is extremely wasteful in their spending and habits. We have to establish better the baseline of how much money the government actually needs. As population grows and infrastructure has already been put into place, taxes should actually go down because the startup costs have already been incurred. Instead I see government having higher rates of revenue than they have ever had. I see them constantly destroying perfectly good buildings and replacing them with fancy new ones with all the upgrades possible. I see government destroying perfectly good roads and putting in fancy new ones. I see the workers taking extravagant trips to conferences where our tax dollars pay for shrimp cocktails that cost $4 per shrimp. I see congressman spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to remodel their 100 sq foot bathroom, putting in $700 faucets, and getting portraits that cost tens of thousands of dollars even when they have worked for government for less than a year.
Third, I think people who are successful financially and make good money usually are wise in how to spend their money. So I think they should be able to give to causes that they think are needed and work for the community. If they think government is best, let them contribute to government. This can take the form of tax deductions for charitable giving similar to what is done now, or perhaps even more aggressively as a full tax credit.
I wonder what you think about government taxes being voluntary the way charities are? I mean, we already have the basic infrastructure in place. Why not move government toward competing through advertising with other corporations for money to provide education, welfare, etc.? Let people choose with their own wallets who is doing what is needed for society as a whole? I realize some here may be outraged at this suggestion, but I would like to see some rationale criticism of this idea. I hope everyone would refrain from pure ad hominem replies.
Darren,
You assume I can’t produce gamma rays at will.
However, dealing with some pests is a low energy operation.
Bron,
“Maybe you are right, I am confused, I cant figure out if we are a socialist or fascist country.”
Read what I said to David about the nature of fascism. That should clear your confusion right up. Any word that doesn’t start with “f” is the wrong answer. Also consider that most forms of fascism rely upon the cult of personality to one degree or another and how our polarized non-choice in political parties breeds exactly that.
Mike S.,
Yep.