Why not solve simple poverty in our republic...

that is how it is being paid now, but with more regulation rather than a simple general tax.

 

So your issue really isnt the poor, its more about corporations receiving tax breaks, "between the lives of the poor and the lives of those around them". The poor in the US Have cell phones, washers, dryers, refrigerators, 2 cars, etc.

 

no. my real issue is that people of wealth can simply purchase bailouts or better privileges and immunities, but the least wealthy can only afford to make "poor life choices".

 

You sure are enamored with multiplier effect, as if it is a strange and wonderful thing associated with socialism.

Big time! Corporate taxation is one of the evils in our capitalist society and tax incidence tells us clearly that it is commonly passed on to the consumer or to labor depending on the elasticity of supply and demand and mobility of capital. As insurance, unemployment compensation premiums can reasonably be added to cost factors because they protect the company from law suits in the event of employee injury. It has nothing to do with social morality, employment or work ethic, or at will employment, and certainly nothing having to do with immunities or our republican form of government. The difference between insurance premiums and taxes is based on actuarial rather than legislative intellect, the latter always being more expensive to capital than the former.

The problem with your thinking, ie your fallacy, is your dependence on government control instead of the basic capitalist concept of government protection.

Consider XYZ Corporation, which has a really great safety program, and which has employees who seldom get injured on the job. Now consider ABC Corporation, which has less emphasis on their safety program, and which has employees are more often injured on the job. Under your concept of "taxes do everything" both Corporations will pay a tax, either based on profitability or on the number of employees. In both cases XYZ Corporation gets the shaft. In so far as profitability, if the good safety program results in that result then it is the company, not the government doing the taxing, which should enjoy the fruits of their safety program. In so far as the number of employees, if XYZ has more employees it stands to reason their tax would be higher than ABC with the fewer employees. The fallacy of that comes about when XYZ with the greater number of employees has a lower injury rate than ABC thus should pay a lower premium than ABC. It is that very important distinction which always makes for a better blend of company/worker relationships in capitalism than in socialism.

 

You are putting the cart before the horse. The poor life choices precede the poverty. IE Daniel, those poor life choices are the cause of most poverty, real, imagined, or relative.

 

that only holds true for the least wealthy; the wealthiest can get multimillion dollar bonuses, even with "poor life choices".

 

"...more regulation..."

Taxcutter says:
More regulation = less economic activity.

 

In fact there may be a few exceptions to the rule, but generally speaking it is the "poor life choices" which make the difference between the wealthy and the least wealthy.

Now, before we go any further, unless your post clearly reflects an interesting point I choose not to respond to those which do not include the "quote" with reply. I agree with the other guy, you should always identify to whom you are answering in your posts.

 

There is a point of balance at which regulation is advantageous to an economy. Regulation should be in effect to prevent fraud and excessive pain either to labor or the consumer.

The problem with laissez-faire capitalism is the relative rate of excessives. When capital is allowed to do anything to make its profits labor and consumers will tend to cause a breakdown.

 

"There is a point of balance at which regulation is advantageous to an economy."

Taxcutter says:
The USSR's economy was totally regulated but collapsed in a disgraceful heap. Did you sleep through that?
Nork's economy is totally regulated. Do you hold NorK up as a paragon of good government?

 

you chose to quote my comment which apparently you did not understand. Do you not understand the word "balanced?" Your come back with "total" regulation indicates you did not know what "balanced" meant.

I agree, have always agreed that over regulation is bad for the economy, but then laissez-faire non regulation is equally bad for the economy.

 

I believe Taxcutter needs to remember the argument before he posts.

Supply side economics is supposed to be supplying us with better governance at lower cost. Simplifying public policies can do that in a market friendly manner by drawing participants from more expensive means tested programs.

- - - Updated - - -

i agree to disagree under Any form of Capitalism but not truer forms of Socialism.

I don't mind if your propaganda and rhetoric doesn't already cover that topic; it makes it easier for me.

 

None of which is related to socialism. Supply side economics is not the end all of economic systems. There must also be demand side economics and the two will vary in relation to each other depending on the business cycle of the moment.

What you choose to agree with or disagree with, socialism does not change what "good choices" or "bad choices" are. What is most likely, since human behavior is the same regardless of the type of economic involved, is the driving forces behind those choices. In capitalism man can choose to be a high achiever or a malinger. In socialism man can choose to be a high achiever or a malinger. The differences are that capitalism treats malingering more harshly than socialism, (and in my opinion that is exactly how it should be) and in socialism there is a built in probability that malingering will occur more frequently.

I am a graduate MBA/economist/psychologist, so I chose to post what are the most likely scenarios, not propaganda.

 

Exactly my point except for pockets like some rural areas abject poverty is just non-existent for most Americans even if poor you can get clothed, fed, can see a medical provider in some way if needed and frankly if a child or young adult get government funded K-12 education available even if the school is not good it beats other countries.

 

If only, you could inspire more confidence in your sincerity.

In any Case, my position is that socialism is merely an evolution from capitalism and a requirement for States and Statism to exist.

 

I am not trying to inspire anything to you Daniel. I only post what I believe to be the relevant facts, facts I have learned in 77 years of life experience and observations, some few years living in or next to socialism, but especially because of my years of studying human behavior and economics. Your flirtation with socialism comes from believing that the theoretical model of socialism can exist successfully in the real world. It can't, not for very long.

1. Socialism does not evolve because thinking people don't tend to lose their minds over time.
2. Statism is basically a form of Socialism.
3. It is virtually an opposite to Capitalism which demands that the economy be run by the individuals, not the government or a centralized committee.
4. Capitalism creates greater prosperity that statism/socialism.
5. Statism/socialism has proved to be dismal failures.

Definition of STATISM Merriam-Webster
: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry

States, as used in this discussion, are nothing more than political/geographical divisions with autonomy ranging from total sovereignty to total control by the central government under which they exist.

 

Thank you for explaining our current regime and warfare-State that requires more central planning than a more market friendly welfare-State.

 

Who ever you are replying to, that is an erroneous comment. We do not have central planning, we are a market friendly country, and none of this even approaches socialism, because as we already know, see below:

 

how do you prosecute our Wars on Crime, Drugs, Poverty, and Terror, without central planning?

 

Daniel, I have given you credit for being a relatively intelligent person and you have been reasonably cordial since we began discussing issues. But this last post takes the cake. The "Central Planning" would have to be controlling production, distribution and wealth, Law enforcement, or anti-terror activity are the things government should do.

 

That requires Socialism, not Capitalism.

 

Nothing requires socialism. Socialism is such a dismal failure no one in his right mind wants socialism. Governments doing their job of law enforcement, defense and general welfare of the nation is not socialism. If we had socialism in the US we would not have lasted 225 years. To suggest government doing its job is socialism is hogwash Daniel, and you well know it.

 

The only Thing I know, is that Socialism includes the coercive use of force of the State; while Capitalism does not.

 

I agree! Socialism does have to use coercive use of force by the state; otherwise people will end it quickly. Capitalism on the other hand is production and distribution controlled by the people instead of a coercive government and is therefore more of a wealth builder for the people making a more prosperous nation/world.

 

What ever happened to the "Back to Africa" movement?