A classless society

[News]

[RPLVTRN]

With regard to this morning's discussion of the minimum wage: if we continue to overtax the wealthy and raise the income of the poor, we push everyone to the middle.  A classless society is  socialism is it not?  We expended a lot of our resources in the past century to defeat socialist / communist governments and spread the concepts of liberty, democracy, and the beauty of a market driven economy to the rest of the world.  In light of this, why do we support pro socialist policies such as minimum wage here at home?

The big problem with the minimum wage is that it gives a disincentive for the poor to work hard and improve themselves.

I once heard- "Everyone in America serves a purpose.  See that bum over there on the corner?  Know what his purpose is?  To make the rest of us look so good."  While said tongue in cheek, it has a lot of theoretical merit.

[rustywnascarfan]

I completely agree. I don't see where raising the minimum wage serves any purpose. With extremists that seem to be trying to make policy at this time, I am very concerned that we are walking on a slippery slope to socialism and once your there....too scary to contemplate right now.

[Black3Actual]

The purpose that the minimum wage serves - in so far as it is applied in the United States - is to buy votes.  When we got away from allowing only the "landed" to vote, we doomed this nation to failure.  I agree that women should be allowed to vote, but I firmly believe that only those who own property and who have served in the U.S. Military should have the right to vote.  I do not make allowance for other "civil servant" positions to be allowed the right to vote: only uniformed service (defenders of the nation, not servants of the people).  Nor would I say that stock ownership should qualify, either (stocks are not taxed by local governments). If this were still the policy of this nation, we would not be having the problems we have now.  The people would not be able to "vote" themselves pay raises.  Politicians would not be able to "buy" votes through taxation of those who own property and businesses.  And those with the right to vote would be much more likely to be informed, involved members of our society and, therefor, more likely to preserve the qualities that make this nation unique in human history.

But, then again, we're a "democracy," not a Republic.  Right?

[cyberscan]

I totally disagree with only allowing those who own land to be allowed to vote.  In doing so, the landless will have NO REPRESENTATION in society.  Laws will favor the land owners and will be used to tax and take more from the landless.  This type of system is or was used extensively in Latin America.  However, I will say that those who are on any kind of government welfare program should not allowed to vote in order to prevent those people from voting to increase their pay at public expense.

As far as the rich paying the most taxes in this country, the argument is true.  However, it is the lower middle class who pays the HIGHEST PERCENTAGE of their earnings in taxes.  The IRS gives generous tax breaks to corporations, etc that are simply NOT AVAILABLE TO WAGE EARNERS.  One of the biggest is the fact that businesses can deduct most transportation costs involved in generating earnings.  The employees who work for their paychecks at the same business CANNOT.  When people are paying a high percentage of their earnings in taxes, it make it much harder for them to rise above their situation.

[RPLVTRN]

"But, then again, we're a "democracy," not a Republic.  Right?"

No, we're a republic.  History tells us that a pure democracy (i.e. all matters are decided by popular vote) leads to dictatorship (ala Napoleon) and eventually rebellion (ala Cubans under Castro), and eventual anarchy or collapse of the ruling party.  This happens as those in power vote themselves the spoils of the collective labors and the rich get richer and fewer and the poor get poorer and more in number.

As far as only those that own land or serve in the military being allowed to vote, the medieval kingdoms were an example of this.  Only the Lords and Knights had power and everyone else served them.  Perhaps you should (re) read "The Road to Serfdom" by F. A. Hayek.

[Black3Actual]

OK, I welcome these challenges. First, I know we are a Republic, I was being facetious. :-)

Now, about my idea that only the landed and those who have served should be allowed to vote:

First and foremost the idea that the United States is analogous to the Lordships of Feudal Europe or the Central Americas if fallacious.  In both of those examples, the common person was prohibited from owning land.  We do not have that prohibition in the United States.  So I disagree with both comparisons on this point.  By the way, the right and ability of the lowest among us to own property and to better their standing in society based on their own merit is part of what makes this nation special among Men (ladies, I capitalized that word :-)  ).  I would hold that the current tax policy has been designed - in as much as possible - to keep the poor among us from entering into the upper levels of our society.  This is in total opposition to the purpose for which our government was originally designed.

As to the objection that those who do not own land or who have not served would be taxed without representation: NOT IF YOU GO BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION!!!  I am arguing to return to original intent.  This means that only the landed would be taxed - except for the possibility of consumption taxes.  How much more fair can we be than that?  On the other hand, if we continue to allow those who are not paying taxes to vote more transfer payments from those who are producing, I would argue that it is the producer who is being morally wronged.  This is the entire opposite of your objection: that it is immoral for the landed to take more from the poor through the power of the vote.  This is - at its core - the evil of the income tax.  It allows the government and the voting "poor" to destroy the foundations of this society.  In short: income tax = tyranny!

In conclusion - for now - our founding fathers were set against democracy.  Yes, that means they would NOT agree with the way we elect representatives and effect National policy today.  They were afraid of the "Tyranny of the Masses."  That is why we were set up as a Republic.  Again, when we first set out, Senators were appointed by the States.  This was done to set the "elite" against the "common" through the House and Senate.  The founding father's also set different tax policies, and they demanded that everything be paid for as we went along.  They would be horrified to see what we are doing with our national debt: making our grandchildren pay for our extravagant expenses.  Above all, the founding fathers wanted us to be a moral people.  I would submit that the tendency to "soak" the rich for our own benefit is proof enough that we are no longer the moral People we once were.

(if you are wondering: yes,, I enjoy this conversation, and yes, I am trying to stay civil and polite.  I hope we can all do the same, as I realize this is a sensitive topic).

[RPLVTRN]

How did the "landed" get that land? 

I ashamedly admit that I was watching Ralph Nader on C-Span the other day speaking at the International Book Fair in Miami.  Though I agree with little he says, he is an intelligent person and made one very valid point that made me pause for thought.  (And possibly re-think my stance on immigration, but that is for another discussion). 

He told the story of his childhood and how when he came home and told his father what he "learned" in school his father asked "Did you learn to believe, or did you learn to think?"  He provided the exemplar that when he he told his father that he had "learned" who discovered North America, his father replied that as he recalled it there were always native peoples on the shoreline to greet (or run from) the explorers.  Had they not "discovered" it before Columbus et al?

Again, how did the landed get their land?

As for your position on the voting poor destroying society with the income tax as the vehicle of demise, I'd have to agree.  Because we are economically no longer a republic but have evolved into socialism's evil twin cousin the welfare state.

But the fix to the problem is not to disallow voting and taxation on the commoners.  But to only tax them at a rate that is the bare minimum necessary to ensure the principles of the republic: national defense, preservation of peace between states, regulation of trade between states & with other nations, and international relations. 

If you'd like to read more:

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/

[Black3Actual]

Please, let me say this now, before we all continue this discussion.  I am a realist.  I understand that there are big problems with the practical application of the philosophical points I am making.  I am not necessarily advocating that we take the vote from those that do not own property or who have not served in the uniformed military service - at least not yet.  But it is one option that would provide for a swift solution to the problems we face in this country.

Now, that said, I will grant that I understand your point about taxation, but I still disagree with your solution.  We cannot allow tax "levels."  This is how we got into the position we are in today.  As long as we allow different levels of taxation, and as long as the population as a whole has the right to vote, we will eventually return to where we are now.  We must either A - take the right to vote from those who benefit by voting to take from others for their personal gain, or B - abolish the personal income tax.  If I had my way, I would do BOTH!  But remember, mine is the position of "original intent."  I want to see us return to what the founding fathers intended us to be.  I happen to believe it is the only way to save this great nation.

Now, I would like to point out that, just as there are practical problems with taking the right to vote away from those who do not own land, there are more problems inherent in your "expos-facto" decry of how the "landed" got their land.  My family are 3rd generation immigrants.  We did not "take" anything from those who were living here when the Westerners showed up on this continent.  So, to start implying and assuming that any and all landed persons should be tainted with the brush of our forefathers' sin is as immoral as taxing the more affluent in our society at a higher rate than those who make less.  We cannot start looking backward on history to fix blame for wrongs, we can only look forward.  And we cannot take from those of today to atone for the wrongs of those in the past.  It is immoral and just plain wrong!  Likewise, we should not be taxing Bill Gates at a different rate than we tax the homeless.  What's right is right - no matter who the person is or how much he or she does or does not make.  My point is, if we are to believe and act as though we are all "equal," we must start treating each other as equals again.  We did that in this country - once upon a time.  We need to start thinking that way again.  Then we can get to the work of correcting all the immoral wrongs we have allowed to creep into our government and our leaders.

[RPLVTRN]

I don't think we should get rid of income tax, just make it flat. i.e. I agree there should be no tax "levels".  If we ripped up the current tax code, eliminating all deductions and credits, etc and taxed every individual at the same % rate, any idea what that rate would be?

I was not saying that to own land was being "tainted with the brush of our forefathers' sin".  Just to think about exactly what does it mean to "own land", and does ownership make you better than anyone else living in a collective civil society?  Suppose I want to live on a boat?

[cyberscan]

As to the objection that those who do not own land or who have not served would be taxed without representation: NOT IF YOU GO BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION!!!  I am arguing to return to original intent.  This means that only the landed would be taxed - except for the possibility of consumption taxes.  How much more fair can we be than that?  On the other hand, if we continue to allow those who are not paying taxes to vote more transfer payments from those who are producing, I would argue that it is the producer who is being morally wronged.
 

Actually, by allowing only land owners to vote, tenants would still be taxed without representation.  Landowners would simply pass the cost of taxes to their tenants.  Isn't this the exact same thing corporations do to their customers?  By allowing only landowners to vote, we would end up going back to the feudal system of medieval Europe.  Landowners would make all the rules and the landless would have few protections.  Tenants who paid consumption taxes would be taxed without representation.  I don't think that was the intention of the Founding Fathers.


The Founding Fathers intended on government being limited, and provided a means of generating needed revenue by mainly taxing imports and certain items such as whiskey.  It was only when federal expenditures exceeded revenue that the federal government would bill the states according to representation. 

As far as producers having to pay more taxes than others, I agree it is morally wrong.  Unfortunately most producers pay the highest percentage of their earnings in taxes.  These producers are the employees who are actually making the products, both goods and services that make finance the large corporate profits.  That is the problem with today's society.  The producers are the ones paying the highest percentage of their earnings in taxes, and this makes it extremely hard for them to get ahead.

As far as the voting poor is concerned, I believe that as long as they are receiving charity from the state (federal government is not authorized to engage in charity) they are living in, they should not be qualified to vote.  I would also have to say that I believe that there should be some kind of constitutional literacy test required for potential voters to ensure that voters have an understanding of the principles on which are republic is supposed to be run.  This would make things just for all classes of society.

[cyberscan]

We cannot allow tax "levels."  This is how we got into the position we are in today.  As long as we allow different levels of taxation, and as long as the population as a whole has the right to vote, we will eventually return to where we are now.  We must either A - take the right to vote from those who benefit by voting to take from others for their personal gain, or B - abolish the personal income tax.  Likewise, we should not be taxing Bill Gates at a different rate than we tax the homeless.  What's right is right - no matter who the person is or how much he or she does or does not make.  My point is, if we are to believe and act as though we are all "equal," we must start treating each other as equals again.  We did that in this country - once upon a time.  We need to start thinking that way again.  Then we can get to the work of correcting all the immoral wrongs we have allowed to creep into our government and our leaders.

I have to agree.  There should be no levels of taxation.  Everyone should pay the same amount or same percentage of their earnings.  This is the whole point of most peoples' gripes about the system.  Not everyone is treated equally.  If we have to keep the income or gross receipts tax, then everyone should pay the same rate whether it is 1% or 10%.  There should be no deductions or ways for people to legally escape paying their share.  Corporations or rich individuals should have no more rights or privileges than a poor person, and the poor person should receive no more benefits from the government than a rich person. 

I, however, believe that the income tax should be completely done away with and there should be NO SUBSTITUTE such as the "fair tax."  If this tax were eliminated  and there no replacement available, this government would be forced to return to it limits.

[Black3Actual]

Actually, by allowing only land owners to vote, tenants would still be taxed without representation.  Landowners would simply pass the cost of taxes to their tenants.

First, I did not start this discussion by limiting the right to vote to the "lnded."  I said those who own property and those who had served (honorably) in the uniformed military service. For the purposes of this discussion, I would define "property" to mean realestate, any dweling servicing as a primary residence (i.e boat or purpose-built motor home) and the means of production).

Second, I disagree with your objection.  If you own a house or have served in the military and have the right to vote but you currentl work as an employee or civil servant, please tell me how you plan to pass the tax on your property tax on to the guy who is renting his residence?  Since there are far more employees who own property in the body politic than there are business owners, your argument does not hold.

Tenants who paid consumption taxes would be taxed without representation. 

Also, all consumption taxes are self-inflicted.  Again, please allow me my argument.  I said that - if basic necessities of life are excluded - consumption taxes are self-imposed.  If you chose to buy a radio, car or video game, you to pay the tax associated with that product.

As far as producers having to pay more taxes than others, I agree it is morally wrong.  Unfortunately most producers pay the highest percentage of their earnings in taxes.  These producers are the employees who are actually making the products, both goods and services that make finance the large corporate profits.  That is the problem with today's society.  The producers are the ones paying the highest percentage of their earnings in taxes, and this makes it extremely hard for them to get ahead.

This is a Marxian argument and is totally falacious.  Workers are not the producers in society: they are employees.  This is not to denegrate those who work for others.  I have been an employee many times in my life and I firmly believe that there is nothing wrong with honest, hard work - even if it is for another.  However, it was not until I started my own business that I changed the way I thought (yes, I once thought as you: the employer is nothing without my labor).  Once I had to put up my money to buy the capital needed to start my business: once I had to hire and pay payroll; once I had to spend 80-100 hours a week doing all the things necessary to make a business actually work, I realized how few among us can actually run a business.  Being a "producer" is far more than being the "lucky" one who owns the business.  Making something out of nothing is a talent for which some of us are not suited or inclined.  It is wrong to take that away from those who can do it by claiming - falaciously  that the worker is the true producer.  Jamestown proved the error in this thinking.  We would do well to be rid of it once and for all.

[Black3Actual]

I don't think we should get rid of income tax, just make it flat. i.e. I agree there should be no tax "levels".  If we ripped up the current tax code, eliminating all deductions and credits, etc and taxed every individual at the same % rate, any idea what that rate would be?

No, if you allow the income tax to continue, it is nothing more than a matter of time before government starts to abuse it - again!  After all, when they first instated the income tax, they "promised" that it would not be allowed to become exactly what it has become.  We must never allow government the opportunity to act against the will of the body politic, and that is what I am trying to discuss here.  Restricting the right to vote in the manner the founding fathers discussed would do just that.

I was not saying that to own land was being "tainted with the brush of our forefathers' sin".  Just to think about exactly what does it mean to "own land", and does ownership make you better than anyone else living in a collective civil society?  Suppose I want to live on a boat?

Please understand, I am not trying to put myself in an elitist position.  I have been in the bottom rungs of our society, and I may well be there again.  I am not trying to say any one person is better than another based on what they do or do not own - just the opposite.  Unfortunately, many in our society will not allow for this same argument to go the other way: there is nothing inherently bad in a person just because they may have more than someone else, either.  It is my purpose to point out that - as long as the masses are allowed to vote - those who do own more than the "average" person are at the mercy of the body politic. 

Furthermore, I did not say that one should only be allowed to vote if they owned land.  I said that ownership of property and military service would be the requirements.  Property can be more than a piece of land.  If you own a lawnmower service company where you have several trucks, trailers, mowers and a bunch of employees, but you are renting your home, I would still allow that you own property.  The means of production should certainly be considered property.  So should any dwelling serving as a primary homestead.  What's more, 4 years of honorable service would buy one a pass on all other requirements and still grant the right to vote.  The point is, if you are to be given the right to vote and - by default - the right to tax, you should have something personally at stake.  otherwise, what do you have to lose if you vote to take ALL money from the rich and give it to yourself?

[cyberscan]

Also, all consumption taxes are self-inflicted.  Again, please allow me my argument.  I said that - if basic necessities of life are excluded - consumption taxes are self-imposed.  If you chose to buy a radio, car or video game, you to pay the tax associated with that product.

If I pay the tax whether it is for items I want or whether it is to meet my needs, I still demand and deserve a voice in government.  Those on government charity programs usually receive more "money" than they pay in.  Since they do not pay taxes and consume others' money they are not taxed and therefore do not have a vested interest in keeping government limited.

Being a "producer" is far more than being the "lucky" one who owns the business.  Making something out of nothing is a talent for which some of us are not suited or inclined.  It is wrong to take that away from those who can do it by claiming - falaciously  that the worker is the true producer.  Jamestown proved the error in this thinking.  We would do well to be rid of it once and for all.

I understand this.  If it weren't for businesses, many would not have a job.  It takes money to make capital investments for such things as supplies and equipment as well as furnishing a place to keep these things.  The same is true for businesses.  Without employees making the product, there would be very few businesses.  Business owners AND employees are BOTH producers.  BOTH produce the products people need and BOTH have a vested interest in limited government.  General Electric is credited with inventing the first vacuum cleaner with a built in light and the first TV remote control.  However, it was my grandfather who came up with these ideas and the design needed to implement them  My grandfather was the one who came up with the creative solution, so why should he not have a say in government policy simply because he lacked ownership of real estate?  That is the biggest problem our country faces today.  He who has the gold make the rule.  Individuals have very little say in the government.  Only big corporations and large public advocacy groups have any real say.  I believe that the Founding Fathers intended for  individuals or private citizens who pay taxes to have a voice, not just land owners.

[Black3Actual]

If I pay the tax whether it is for items I want or whether it is to meet my needs, I still demand and deserve a voice in government. 

OK, let me ask you this: if you have ever bought anything directly from a European company, you paid their VAT tax.  Did you demand a right to vote in the country that the company was based in?  No, and you wouldn't have even thought to ask for such a "right."  Yet you voluntarily paid the tax because you wanted that company's product.  What I propose is no different.

If it weren't for businesses, many would not have a job.  It takes money to make capital investments for such things as supplies and equipment as well as furnishing a place to keep these things.  The same is true for businesses.  Without employees making the product, there would be very few businesses.  Business owners AND employees are BOTH producers.  BOTH produce the products people need and BOTH have a vested interest in limited government. 

OK, in the example you have provided, the business owner is the "producer," but the employee is actually part of the means of production.  It may seem a cold way to put it, but it is still the truth.  I can illustrate this way: when an automobile company replaces its workers with robots, it is still producing and the robot is taking the place of the worker.  The business owner is still a producer, but the employee is now out of work.  If it were the case the the employee was a necessarily a co-producer as you suggest, then the business owner should not have been able to replace the worker as - by your definition - the worker is a necessary part of production.  I know this is a difficult point, but I hope you see what I am trying to explain here.

General Electric is credited with inventing the first vacuum cleaner with a built in light and the first TV remote control.  However, it was my grandfather who came up with these ideas and the design needed to implement them  My grandfather was the one who came up with the creative solution, so why should he not have a say in government policy simply because he lacked ownership of real estate? 

This objection actually deals with the right to contract between ourselves.  As an employee, a person is actually entering into a contract with the employer.  The employee and the employer both seek to make the best deal for themselves, and - in this case - that means the establishment of wages and/or benefits.  Now, if as part of this deal the employee agrees to give up any rights to any invention he may develop while in the employment of the employer, it is still a deal the employee willingly entered into.  If you think this is unfair to your grandfather because he had the idea to put the light on the vacuum, it can be equally and justly argued that it is as wrong for your grandfather to want to change the deal he had with his employer after the deal had been made.  This point is even more in favor of the employer if your grandfather was only able to develop his idea due to the training and experience he received at his employer's expense. 

Now, if your grandfather developed his idea totally independently of GE, but he lacked the means of bringing it to market, he could have still sold the idea to a company that did have the means to produce it.  And it is also possible that another person could have developed the exact same invention independently of your grandfather, but at the same time.  This is one of the risks of the free market: the right to fail (or to be second in line for the same patent).

I mean no disrespect to you, Cyberscan.  I am just trying to show how some of your objections are not in agreement with freedom or individual rights.  I agree that government should be governed by the majority of the people, but it should be designed to protect the rights of the least among us, as well.  Our founding fathers gave us a document that was very good at giving us this form of government.  What I think has happened is that - as a people - we have allowed our leaders to lull us into surrendering so much of our freedom for security that we no longer understand what true freedom really is.  In actuality, freedom is as scary as it is liberating.