Redistribution of Wealth At Gunpoint Is Tyranny

[Joe]

I am continuously surprised at the faith people have that government is going to come to the rescue. Whenever their is an economic downturn - be it Argentina or the US or anywhere - people's first response is "What is the government going to do to fix it?" And we see this time and time again even though government "solutions" end up causing more problems. People still have hope - there's a term for it: "hopium".

Invariably those with power and money, enlist government officials to cater to their needs. In Japan just yesterday we saw a report on how the corporations and the regulatory agencies worked hand-in-hand to benefit each other - not the people. There is even a standard term that corporations use for gaining control of the regulators: "regulatory capture".

And yet people still have hope that next time will be different. We need to accept that governments will always succumb to the control of the powerful.

So what should we strive for? The smallest government as possible. With a small government the corporations will have less power to use public resources for their own benefit and their crony clients in government.

The answer is simple - strive for the smallest government possible.

 

[sesamosinsal]

But why should you have charities and churches giving when people can apply to the government and those people who used to try to help their neighbors already pay horrendous taxes to support government programs so why should they help? So we've lost our sense of care and community. People support this stuff because they have a tender heart. But it destroys the people and the medical care itself.

In dollar totals, the U.S. is the most charitable country on the planet. As a percentage of GNI, Sweden and Norway sit at the very top, occupying spot one and two respectively. Source. It doesn't seem that a public health plan, public schools, public highways, etc., are causing the breakdown in societies. Indeed, the Nordic Model is inherently socialist, and all of the Nordic countries (with the exception of Iceland) are more generous with their cash than the U.S. Thus, it would seem that socialist countries are, in fact, more giving than non-socialists ones.

Sweden and Norway allocate approximately 21-26 percent of GDP on public spending, whereas the U.S. spends less than 17 percent or so. And it shows, as Jeff Daniels' character in the new HBO series "Newsroom" points out: America isn't the greatest country anymore.

I grew up in an area where the people would give you the shirt off their backs if you needed it. Half the people in my high school were below the poverty line. We have those payday loan places lined up on the streets in my town because demand is so high. And yet, people still gave. I volunteered twice to be a member of the executive committee for the American Cancer Society Relay for Life. During those two years, we raised over $40,000 for the American Cancer Society. That's not even enough money to treat one cancer patient. Nonetheless, I'm sure it at least paid a portion of the ACS adviser's salary.

Americans--at least the ones that brought me up and were in my community--are pretty giving, charitable people. We know this from the statistics I cited above, as well as anecdotal evidence that I shared and that many of you probably could share as well. As to why Norway and Sweden are technically more charitable than Americans, I can only guess that it has to do with the national thinking. Everyone in the U.S. has to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and be totally self-reliant. The U.S. is highly individualistic, and I'd say most people--including myself--find it rather shameful to ask for help. Let's just say that such thoughts are ingrained at an early age, and difficult to shake.

In a previous most, El Queso mentioned teaching people how to fish rather than catching the fish for them. That is, in essence, what socialism is. What most of you are proposing is that I give El Queso a fish before he teaches me, even though I'd have no idea how to catch one anyway.

So, what happens when the charity isn't enough? In 2010, only $290 billion were donated to charity nationwide. If all local, state, and federal taxes were to be scrubbed starting in 2013, how would you ensure access to services? What if charities couldn't raise enough money? With a population of more than 300 million, that would be less than an a dollar per person in the U.S.

If people can't afford education, healthcare, utilities, etc., should they really be left to fall behind, even in resource-abundant countries like Argentina or the United States? How can you build infrastructure in a country if there are no taxes do it? Should everything be privatized? Unregulated? Please, explain to me, how does a society like this actually work?

 

[sesamosinsal]

The answer is simple - strive for the smallest government possible.

And a government that is held accountable to the people and transparent. Government of the people, by the people, for the people. We are the government.

At end the of the day, the vast majority of the population is bought off by the same corporations that buy our "elected" leaders. I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, but why does the media decide that he can't be president? Isn't that our decision?

 

[Joe]

Yes, in addition to keeping government small, we need also held accountable to the people and transparent. But at the same time we have to accept that government officials, being human after all, will in the end succumb to the rich and powerful. And that is why small government is actually in the 99%'s interest.

Government's and Transparency are a wonderful combination and as common as Unicorns and Flying Pigs.

Government's role should be minimized to keeping a level playing field. Like a referee at a football match. It's role shouldn't be in staffing the teams, determining how much they are paid, how they spend their money, selling the hotdogs in the stands, buying tickets for the spectators. No none of these - just provide a level playing field so each of us can advance based on our own efforts.

If the government role was minimized, we, as citizens, could concentrate on insuring that it is doing good in it's limited role, viz. - keeping a level playing field.

I would also add that in the case of the US, a small US government is the interest of the 99% in the rest of the world. Small government also being a small military industrial complex.

 

[camberiu]

Corporate tax in the US is one of the highest in the world actually (depending on what state you're in). Federal tax is 35% and then you have state taxes. Most corporations have to pay over 40% in tax.

Also remember that THERE WAS NO INCOME TAX in the US until 1913. And some people argue that it was originally created to pay for Woodrow Wilson's European adventure in Europe (A.K.A. World War I). So even before there was an income tax, the US was already experiencing one of the greatest economic booms and improvements in quality of life of any society up to that point.

 

[toongeorges]

I think there are certain things the government should be involved in.

Healthcare, Education and Transport being the main ones.

No law and order? ;-)

 

[toongeorges]

Any current-day government is by self-definition less efficient than business because they are not restricted by anything except public opinion, which is easy to sway, and the reality that eventually catches up to greed and excess. Politics attract mostly people who are interested in money and/or power.

What I have observed in government is that if some department wants to justify it needs a certain budget, it needs to have spent all its previous budget. To get money each department competes with other departments. If one department does not spend all the money it gets, the other departments are ready to blame the one department that it has wasted money that they could have used. The department that did not spend all loses credibility and the other departments take over the budget that was left in the future. So the reasoning in government is not that the money should be used efficiently. The reasoning is that they should get as much as possible, just in case they would need it, and spend it. Therefore, for all the money that cannot sensibly be spent, silly projects with no added value are created so they spend everything they get and can keep asking the same or more money.

It appears that money is more a driver for politicians in the US (or in most parts of the world) than it is for politicians in Europe. In Europe there is a prevalent opinion that people who go in politics are people who fail in business and the brightest minds are in business and earn more than politicians. However that is another problem we have that indeed the brightest minds are often not in politics.

 

[cbphoto]

Amazing..after 8 years of Bush/less government controls over big business.. you still have people arguing about less taxes and smaller government (less oversight) would be best for "all".. what a joke. Just curious..are u all also firm believers in "trickle down economics"? Or is the opposite "commie talk"?
"Corporations in the US pay some of the highest taxes in the world... 40%..." please share that source with the rest of us.. think last year GE paid something like 2.7%

 

[toongeorges]

Sweden and Norway allocate approximately 21-26 percent of GDP on public spending, ...

Why this works in Sweden and Norway is as I see it that people tend to have more integrity and respect for public things. Not so in Italy, Greece or Argentina. High taxes and public spending are not the key to a wealthy nation. More so, it is about giving and respecting trust.

 

[PhilinBSAS]

Found myself nodding!

funny I found myself nodding off!

Where does value come from? who creates it?

Not the individual - impossible other than on a self subsistance primitive society.

So why should the rest of society allow some individuals to appropriate disproportionately all the wealth?

These so called libertarians are the ones who love liberty for themselves and strip off the restraints from exploiting whoever they want and the safety nets for the poor, the weak, the young, the old.

A real libertarian you would be living in El Bolson on a smallholding growing and consuming the products of his own labour but instead want to take all the advantages that civilised society has created and give nothing back. Worst than Parasites!

bastante!