Dirt poor?

[kerosene]

I think you answered some of my questions in your last post while I was typing my last.

[lumberjim]

just a thought:

If we didn't have to pay taxes, don't you think employers would tend to pay us less?

[Undertoad]

Why are those (excise, "tariffs", etc.) taxes not theft and why do they not have an economic impact while income taxes do?

[jaguar]

While your economic theory is certainly from the deep end of the doomsday camp it's not fundamentally flawed. On the flipside it's been a matter of time ever since people realized they could vote themselves bread and circuses and will until fiat currency collapses. The market has a way of sorting these things out though. The biggest problem at the moment is a tad ironic: Japan is in the long term, fucking america hardcore. They're buying everything the treasury has to offer with printed yen to encourage inflation and press down the yen, thus treasury yields are shithouse (which pisses off people like me who liked them) and makes debt look cheap for governments. When they stop buying them, yeilds will rise causing MASSIVE problems for fiscal policy. The economist in particular has been harping this line for a fair while now. Don't ask me how the game ends.

So...um....how exactly does this work with essential services exactly. Do I have to pay the postman every time I want my letter delivered? Pave a road to the local store myself? Can I then charge people to use it?

Pull out of your ass social theory and fuzzy-beyond-analyisis numbers aside wouldn't this mostly result in the disadvantaged having a choice between starving and swallowing some religious bullshit to get a meal?

Look I agree good fiscal policy is needed but I do not agree with your answer.

[Radar]

What would be the contingency plan if people did not donate enough money? Wouldn't this require people to pay toward charities at least the same amount that they pay now in taxes in order to maintain these programs at their current levels?

Life doesn't have safety nets and government isn't here to provide them. Some people act irresponsibly, and that's unfortunate. I think if young people see that you don't have a safety net and must rely on voluntary charity from your friends, family, neighbors, churches, and non-profit charities for health care, food, shelter, etc, they will be more apt to take their personal responsibilities more seriously.

People would only have to donate a fraction of what is currently collected in taxes to maintain the same or better level of assistance currently offered by government. As I mentioned earlier, government on average keeps 85 cents of every tax dollar marked for these charity (it's not charity if it's forced) programs and those in need get less than 15%. The opposite is true of private charities, which on average only require 12%-15% in overhead while 85% or more makes it to those in need.

[Radar]

Wow, you guys are posting fast and furiously, I'll try to keep up.

If we didn't have to pay taxes, don't you think employers would tend to pay us less?

Some might, but I think most would think they could pay the same amount, and have happier and more productive employees. They look like a hero and don't have to pay a dime more. In either case, the economy would be doing better because when people got to keep what they earn, more people could start new businesses offering more jobs to people. The increased competition in the market would drive wages upward.

So...um....how exactly does this work with essential services exactly. Do I have to pay the postman every time I want my letter delivered? Pave a road to the local store myself? Can I then charge people to use it?

Who pays for local roads right now? Your town or county through property taxes. Property taxes are fees to pay for police, firefighters, parks, and local roads. I don't see that changing. But I do support toll roads. All of the toll roads I've been on in CA are better maintained, traffic is smoother, etc. And with lots of them, the costs would remain very low and reasonable. That way those who use it pay for it, and those who don't do not. As far as a postal service, there would no longer be a monopoly. You could choose your postal service and arrange payments with them. My guess is some would offer a monthly fee, some would have postage meters, etc. and all would be faster, cheaper, and more efficient.

Pull out of your ass social theory and fuzzy-beyond-analyisis numbers aside wouldn't this mostly result in the disadvantaged having a choice between starving and swallowing some religious bullshit to get a meal?

There are many non-profits that are not affiliated with any religion. And those are the only ones I personally donate to. More would crop up with government out of the picture. But if I'm starving and cold and someone says I can have a hot meal, a shower, and a place to sleep in exchange for hearing thier religious pitch, I might go for it.

As far as economics are concerned, mine are extremely sound. Sadly many Americans don't understand the concept of inflation. They look at politicians on television pointing to higher prices as though THAT were inflation. The politicians promise to fight politician, but THEY are the cause of it. All the government would have to do to stop inflation is turn off the printing presses, cut the unconstitutional parts of government, and back our money with something of value instead of empty promises by government. We'd eliminate the illegal federal reserve system entirely.

Why are those (excise, "tariffs", etc.) taxes not theft and why do they not have an economic impact while income taxes do?

Tariffs are a fee paid for the priviledge of selling foreign goods in America. In most cases, labor in other nations is far cheaper (thanks to inflation caused by politicians) so the fee is negligable for those importing the goods and they still have a chance to compete fairly. Do these things have an economic impact? Unfortuantely yes. This is a non-direct hidden tax on consumers because the cost is passed on by those importing the goods onto them in the form of higher prices. Not necessarily higher than the goods made in America, but higher than they might have been otherwise. Income taxes aren't as much about economic impact as social impact. We each own our own bodies, minds, and labor. And nobody has a claim on the fruits of our labor but ourselves. To take it by force is theft and slavery. Some would argue that you get something back for the money that's taken so it's somehow not theft but of course they are wrong.

If I put a gun to your head and tell you to give me your watch, and then I give you money before leaving, you have still been robbed. And even if I stupidly give you more money than the watch is worth, you have still been robbed.

[Undertoad]

So they are theft, and do have an economic impact (we haven't even gone into the international value of the dollar or the impact to American trade overseas of competing tariffs)...

...but are acceptable because they do not have as deeply a social impact.

Now, what was your complaint against the Georgists again?

[Radar]

My complaint against Georgists is that they are socialists who think they are entitled to something for nothing. They deny that land can be owned. They might as well deny that gravity exists.

[jaguar]

I would like to know how exactly you are qualified to judge your economics as extremely sound. They have merit but they are by no distance bulletproof, do you think you're years ahead of the entire economic world?

I work with economists, financial analysts and traders on a daily basis. What you are suggesting would cause nothing short of economic chaos, particularly the idea of abolishing reserves, how do you propose to exercise anywhere near the level of economic finesse exercised by central banks these days (which is responsible, along with a bit of luck for unparalleled economic stability) without basic tools. God knows the only reason Japan is finally crawling out of the hole is due to effective monetary policy of printing money and filling their coffers with foreign currency.

Judging by your posts and discourse I'd say you have a fairly solid understanding of rudimentry economic concepts and theory but little or no understanding of how the international financial system works on a day-to-day basis.

[Radar]

Economics is a fairly easy topic. The problem is you get economists, and other people trying to make it more complicated than it really is.

No Federal Reserve + Fiat Based Currency = No Inflation + Economic Stability

The only stability we've gotten from the Federal Reserve is our money steadily becoming worth less and less.

[jaguar]

tehehehehehehehehhahahahAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

God you're a gem. Send that one off to Alan Greenspan, I'm sure the revelation that economics is quite so infantile in complexity and solutions so obvious will change his thinking entirely.

Let me revise.

Judging by your posts and discourse I'd say you have a poor and most likely deeply flawed understanding of rudimentry economic concepts and theory but little or no understanding of how the international financial system works on a day-to-day basis as well as little or no understanding of economic history.

[Radar]

I don't care what your opinion is of me. My knowledge of how economics works is very solid. And economics don't change when dealing internationally.

When you've got something to back your money, your money is worth something (fiat based currency). When you print more money than you have of something to back it up, money is worth less. It doesn't take a brain surgeon.

The Federal Reserve is an illegal organization in the first place and so was the Federal Reserve Act. The Constitution says that ONLY government may make money. And common sense dictates that money be worth something whether it be gold, oil, or some other commodity.

Judging by your posts, you are someone who barely knows economics but who thinks themselves above others because they know a few buzzwords and formulas that do nothing but hide what's really happening. The Federal Reserve is totally unnecessary and those who think it is, don't know shit about economics. That means you, Alan Greenspan, and anyone else who fits the description.

I'll stick with Nobel Prize winning economists like James Buchanan, Milton Friedman Friedrich Hayek, and Vernon Smith thanks.

[jaguar]

That's nice. You go tell the fairies how Federal Reserve is illegal and if everyone stops printing money the world will exist in perfect economic peace and I'll go back to working in the real world with real money on real markets and all the complexities involved in doing so.

One final question, mostly out of morbid curiosity, do you actually think there is no different between macro and micro economics?

[Clodfobble]

Getting back to the how-does-Elspode's-son-live hypothetical...

(Correct me if I'm wrong on any of these steps: )

So, in your ideal world, beyond the actual goods-and-services charities, like a meal and a place to sleep for the night, would there be straight-up money charities? It sounds like his son is capable of living on his own, he just can't work at a capacity to make enough money to live. BUT... if there are charities where you can just get a check, what's to stop those who want to from collecting such a check from EVERY charity?

Right now, because there's really only one place to go and get money directly, you can't collect more than once unless you start stealing Social Security numbers (don't get me wrong, I think Social Security is a scam, I'm just trying to figure out how this new system would work.) Would all the new charities that pop up have to be sure to communicate with each other, make sure no one's taking $300 a month or whatever from all of them? I think charities that gave actual money would soon disappear.

So let's say, instead, the charities won't give you money directly, but they'll pay your landlord directly. What's to stop the landlord from collecting multiple times and giving kickbacks to the person living there?

So where does that leave Elspode's son? He would have to rely on someone providing him with all his goods-and-services directly, since in theory there's no advantage to having them duplicated. Ok, so effectively, he'd have to live in a "home" where everything would be taken care of for him.

But a lot of people simply couldn't live like that. Would someone with Multiple Sclerosis have to live in a dorm with a bunch of people with Down's Syndrome, just because his muscles wouldn't enable him to work more than part-time? A lot of folks would consider it degrading, both being lumped in with people with all sorts of disabilities, as well as giving up so much independence when they really only need a little help.

If all direct payments for people on Social Security were removed, you'd have to have a big shift in how the benefits of charity were realized. If you were put in charge of an extremely large non-profit charity group, that could cover a lot of different needs, how would you structure it?

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by jinx
I'm interested.

I'll PM ya in a bit.