Posted on 05/09/2010 9:34:19 PM PDT by george76
>Government cannot “invest”; only private individuals who OWN their wealth and thus have “skin in the game” can engage in “investment.
You know, I’d be inclined to agree with you if it wasn’t for Keelo v. New London.
>OTOH, what was the alternative?
There’s always violence; just ask the marine corps[e] what the most-used and most effective form of conflict resolution in human history is.
>That, unfortunately, is the fundamental conundrum here. That is why this is all so dangerous.
Agreed; the thieves that are robbing us will not be easily persuaded to give up the power/office which they use to do so.
>There IS no way to address this — or attempt to address this — that is truly workable.
The little conflict of 1776 set things up for a good hundred years; perhaps that’s the most we can really expect from a good bloodletting. Jackson, IIRC, said of the Whiskey Rebellion that it would be good if every twenty or so years there was such a rebellion.
As another poster on this board has put it: It's going to get really ugly when the pellet machines stop dispensing. The monkeys who are used to free food are going to get very, very angry.
In 2007, CA and NY were #1 and #2 respectively in the amount of tax dollars surrendered to the Feds, with TX coming in at #3, almost $100billion behind CA. You’re saying you Texans now want to be #1?
Fine with me...
There is also a simple rule that a system like Social “insurance” always depends on having enough people to pay for the benefits paid to others. The greying of America is the basic cause of the break down of the system. The dumping of FICA proceeds into the general fund rather than putting it in a “lock-Box” so that the funds available could accumulate ought not to have happened. But the number of beneficiaries and the amounts they are owed is simply too high, the number of contributors and what they have to give is too low.
(Final paragraph)
If only a few countries faced these problems, the solution would be easy. Unlucky countries would trim budgets and resume growth by exporting to healthier nations. But developed countries represent about half the world economy; most have overcommitted welfare states. They might defuse the dangers by gradually trimming future benefits in a way that reassured financial markets. In practice, they haven’t done that; indeed, President Obama’s health program expands benefits. What happens if all these countries are thrust into Greece’s situation? One answer — another worldwide economic collapse — explains why dawdling is so risky.
Yes Ben that is true - I was planning to build a bit of a dynasty of sorts in that my parents will leave me money and I was hoping to invest and leave my kids a lot more and so on down the line - this is how families build wealth and businesses over generations benefiting not only the family but the country as well.
This is obviously not what the Socialists of this world want. Everyone starts off at same low base with them - Oh, except for their families!
Mel
Same with mine. They want to raise the death tax to 100 percent. That would lead to some interesting decisions.
Will have to look at off-loading assets and money before the inevitable in that case
How do you save and invest with a Ponzi scheme of transfer payments from the workers to the retired and disabled? The gov't had already started spending FICA withholdings to pay for its operating budget. It finally acknowledged as much in the 1960s. If it invests FICA withholdings from Clinton/Gore's lockbox, then it's picking winners and losers.
California’s problems are easily solved. It is only ignorance and apathy that prevents it. A simple amendment to our Constitution requiring any taxes to be applied evenly to all residents, banning taxation of corporate income, and limiting spending to no more than the previous year’s actual tax revenues. Given those Constitutional limitations, everything else would straighten itself out.
In CA we have a progressive income tax with a 10% top bracket. A 3% flat income tax would bring in MORE revenue.
In CA we have a sales tax that excludes groceries, medicines, and all rents and services. Because it excludes these transactions, it is over 10% in most counties. A 3% rate would bring in more revenue when nothing was excluded.
These two tax changes would fix the revenue problem, while putting the equal application clause in the Constitution would be a promise to the wealthy who fled the state that they wouldn’t be raped again as soon as they returned. The ban on corporate income taxes and the 3% flat rate on individual incomes would attract employers back to the state. Limiting spending to the previous year’s actual tax revenues would ensure spending can’t continue when revenues are in decline.
“...the basic rate for the value added tax will rise from 21 percent to 23 percent...”
Good luck with that. Greece’s biggest problem is that tax evasion is rampant, and higher rates will just cause more evasion. Lowering rates to reduce the incentive for evasion, and cracking down on evasion would do more for their economic growth and tax revenues. A 23% VAT provides way too much incentive for gray markets.
Even that represents a failure of the Greek gov’t. Atlanta hosted the games in ‘96, and did a little better than break even, and left behind considerable infrastructure improvements. The point being, it is possible to host the games and not lose your a**, but it takes real discipline of the sort the Greeks haven’t shown in some time.
What we're seeing in Greece is the death spiral of the welfare state. This isn't Greece's problem alone, and that's why its crisis has rattled global stock markets and threatens economic recovery. Virtually every advanced nation, including the United States, faces the same prospect. Aging populations have been promised huge health and retirement benefits, which countries haven't fully covered with taxes. The reckoning has arrived in Greece, but it awaits most wealthy societies.Thanks george76 for the topic, and thanks neverdem for the ping.
Satan must be ice skating, because Samuelson is correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.