<p>I gave you an example of how to pay for the war. It’s not difficult. Whether people want to pay is another story.</p>
<p>There are plenty of scholarships that aren’t taxable. They can be taxed.</p>
<p>We tax intellectual capital all the time. When the companies are sold.</p>
<p>Debating whether how a particular plan will be developed is great. Our law makers and leaders must realize that the voting population is getting mightily upset with the current system for what ever reason. Certainly trying something is better than not doing anything or keeping the status quo. </p>
<p>Personally, I am tired of the “fine tuning.” Who among us, college educated, believes that we can keep the status quo?</p>
<p>Do Something, Anyone.</p>
<p>I’m sick of the fine tuning, lobbying written, economically sick, tax code.</p>
<p>It’s not necessary.</p>
<p>Obama, with all the talk of change, is just going to change things incrementally.</p>
<p>I’m hoping for more.</p>
<p>I know it really won’t happen. ;)</p>
<p>"There are plenty of scholarships that aren’t taxable. They can be taxed.</p>
<p>We tax intellectual capital all the time. When the companies are sold."</p>
<p>Again, I have no principled objection to the practice. But I see no reason to wait until the companies are sold. (That would be like waiting to tax the scholarship until the student is a full professor.)</p>
<p>Becuase sometimes, the intellectual capital isn’t really all that intellectual. ;)</p>
<p>Dstark, I like your plan. I haven’t run the numbers to see if it would adequately pay for government expenditures, but it seems about right. Just one thing to both simplify it and make it even fairer: tax all corporations the same way we do partnerships (there’s really no reason not to) by passing through all gains and losses annually to the shareholders to pay tax on, instead of taxing at the corporate level.</p>
<p>Kluge, thanks.</p>
<p>The problem I have with taxing the shareholders instead of the corporation is the shareholders may never see the money. This also has ramifications. The shareholders are more likely to want corporations to pay more in dividends and this may not be a good idea. If the corporation can get a better rate of return than the shareholder, it is better for society for the corporation to keep the money.</p>
<p>My belief is tax the people (or entities) who have earned and received the money, not people who might get the money.</p>
<p>he’s a democrat in an election so he “wants” to adjust all the policy in that direction, but it’s not like flipping a switch. i’m sure that his cabinet will be staffed with people who understand the economy well enough to formulate reasonable fiscal policy.</p>
<p>@1of42</p>
<p>As I said before, for a society to be virtually problem-free, there needs to be massive behavioral changes (e.g. parenting). Anarcho-capitalism will have problems similar to statism if it were implemented today, BUT it would be more equipped and more efficient at solving the problems.</p>
<p>Anyway, I don’t arrive at the conclusion of anarcho-capitalism because of the “free market”. It is the only logically consistent system based on non-coercion. I tie (or at least try to) the principles of mutual agreement in all aspects of my life. This website has helped me greatly in doing so:
[Freedomain</a> Radio - Home](<a href=“http://freedomainradio.com/]Freedomain”>http://freedomainradio.com/)</p>
<p>If I were to advocate for beating only black people, then I would be dismissed for not applying these principles universally and advocating for beating all people to maintain logical consistency. Similarly, any arguments with glaring contradictions (e.g. spanking children and statism) are to be rejected. If you refuse to reject them, then you have contradicted yourself since you are not seeking the truth, a pre-requisite for debating.</p>
<p>I think its an interesting irony that the Democrats are now more responsible on budgets. If you look at growth of the federal debt, the Republicans have accelerated it in a higher rate. </p>
<p>I am not sure when was the last time a Republican president balanced a budget. So much for the old party of fiscal responsibility.</p>
<p>afruff: You acknowledge that massive behavioral changes would be necessary for anarcho-capitalism to work. Yet you still support it. Is this because you have the faith that such changes will occur? Why is that? And, further, explain how that is different than the faith that many statists place in government’s ability to carry out tasks better than the free market.</p>
<p>From where I’m sitting, anarcho-capitalists and statists are two sides of the same coin: lots of faith, little willingness to critically determine whether or not their ideas will transfer well to reality.</p>
<p>“I am not sure when was the last time a Republican president balanced a budget. So much for the old party of fiscal responsibility.”</p>
<p>The republicans talk a good game, a better game than the democrats. But as you pointed out, subsidycourt, republicans don’t deliver. </p>
<p>Republicans stand for lower taxes, primarily to the rich. Republicans do deliver on this. </p>
<p>The talk about fiscal responsibility is a cover, a diversion. It’s nonsense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>1) Republicans have lowered taxes for everybody. </p>
<p>2) Bush =/= a true republican (when it comes to fiscal responsibility). McCain, who has fought for fiscal responsibility his whole life, is a far truer republican (as least fiscally) than Bush ever was.</p>
<p>“primarily to the rich”</p>
<p>“2) Bush =/= a true republican (when it comes to fiscal responsibility). McCain, who has fought for fiscal responsibility his whole life, is a far truer republican (as least fiscally) than Bush ever was.”</p>
<p>After Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2, I kind of lost interested in waiting for a fiscally conservative republican to show up.</p>
<p>100 year wars are expensive. ;)</p>
<p>link to 100 year war?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sure you were really hurt by the national debt growing. Further more I’m sure you were really helped by a balanced budget. If you believe any of this you have no idea how economics works.</p>
<p>Anytime you wanna link to the 100 year war please let me know. The 60 year wars in Germany and Japan haven’t been expensive while at the same time netting us some great results. The current 18 year war in Kuwait isn’t looking too bad either.</p>
<p>Lax: Classic bait-and-switch here. “Republicans are fiscally conservative” … “Yeah, but every recent Republican has increased the national debt.” … “Yeah… but how has that hurt you? Huh?”</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter whether the national debt being high personally hurts any citizen. The point is that fiscal conservativeness being Republican and out-of-control spending being Democratic hallmarks is a fallacy, pure and simply.</p>
<p>While you’re right that Japan and Germany have cost us little despite long involvement, you have yet to elucidate the process through which McCain plans to go from the current massive combat operations situation to a small occupation force situation, as you seem to imply would happen. What’s the plan there?</p>
<p>[YouTube</a> - John McCain and his 100 Years War](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUE-QmH-n4Q]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUE-QmH-n4Q)</p>
<p>I know how economics works. ;)</p>
<p>…at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.</p>
<p>“Maybe 100,” McCain replied. We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me…As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."</p>
<p>Last time I checked we weren’t at war with Japan or Germany. “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or killed.” Last time I checked wars dont constitute being free of harm or injury :)</p>
<p>Maybe next time you should actually look @ the quote instead of repeating what Olbermann and other talking heads tell you to :)</p>
<p>Also, if you claim to know so much about economics, tell me the benefit of paying down a national debt with a 6% interest rate now…as opposed to giving american consumers tax cuts to pay down credit card and other debts with interest rates much higher than 6%. Surely you can explain this :)</p>
<p>So we should just let the American people borrow more than they can handle and when things fall apart the American government should come in and give the consumers the money?</p>
<p>Interesting republican economics.</p>
<p>PS The American government can’t pay the debt down now. It’s too busy borrowing money for the Iraq War, and bailing out investment firms, banks, and others.</p>