what's wrong with economics

[littlebabyjesus]

Which post number did I do that in?

201 oh, and 198 too. You need to kind of combine the two to get a feel for it.

Thing is, you yourself gave the reason why it is meaningless - that the govt is, ostensibly, us.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Problem is, the individual gets punished by the IRS - but the mega corporations who pay little or no tax, seem to get a free pass.

I agree that's true. That's going to have to be fixed, however difficult it might be.

They shouldn't be allowed to freeload any more than anyone else. In fact, because they get greater utility from the commons, they should pay a greater share.

 

[7000Miles]

Well yeah, because you've already used the services the tax pays for. That's not theft, it's payment for services rendered.

Services which have been forced on me you mean. Who says I want these services in the first place? If I disagree with a service that only the government provides, what can I do? I don't use all governments services, why can't I chose which ones to use and pay for those?

By staying in the country you agree to the laws and customs of that country. You can revoke your permission by leaving and becoming a citizen elsewhere. I can give you a list of countries where there's no income tax. You won't like living there.

I understand your point here, but if something is immoral I should simply accept it? If a law or custom isn't sound isn't it right for people to challenge it?

A tax avoider is a thief because they take from the commons (using roads, bridges, schools, parks) without paying for them. If you don't contribute you're either a thief or perhaps more kindly.... a freeloader, a mooch, or a parasite. Should the rest of us consider you anything other than a criminal to be treated like one?

Again, these services are forced. Roads, bridges etc could easily be provided without public money. A private company could provide them for example.

Also, if I don't contribute I'm a thief? Aren't people on welfare thieves by that logic considering they consume and don't produce? So should they be jailed like tax dodgers then?

 

[tbtommyb]

Services which have been forced on me you mean. Who says I want these services in the first place? If I disagree with a service that only the government provides, what can I do? I don't use all governments services, why can't I chose which ones to use and pay for those?

Your line of thinking has been done to death as part of the social contract. You said you wanted them when you used them. If you don't want to use the services you can leave the country, but your continued presence implies consent.

 

[8ball]

If you don't want to use the services you can leave the country, but your continued presence implies consent.

The 'if you don't like it, move to North Korea gambit'...

 

[Blagsta]

Services which have been forced on me you mean. Who says I want these services in the first place? If I disagree with a service that only the government provides, what can I do? I don't use all governments services, why can't I chose which ones to use and pay for those?

You don't want roads and pavements? Good luck with that.

You do benefit from most public services btw.

 

[8ball]

You don't want roads and pavements? Good luck with that.

Ah, but the private sector could provide those and charge by subscription via a phone app that bills per distance travelled, body weight and diet*.

* - to account for 'food miles' based environmental externalities - would involve shitting in a bucket and sending to the Government** for analysis
** - AARRGHH!!! The Government - can't get away from the fuckers...

 

[Blagsta]

The private sector can't even get electric billing right.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

A civilized society would allow people the choice. Using force is wrong.

Private property would be impossible without the use of force or threat of use of force. Are you therefore calling for the abolition of private property?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

LBJ, you build some of the cutest little straw men that I've ever seen.

I'm having a bit of a play with you, but my point is perfectly serious. Many people who complain about govt borrowing (not you necessarily) also want things like private pensions. They want the trappings of capitalism that they think will benefit them such as private pensions but not the means by which such things are funded - govt borrowing. Even distinctions such as public/private are disputed things really, mostly smoke and mirrors. If you want any kind of security, such as a pension or insurance, you have to band together as a collective at some stage in the process - either directly by receiving the security from the govt, or indirectly by receiving it from a private company that does business with govt. All the private system does really is ensure that there will be unequal, unaccountable, undemocratic access to those collective goods.

So when you want govts not to borrow so much, what is it you want as the alternative? Wrt the recent credit crunch, it was excessive private borrowing that precipitated that. Increased public debt was a response to the dive in private borrowing. What do you want as the alternative within this system? Perhaps you want a different system, in which case I'm genuinely all ears because I do too. A fully publicly funded pension system, perhaps? I'd like that too. In which case, you will be wanting higher taxes, no? If you want wriggle room for private provision, you'll also be wanting govt borrowing.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

So when you want govts not to borrow so much, what is it you want as the alternative?

I've already said: balanced budgets. There are times in the economic life of a country when running the government on a deficit is warranted, beneficial even. But it needn't and shouldn't be a permanent state of affairs. It's arguable that the current cycle of trouble began in the Seventies, when international lenders made cheap money easily available to many governments, both in the developed and developing world. Governments overborrowed at that time, because it seemed a relatively inexpensive way to curry favor from voters with lots of expensive programs, projects etc.

The chickens came home to roost, though, during the inflationary times that followed.

You want a solution to revenues that don't cover expenditures? How about increasing revenue - maybe taxing those banks, instead of borrowing so much from them?

 

[SpineyNorman]

"Theft:
The action or crime of stealing."

Try to refuse to pay the income tax. If you do, you are put in prison. You cannot opt out or chose which services the tax goes to. Therefore, the income tax is the government stealing your money because you are not able chose whether this money can or can't be taken from you. Maybe a better word would be "extortion"

If you decide to refuse to put a bit of money into the coffers that fund benefits, care for those who can't fend for themselves, schooling for kids whose parents can't afford to pay and healthcare for all then I have no problem with it being 'extorted' from you. In fact I'd not be arsed if they shot you for it and took the fucking lot.

I hope you die a slow, painful death - terminal piles seems apt. Cunt.

This post is not my niece by the way.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I'm having a bit of a play with you, but my point is perfectly serious.

When you are having a bit of a play, it becomes difficult to take your points seriously.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Services which have been forced on me you mean. Who says I want these services in the first place? If I disagree with a service that only the government provides, what can I do?

You could always do the rest of us a favour and top yourself - a radical means of opting out if ever there was one.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You want a solution to revenues that don't cover expenditures? How about increasing revenue - maybe taxing those banks, instead of borrowing so much from them?

I want a solution that's a bit more fundamental than that, really. But taking the current system as a whole, revenues always match expenditures - the sum total of the system of obligations represented by money is zero. But interest is due and so, left on their own, debts increase over time. So the question then becomes a little different, I think - where do you want the obligations to pay these increasing debts to lie? In a growing capitalist economy, overall debt, the number of obligations matched by promises, increases inexorably. And I would prefer the burden of obligation within such a system to be held as much as possible at the collective level. I would prefer public debt to be increasing and private debt decreasing. It's far less stressful for all of us except the rich like that.

As for taxing banks? Nah, nationalise them. The process of lending money is, like many other things, far too socially important to be in private hands.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I want a solution that's a bit more fundamental than that, really. But taking the current system as a whole, revenues always match expenditures - the sum total of the system of obligations represented by money is zero..

You're doing it again: the discussion is about government debt. You've been arguing that govts. running deficits is to be expected. Now you're discussing 'the system as a whole'.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You're doing it again: the discussion is about government debt. You've been arguing that govts. running deficits is to be expected. Now you're discussing 'the system as a whole'.

You cannot just discuss govt debt in isolation. It's meaningless.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

As for taxing banks? Nah, nationalise them. The process of lending money is, like many other things, far too socially important to be in private hands.

Better in the hands of bureaucrats, eh?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You cannot just discuss govt debt in isolation. It's meaningless.

Explain to UK taxpayers how the 45 billion pounds the govt pays to private lenders as interest payments each year, is 'meaningless'.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Explain to UK taxpayers how the 45 billion pounds the govt pays to private lenders as interest payments each year, is 'meaningless'.

The amount paid in interest currently by govt is less as a percentage of gdp than it was at any point in the Thatcher govt.

You may find that rather surprising, but then there's a whole load of absolute tosh spoken about such things. And we never heard about Thatcher's debt crisis. And if you are a British private pension holder, you're benefiting rather a lot from those interest payments - you'd be far less well off without them.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Better in the hands of bureaucrats, eh?

What do you think company executives are? Better in the hands of accountable bureaucrats than non-accountable ones, yes.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The amount paid in interest currently by govt is less as a percentage of gdp than it was at any point in the Thatcher govt.

It's also just under half of the UK govt education yearly budget.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

What do you think company executives are? Better in the hands of accountable bureaucrats than non-accountable ones, yes.

Interesting question: who is better at running an economic enterprise: David Cameron; or Bill Gates?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's also just under half of the UK govt education yearly budget.

Pensions aren't cheap.

But there are lots of ways of measuring the health of a debt. One is average maturation, which irrc in the UK is around 14 years, which is manageable. For all the bullshit spouted about crisis, there are lenders queuing up to buy UK debt at rock-bottom interest. Even that's a double-edge thing - it shows that there continues to be lack of confidence in other places. But 14 years is not crisis.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Interesting question: who is better at running an economic enterprise: David Cameron; or Bill Gates?

Does Bill Gates run a bank?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Pensions aren't cheap. .

Pension plans are going to begin failing - you know it to be true.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Does Bill Gates run a bank?

No; something bigger than a bank.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Pension plans are going to begin failing - you know it to be true.

There is no reason why they should. Overall, many economies are far wealthier than they were 50 years ago. This is a problem of wealth distribution, not one of wealth absence. The current system is going to fail, perhaps, but that's a different thing.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No; something bigger than a bank.

Well, bill gates and his foundation are the perfect illustration really of the result of wealth in private hands. Unaccountable power, promoting agendas that nobody has voted for. Fuck bill gates.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Well, bill gates and his foundation are the perfect illustration really of the result of wealth in private hands. Unaccountable power, promoting agendas that nobody has voted for. Fuck bill gates.

Sure.

The question was, though: who is better at running a large economic enterprise, Cameron or Gates?

Didn't ask who is the nicer guy.