bjack on 26/7/2015 at 01:54

---

Wow! Some people in Europe actually think that Obama or Clinton are "moderates"? Oh, you mean that they only break 45% of the law instead of 95%? :joke:

Muzman on 27/7/2015 at 04:46

---

I don't think you know the meanings of the words 'left' 'right' or (and especially) 'socialist' in terms if politics.
What's interesting is you've defined the right in terms of the hodgepodge of things you approve and disapprove of and decided anyone not in lock step with that is anathema to the philosophy, basically mapping the ebb and flow of cultural change around yourself, by the looks at least. I mean you just argued there that society has gone all socialist, but 20yrs ago the present extreme right was considered moderate.
So you're working with some authoritarian idealism on one hand, to be opposed by some leftist caricature on the other.

That's the real reason people find you and Tony unconvincing. The lurching haymakers thrown at 'the left' and society at large don't aim at much people actually recognise as true. (and this is probably a drunk post I'm taking way too seriously)

bjack on 27/7/2015 at 19:02

---

One can only judge my opinion here based upon what I have written so far. Still, quite the contrary to some opinions expressed, I am well versed in social and political systems.

You may think I jump all over the place, but I am pretty consistently a classical American liberal (think Thomas Jefferson). The best governments are those that rule the least (at least as is practical), that protect the populace in their persons and property, and allow those people to protect themselves. Overly simplistic, yes, but I am trying to be brief.

100 years ago, progressives were Republican. Now they are far left Democrats. Liberal used to be associated with Thomas Jefferson. It then became a moniker for soft socialism. It is now such a pejorative term here, the left uses progressive instead. Classical liberalism has been redefined by the left wing as a very right wing idea. The terms left and right really don't matter anymore in America, since they have been confused and redefined.

Some of the things that were were once considered "moderate" in America, such as freedom of speech, freedom to keep much of what you earn, the freedom to earn in the first place, and the freedom to protect oneself are now considered evil, selfish, greedy "right wing" ideas. 2+2 now equals 5.

It is nearly worthless to discuss terms such as right and left wing America in contrast to European systems. Yes, it is true that right wing parties in Europe would probably be considered, at best, moderate here - probably partly pinko at that ;) We have yet to have anyone in power that is close to some of the extreme left in Europe. However, we do have some states that come close. California is well on its way to being just like Greece. Our left has made sure of that. The right though does not have the numbers, nor the balls to do anything about it. They suggest fixes and are shouted down as racists, bigots, "haters", or whatever nonsense shit the progressive come up with. So the can just gets kicked down the road, but instead of it wearing down, it grows with each kick. That can is the size of a house now. :tsktsk:

bjack on 28/7/2015 at 02:43

---

All great questions. In order to have an organised society, it is necessary to levy taxes of some sort. The debate comes up about the definition of "organized". Do we rely upon charity to feed and house the poor, or do we instill Big Brother to do it. How much one earns is really his? You're going to get billions of answers on that one. I say 10 to 15% maximum is the "tithe" we owe society.

In the USA, we have many different types of taxes. In total, they add up to something between 50% to 75% of all income when one factors in regulation costs, sales taxes, income taxes (federal, state, and some local), gasoline tax, utility tax, etc, etc. We are not getting our money's worth. For instance, there is no economy of scale with military spending, so planes cost billions of dollars each. The greatest share of the pot goes to income redistribution. I earn it, but it is taken from me and given to another that did not earn it. I can tell you that many of the "poor" in our country have far more luxuries than I do. I am typing on a 10 year old computer.

There is a lot of debate today about tax reform. I doubt much will be done about it, since there are too many that gain from the evil rigged current system. For many people making under $50K, they pay almost zero income tax. If they are married and have kids, they get "earned income credits". Some pay nearly nothing all year, and then get huge income tax rebates in April. There is also absolutely no adjustments for cost of living based upon locality. It costs 3 or 4X more to live in California than Oklahoma, yet we do not get a single break for our increased expense. Matter of fact, we get screwed. There is a fun little thing called Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) that kicks in if you have really high local income taxes and property taxes. For the fun of paying extremely high taxes at the local level, the Feds screw you more and dis-allow many write offs. The result for me is an extra $7500 in federal tax per year, just for the privilege of paying super high state taxes.

So what would be a really fair tax? %15 of income at the federal level, for incomes over... say... $50K. No write offs, unless you are running a business. No mortgage write off. No state, local, property tax, etc. write offs. This would put 10s of thousands of accountants out of business. It would also remove much of the fascist power the IRS holds.

While we don't have VAT in the USA, many in government, including some on the right, wish to replace our income tax with a consumption (sales) tax similar to VAT. That is another alternative. There is talk about giving lower income people money up front to pay these higher sales taxes.

Our biggest issue in the USA is that most people do not pay any tax. The 1% pay about 90% of the tax burden. It is foolish to rely upon a tiny minority for all of your revenue. That money coming from the rich is being used in an extremely inefficient way. If the rich were allowed to keep that money, they would invest it in businesses that would provide jobs.

As for "freedom to earn in the first place"... in some states, it is illegal to get certain jobs without belonging to a union. The government forces you to join a private union in order to hold a job. The union collects a significant amount of your pay and uses much of it for political contributions that you may not believe in. There are a few "right to work" states. California is not one of them.

Also, many "professionals" petition the government to license certain trades. You can cut men's hair without a cosmetology license, but not women's hair. The license takes a long time to get (certified schools, tests, etc.) It does make some sense for hair dye, perms, and whatnot. It does not make any sense to force people to get a license to braid hair, and yet the state requires that. Actually, I think CA just rules that braiding and "beading" do not need a license. There is some hope yet.

Being from Germany, you are probably used to the government demanding a license to do almost anything. Water skiing and wind surfing require a license in Germany, at least the last I checked. We in the USA do not like to be told we cannot do something without a license unless there is a really good reason for it. A license requirement simply to keep the playing field artificially smaller is not cricket.

Boy that was long... :joke:

Fafhrd on 28/7/2015 at 04:51

---

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. No.


The government does not "force" you to join a union in California or any other state. You want to teach at a public school? Yeah, you need to be in the teachers' Union for that district, because the school districts have contracts with the Union. But when the union goes on strike, they'll bring in non-union teachers until the strike is resolved, same as happens when any other union goes on strike.

You want to be a cop or a fireman? You need to be in the union because, again, you're being funded by the local governments and they're contracted with the union. Funnily enough, your so-called "right to work" states, exempt police and firemen's unions from the "you're not required to pay union dues to work in this job and also benefit from union bargaining" part of the "right to work."