How about a Constitutional Amendment to limit taxation

Great Debates
41

You mean slaves versus serfs? One could actually argue either way. Slaves got whipped, but they had guaranteed home (not saying that that makes it acceptable in any way, etc). The fact that the ex-slaves were tied to their land and had fortunes riding on the season made them more free, which is both good and bad.

Assuming you mean to refer to WASP working conditions, the bottom rung is the bottom rung. In the 1660s, they would mostly be people working for farmers (because you are obviously talking about people who don’t actually own the land). In the 1830s, they would, once again, be agricultural workers, with some urban workers.

If you want to talk 1880s, it gets more urbanized, until your poor are mostly migrant and shop workers.

Fact is, people who always just got by always just got by, under any economic system.

Did things get better? Well, yes, technology got better, so the standard of life for almost everyone rose. Your best argument would be that capitalism fired the kilns of science, and inspired more rapid development of new ideas. Part of that is the problem - as there are more things to buy, the cost of the standard of living goes up. In the 1660s, you only had to own very little to “just get by.” By the 1880s, it was a different story, and by the time you get into the 1900s, you have all kinds of electronics appearing that made “just getting by” much more expensive - and really, that is the truth. The lowest rung is defined as the lowest rung - there is no set level of income to define it. It could be pointed out that “just getting by” in many places in America these days (say, Los Angeles) can include cable television, 2 cars, a family computer with dialup access, and a smallish Christmas. In terms relative to the world and history, that is fairly luxerious, considering that 50 years ago people still had ice boxes and most didn’t have TVs.

42

Oh sure, I agree that the free market comes closer than feudalism to providing more for a greater number. However that doesn’t mean that all by itself it will correct evils such as child labor and filty food suppliers. I don’t see any free-market incentive to keep a clean shop for preparing food it my competitors don’t do the same. And in a totally free market why should I pay a man or woman $1 a day when I can get a child to change the bobbins on my cloth making machines for .$25?

43

You work for any big company and you get a pension for life after 20 years- sometimes even 5 or 10 years (it’s called “vesting”). Now, work for the Feds and you have to have 20 years and be age 62. And after only 20 years your pension is crap (you need at least 30 years in for decent retirement pay- which is as it should be). And- it’d also be pretty crappy if you retired from a big private company. Fed workers pay for their own retirement, to about the same extent any worker does at any large company. Then they have the Thrift Savings plan- which is about the same as you can get with any large company where they’ll match some of your retirement savings. Don’t get me wrong- the Fed retirement isn’t bad- but it ain’t great either.

Try and get your facts right before just spouting off. OK?

44

Perhaps not. But then, neither will legislation. Not by itself.

Really? You don’t see the economic advantage in having customers who survive? :wink:

Well, there may, in fact be good reasons to do so. Ford did just such a thing for fairly good reasons (althoug he had some odd or even bad reasons as well).

I’m not trying to say that all would have been hunky dory if only we had not passed those darn safety regulations. All I am pointing out is that comparing working conditions today with those over a hundred years ago requires that any lessons be taken in the context of the day. You cannot judge factory owners of the 1890s by today’s standards.

45

No, I was talking about those who participated in the economy. By the standards of the day, slaves and to some degree serfs were property. Although, I must point out, that serfs had pretty much died out by the 17th century. Russia still had quite a few, but there were not many in America.

Well, I was not trying to make the issue racial. Although if you limit the discussion to free individuals in America at the time, then your probably right.

Well, I was actually talking about poor farmers who owned or rented their land.

But the fact is also that through the industrial age the number of people who got by increased dramatically.

Quite right.

No, it is not. The caloric intake required to survive is very similar to what it was 100 or 200 years ago. What has changed is the amount of effort needed to aquire that much food.

No, it couldn’t. Not without making the concept of “just getting by” totally meaningless. If we say that the bottom rung is the bottom rung no matter what their absolute situation, then why do we want to regulate working hours, workplace safety, or minimal wages? If the bottom rung is no better off regardless of his absolute income, why do we care about all those things?

Well, I’d have mentioned indoor plumbing, but that’s just me. :wink:

46

Why is it wrong to say that? I suppose it is only my opinion that we are not being taxed enough, but is it wrong to say that? In my earlier post I mentioned a list of items that called for more spending (like it or not) by the Federal government. Some of these could be eliminated (Bush’s trip to Mars) but others can’t (the war in Iraq, Social Security, and a rapidly aging America for example). How can we pay for these things? We could borrow, but I hold that to be very irresponsible. So isn’t it true that we’re not being taxed enough?

(BTW-- do you think I like paying taxes? I’d love to keep my entire paycheck each week. But I know that the gov’t has to pay for all those fancy tanks and interstate highways somehow, so I pay up.)

47

Umm, speaking about spouting off… :wink:

Actually, relatively few companies provide DEFINED BENEFIT pension plans anymore. Instead, most offer something like a 401k with company contributions matching some percentage of what you contribute. The government run Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) insures defined benefit plans.

~3,240 insured plans in the whole USA confirms that not many companies offer these sort of plans nowadays (except if you are at the executive level :rolleyes:). Too expensive for the masses…

48

So how does shipping jobs overseas today preserve tomorrows customers in the US? I know, I knlw, US consumers are better off for getting cheaper goods. And in the short run that’s true. But it is only true as long as there are US jobs that pay above the subsistance level. People talk about a “service economy” but I think you have the question the stability of an economy that is built on people taking in each other’s laundry.

You can look at all of the shennanigans pulled in accounting practices by many of today’s business executives and say this? And there is the Ford Pinto and that Chevy pickup and Firestone Tires and the Ford Explorer. Sure accounting fast ones aren’t the same as injuring people by operating on the cheap but the mentality of the executives is the same. Maximizing their personal wellfare by any means possible as long as you don’t get caught, and with the prevalent anti-tax atmosphere there will seldom be enough enforcers to catch everybody. Today’s executives would fit right in to 1890.

49

A lot of apartments–and let’s face it, if you own your own place you couldn’t be considered to “just get by” – will not rent to you if you do not keep the electricity and water on. So just for this privelege you have to pay $40 a month more than rent ($60 if you count garbage) even if you use none of it.

Heck, I’m not sure of all city regulations, but it wouldn’t strike me as odd if regulations required one to have the electricity and water turned on, or face your property being condemned, even if you OWN it. If that’s the case, then when you take into account property taxes, you’re looking at at least $100 a month Just for the privelege of not losing your own home.

50

The point of having a constitutional republic instead of a pure democracy is to protect the minority against the majority. People (not all of them, but enough to control policy unless you put some firewalls into the political system) want to suppress the annoying speech of other people, and want to spend other people’s money on bread and circuses for themselves.

51

April, shmapril. How about giving everybody their bill on the first monday in November? Now there’s an acid test for the claim that the politicians are simply spending (and therefore taxing) in response to the demands of the voters…

52

I wasn’t flaming you. I was pointing out that your view of the world is somewhat fantastical. Now, do you have any basis for saying that if people keep more money they’ll simply decide “hey I’ve got enough, I’ll give some away,” or are you just going to keep whining about how I’m not treating you with kid gloves?

53

I know this is an article of faith for a lot of Americans but have you ever examined your assumption? What is the essential difference between the 2 systems? One makes it more difficult to enact change than the other. That’s what is protected by a constitutional republic: the status quo. If a bunch of rich guys were to design a constitution that enshrines slavery and a strict money supply they would have created a system that favors the interests of themselves and people like them at the expense of everyone else and the restictions on democratic change might make it difficult to overturn this injustice. It took America decades to end slavery and even longer to abandon the gold standard. If we had had a system of majority rule that encouraged compromise perhaps these advances would have come sooner.

The point you are missing is reciprocity. Under majority rule it isn’t in the interest of those in the majority to ride roughshod over the minority because next time they might be in the smaller group. Of course you have to consider the “Wolves and Sheep” factor. As the parable goes democracy isn’t very effective when there are wide and permanent divisions in a society. White Americans could support slavery without fear because of the race factor. They were never going to be enslaved because they were never going to be black. If slavery hadn’t been race based it’s hard to imagine how it could have held on so long in this nation. As poor whites gained the franchise politicians would have to face their demand to end to the practice of enslaving their friends and family. The demand by the poor that the rich supply them with bread and circuses only becomes a problem when there is insufficient social mobility. So long as the poor can become rich and the rich become poor there is reciprocity.

54

(I have tried to reply like five times, but my browser crashed each time. Blah.)

It’s wrong to fixate on tax rates as a solution to fiscal troubles because it is like saying that lousy quarterbacks are the reason football teams lose. In the case of budgets, one has got to look at spending, as well as the effects of taxes and spending on the economy as a whole.

Let’s face it: the US is in a big fiscal hole for three reasons: tax cuts, increased spending (some of it unanticipated), and a soft economy. Any serious approach to budgeting has got to take into account all three factors. Raising taxes to generate another half trillion in revenue this year – or even by half of that figure – would be an economic distaster. Instituting high rates of taxation during economic downturns (which inevitably lead to deficits) is just a bad idea any way one slices it.

Perhaps I was too strong to say that it is “wrong” to say that we’re not being taxed enough, but it certainly is flippant.