0
This topic is locked
QUOTE (kenhoeve @ Nov 3 2008, 03:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
However, with a finite resource base of labor and natural resources, the only possibility of growth in a market based economy is for efficiencies to exist on a continual basis.
-How can a tax base grow and then we end up with a finite labor resource?
QUOTE (kenhoeve @ Nov 3 2008, 03:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So, you are trying to increase your tax base but at the same time you are trying to decrease costs for a unit of production.
-Won’t sales growth from the increased market and tax base allow for a larger profit margin? Taking into account that the cost of operations will generally increase, but always has and should be accounted for in the business model. The incentive for efficient operations is cheaper product and market domination, while maintaining a healthy profit margin.
QUOTE (kenhoeve @ Nov 3 2008, 03:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The ultimate result of course being that the means of production, labor and resources, are apportioned less capital, and yet the beneficiaries of this production must be taxed at a higher rate to compensate for the efficiency.
-If you’re not getting enough for your product and your being taxed higher, than your in a bad business. It’s doesn’t take an economic genius to realize that. The market will adjust. Since when has any business “took it in the profit?” Those tax cost are a line on your receipt.
QUOTE (kenhoeve @ Nov 3 2008, 03:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Eventually it is unavoidable that those who create progress must continually exploit the means of production, (allow me to finish this sentence).
-To achieve a result of continual profit to insure their own personal success, regardless of future progress. Point in case, Fanny, Freddie, Enron, Wachovia, Washington Mutual, Lealman Brothers ect….
QUOTE (kenhoeve @ Nov 3 2008, 03:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The balance then ultimately becomes consumption vs. perceived standard of living due to the fact that we are currently taxed on a system that is arbitrarily set toward standard of living without accounting for overall consumption. Progressive tax is based on arbitrary standard of living. A consumption tax would be based on a standard of living that is either created by the economy, or limited by the tolerance of those who are subjected to it.
-The issue of progressive tax can be argued to death. A consumption tax would be a better standard. Only paying tax on goods and services you receive. I fully agree. However, the beneficiaries of these taxes are not only government sectors but contractors for them and so on and so on. It should be known that the companies that are “America”, will not allow a consumption based tax.
QUOTE (kenhoeve @ Nov 3 2008, 03:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
The idea of civil fiduciary responsibility is far more complicated than any of the pedestrian ideas floated here. Especially considering the global economy and the governmental responsibilities that are required to secure an economy.
-Making point to my comment regarding benefit for taxation. The government securing the economy has larger financial benefits for some than others. While you feel these are all pedestrian ideals, I fail to see where you have brought to light an abundance of ideals that haven’t been discussed, respectively.
While I site Chomski quite a bit, I don’t feel his ideals alone are the answer. I will say that he has a very insightful view on current issues and a dreamers vision for the future. Regardless the ideals of supply in demand, resources vs. production and taxation are all a balance. Like I have mentioned before, we need all the pieces to make the puzzle, not just one. Incentive based societies breed the best innovation, we can all agree on that. Point in case being America. However, to insure the progress you mention, we must not create a huge gap between socioeconomic groups. Nor shall we provide a canvas of unregulated capitalism and hope it turns out for the best.
