1] Because this redesign can only be implemented nationally, very strict rules will have to be established regarding foreign ownership of domestic assets.(to be expanded)

2] Wages: Income from labor or assets over 12 times the established federal minim wage (annualized 40hr/52 week, year) will be subject to a 100% federal tax. Pending: Educational Requirements

3]...

The US economy is simply put a capitalistic entity with socialist overtones. The current situation, though complex in solution, is simple in terms of origination. The .Com falsehood invited players (investers) into a game they most were never equiped to play. Free money for those prudent to create the hysteria of the "new economy", while the the late comers found that there hopes of fat pockets came with holes already in place. The constant back and forth sway of the US economy is likened unto a ship a sea. Too much weight on one side and the sway because violent. A sudden overcompensation causes even more problems. 1) Remove the capital gains tax ... period. Why do I need to find investments that will return over 20% just to break-even. That sucks!2) Hold the government accountible for their overspending and subsequent over taxing ( or vice versa ). Unfortunately, democracy gives equal voting rights to every citizen and the majority of us get our opinions from thirty second sound bites.3) We need to immediately find solutions to the problem of the new slave trade. The US provides work visas for migrant workers while the US can't sell a Chevy to any foreign land. How can you attempt to benefit by producing cheaply when the buyers need those jobs.4) Education is key to the masses finally getting control of the country that we built. The working stiff is seemingly ripped off at every angle.

USA's growth is (was?) fuelled by illegal money coming in from poor countries like argentina, brazil, mexico, india and russia. the elite in these countries tried to store their (illegally acquired?) money in us, especially as the us does not tax foreigner's capital gains etc. This led to a strange situation where: US imports far exceed exports, but dollar remains strong. Obviously, a lot of people from not so stable countries are preferring dollar to their own currencies.The debt level, energy consumption and housing costs per capita in US metros are also going beyond sustainable level. (Just try buying a habitable house in a crime free neighbourhood in the NYC etc... at current prices, your grandchildren will possible finish paying it)This spending splurge is (was?) obiously fuelled by the stock market, which in turn was fuelled by foreign money running after non-taxable gains in the US equity markets... and also poor latinos providing cheap labour for next to nothing (the secret behind "rising" productivity)Question- Can it last forever? Can the US import all the goods and not produce anything? Can the US allow the entire Latino population to immigrate to the US illegally and give them an amnesty every 5 years? Doubtful. IMHO, the US' party is over.

Friend,help me to find if the program is rationalize? I expect your answer,thanks your time and warm

A lot here to think over. Off the top of my head, Something I think was under emphasized is the world wage presser that was caused by free trade International trade yes, free trade no { strictly speaking there is very little under most technical deffinitions}. There are many strictly interanational issues we can not address within this topic. However, if retrun rate regulation was inadiquate to balancing US trade by equalizing financial markets, then a 1-1 trade bank would help. also requiring US companies operating overseas to pay based on american scales would result in most US bussinesses becoming strictly domestic and would cure our moral delema. likewise foriegn companies operating in america should pay rates consistant with the home country if they are higher than here. { this would put an end to the Nike’s of america, germany, and japan} do we want to expand and formalize any of this language?

and the "advancement" to employability of the third world. As I see it, Japan succeeded when it undercut our workers, and failed when its workers were undercut by the rest of Asia. Not true on both counts. Japans success was largly based on in order of priority
1) superior net national savings rates
2) superior investments and crosslicencing in non defence R&D
3) superior labor relations in key industries
4) real comitment to quality and flexablity before quantity or profit 5) economic insentive system that demoted both inflation and ressesssions for several decades at a time -- much superior to the US performance over the same period -- that including low bottom to top pay difference ratio’s. japans decade long recession is a curiosity in several regards:
1) It only seems to impact the financial and capital sectors
2) while japans productivity rates are way down during this ressions, they are still higher than ours during most of the 70’s & 80’s
3) the lifestyle of the average japanese has been little effected only a small number of very rich families have been effected { with losses upto 50% of valuation}
4) japans trade surplus has not decreased.
5) the recession came at a time when a depression was expected based on inadiquate social inertia analysis.( the same was true for the US to in 1989 but we escaped it though kansian economics with the progressive sale of american assets instead of government expenditures as used previously, the result was a period of low inflation as expected with some relitive reduction in the rate of regulation increase as social inertia expected but no depression.)

Technological progress and an abundance of old money (established international companies) has given us temporary advantages and the illusion of prosperity. Our illusion of prosperity is based on the sale of capital assets to foriengers mostly rich.

But the ugly exploitation that is the foundation of the "new economy" will get us also in the end. Gary Theskywillbefalling Gary, I could tackle this one from purely an ecopolitical perspective or I could get religious on you-- in any event you are right. I know you do not believe but when we are reduced to a one world government and you are required to accept the number in order to buy or sell don’t take it. at best you will enjoy only three 1/2 years of peace before everything goes very very very bad.

I will be replying to the previous post shortly sorry for the delay

Post 6 {I didn't count] from This point forward I am going to start numbering my posts for reference. this format while good is difficult for multi-level, multi-segment topics. please number likewise for my small brain. PS I will be responding to your post within 36hrs.

"Capital cost and domestic economic potencial"
The higher cost of capital reduces the nations potential performance in productivity, innovation, income, and employment. ---This simplified market test equation illustrates the problem: D = ( $1 + r)^ y. If $1 is considered for investment with a demanded rate of return of r for y years then at the end of y years the investment must yield at least the demanded return of D dollars or the investment will not be made. -- Current Business Operations that fail the market test and are otherwise still profitable are decapitalized over time and reflect an actual decline in capital formation, employment, and production.-- Proposed Business Projects that fail the market test but would otherwise still be profitable are never started and reflect lost opportunity for capital formation, productivity and employment growth, development and introduction of new and technologically innovative products, services, and production processes. -- Investment Time Horizons shorten as r increases. This makes otherwise profitable business proposals requiring several years to complete or realize return less likely to meet the market test. Given a proposal with a total expected return of D, the maximum time to realize D is y where y= log (d) / log (1 + r). As r increases y could decrease from decades to months.-- The Capital Replacement Rate slows as r increases. It takes longer for machines and equipment to pay for themselves as the demanded return increases. As process innovation is commonly carried in new machines and equipment, the potential productivity growth rate is reduced.

The effects of high interst rates on international trade is a topic to lengthy for this post. The overall result however is a net inflow of foriegn capital investment "foriegn ownership of american" and merchandise inflow. Americans companies are put at a real disadvantage both in international and domestic markets. We end up importing world unemployment and dinamic disadvantages resulting in unemployment or lower than otherwise wages, R&D, and equipment investment at home.
THE SOLUTION: What we need is contrary to Adam smith's idea of economics. we need a high net national savings rate while we have a low rate of return / interest rate.*** IF the government USED the savings rate INSTEAD of the interest rate TO control inflation THEN when inflation treatend, the government would increase the savings rate. The increased savings rate would reduce consumer demand thereby reducings inflation. The increased savings rate would also reduce the interest rate promoting bussiness capital investment / formation promoting non inflationary future grouth. *** The governmant should target "The Capital & upper managment to labor compepensation ratio" when the middle class or market conditions decline. It should decrease with inflation and increase with unemployment. When the ratio decreases labor becomes more expensive promoting investments in training and labor saving method's and devices. when it's low it promotes job creation by reducings employmnet costs and increasing capital formation insentive. *** when inflation and unemployment are high the government should seek to promote general, trade, and professional education to promote employability. ******
Some things that could be done to this end.
(1).. consumer credit should slowly be reduced or phased out. This incudes credit cards and the federal debt.
(2).. Social Insentive systems should encurage savings. Converting as much as possible of Social Security and private insurance over to private savings would be a good start. havings a tax system that promoted general purpose savings is another.
(3).. The FED should be disbanded with currency in the hands of the tressury--we should abondon a debt based currency idea. The banks should still be regulated with minimume reserve requirements.
(4) this is by no means a complete list...

Wealth does not create demand, income and ( in the short run) credit does. The wealth effect is a reflection of an overestimation of future real income VS expenses influencing people to spend today depleting savings. even investments are made on credit. I think that credit should be illegal for purchasing financial investments and phased out for consumer spending. the wealth effect would be reduced by reducing the expectancy of high future gains. this can be done in nondestructive ways.

America is economically uncompetitive in international trade. This can be stated because American has run a trade deficit every year for almost two decades resulting in a trade debt that as a percent of GDP has also grown every year. In 1982 America was the worlds largest net creditor with net foreign assets of 152 billion dollars representing almost 70 years of accumulaton. By the spring of 1985 America had no net international assets. By 1986 America became the worlds largest net debtor with over 100 billion in debt. by 1997 America was a gross debtor for 2.8 trillion in long term sicurities plus additonal debt in demand deposits and other ownerships. by 1997 amercica was a net debtor for 1.4 trillion in long term sicurities debt (stocks, bonds, and treassuries) plus additonal debt in demand deposits and other ownerships. by 1999 I estimate we became a gross bebtor for 3.0 trillion and a net debtor for 1.6 trillion not including demand deposit and non sicurities ownerships held by foreinger. In 1999 gross american holdings of foriegn assets accually fell by 10 billion.***** The origin of the trade imbalance was caused by many factors with monetary and fiscal policy being key. America has controlled inflation by restricting money growth. The Government has also practiced deficit spending for both keynesian and political reasons. By the 80's, even 70's to a lesser extent, government credit demand and monitary restriction had produced high real interest rates relitive to the rest of the industrialized world. The High real interest rates looked attractive to forieng investors. As they started moving their funds into the united states they had to sell their currencies to purchase dollars. the relitive demand for the dollar pushed it's exchange value up against other currencies. As a result American products became expensive to foreigners as foreign products became cheap to Americans. The outward flow of dollars from the trade deficit was matched by an inward flow into the capital market primarily to finance the federal debt. In the 90's the real rates of return adjusted for percieved risk in other global markets kept funds flowing to American capital markets even though the rates were lower than in the 80's.***** sence 1997 explosive evaluation growth in the stock market and a small decline in the national debt has caused flows to the capital market to change from debt investments to equities investments. While the causes within the capital market are changing the negative impact on trade deficit continues. In 1997 foreigner held only 6.3% of US stocks if all their american sicurities holdings were in stocks it would have been 19.6%. while the current figure is probable well below 19.6%, this will change especially when the stock markets explosive growth stabilizes.

There are six problems with the current trade and capital market imbalance we have with the rest of the world.
First, it is unsustanable. foreingers will stop investing in american capital markets when:

a) America's real rate of return adjusted for percieved risk is no longer greater than other markets.
b) forieng investment has saturated the american capital market.
c)Foreingers stop saving or start disavings for whatever demographic, social, or economic reasons.
Second, it promotes instability. Capital markets and economies including america's have proven unstable even without foreign investments. the american economy has suffered many resessions and several depressions. The currency exchange markets have also proven unstable both in the short and long term regardless of government intervention primarily do to capital and political speculations. Instability can be illustrated with a corporation, industry, bank or even a region like asia. For investors to gain detailed information takes time and money. In some cases information is legally denied. In many cases information is extensive and imperfectly analizable. Large investment managers and small private investors alike commonly lack the time and have better things to do with their money so they follow trends and rumors. Individually investors have little to gain and much to loose by not acting on the little even irrational information they have. There is also no way for individual investors to pressure companies or regions into improving practices by gradually reducing investments. Sense the last investor out the door looses his money. so when american practices and or economic fundamentals are perceived unsound capital flight will occure.

Third, it harms american industry. The high dollar makes foriegn products relitively cheapers. Many american companies must lower product prices or loose market share. Either way these companies have less revenue per unit sale for profit, capital investment, and R&D than they would with an exchange rate at purchasing price parity. The forieng competition ends up with more revenues for profit, capital investment and R&D than they would have at purchasing price parity. As profit has always come first in america the big cuts are in capital and R&D with the long term consequences of reduced productivity growth, income growth, and a slow loss of cutting edge technology and competitiveness. This was clearly seen in the 80's but with Japans cyclical ressession / mini depression and the cartelization of trade in some industries of Europe we have had a limited and temporary break.

Fourth, our employers will have foreiners at heart. In 1997 foriengers already owned 41% of the voting shares of the 100 largest companies in america. forieng interests will gain control over key industries in america. What loyalty american companies do have for america will be gone. At that point we should not be suprised to see corporations move key occupations, proccesses, activities, even headquarters out of the united states. these corporations will tend to have philosophies, practices, and interests that we may find very unamerican even antiamerican. When the toyoto - general motors joint venture started biulding cars we gained factory jobs but the managerial, engineering, R&D, and design work was done in Japan. Many European investors and corporations as a matter of practice do not believe in capitalistic market competition.

fith, when the capital inflows stop america's standard of living will fall. Our standard of living will fall equal to our yearly trade deficit (n1) plus the interests on over 1.6 trillion in net foriegn investments (n2) plus American investments to displace or balance foriegn investments in america (n3). our standard of living will also fall as imports become more expensive as the dollar falls in value. this is a permenant decline representing our inflated standard of living created by our dissavings. this represents americans exporting to foriegners in excess of previous import value. this could require 2 decades and would require overcoming trade barriers design to support one way trade. this decline is likely going to equal about 360 billion a year in net exports of merchadise goods for well over a decade.

Sixth, it reflects a great lost opertunity and obligation to take care of ourselves. By not saving we are not taking care of our own retirement, housings,general purchasing, and insurance needs, et. By not saving we are givings up the very means to prosperity. The lower and middle class will become more dependant on government programs and direct assistance and the american rich will disappear as the foriegn rich aquire their assets.
A lot here to think over. Off the top of my head, Something I think was under emphasized is the world wage presser that was caused by free trade, and the "advancement" to employability of the third world. As I see it, Japan succeeded when it undercut our workers, and failed when its workers were undercut by the rest of Asia. Technological progress and an abundance of old money (established international companies) has given us temporary advantages and the illusion of prosperity. But the ugly exploitation that is the foundation of the "new economy" will get us also in the end.
Gary Theskywillbefalling

Economic data to follow likely in two days.
You state "Regarding "Educational Requirements" I believe we are in agreement that corporate structure is to be radically changed" Organizationally no, compositionally as in educational background yes, representationally as a result of working class becoming dominant owners yes.
You state" and that companies are to become more like "not for profit" self-sustaining facilities for the production of quality product and dignified employment." Strictly speaking "for profit" just not much relitive to capital investment. you state "I am of the opinion that the new shareholders "the workers" will in, self interest, ensure the quality or worth of advancement candidates." I believe by providing higher starting salaries for "usefully" skilled employees the market can provide the desirable "get skilled" incentives." generally yes, but I had no intention of creating a system where an employee would have much more than 25% of his capital tied into his own company except voluntarily. you state "I also believe it would be in or national interest for government to directly and substantially, subsidize the expense of certain science degrees. yes, but I would give bussiness a real say in educational boards to get education in sink with providing whats needed for High tech and advanced occupations. If real bussiness men vs liberal administraters had more influence on my highschool my health, computer, and history teachers would have been canned and replaced with someone who new the subjects. likewise the math texts would have been toast.
you state "Regarding inheritance (again): If vast assets can produce no useable income what's the point in allowing them to be inherited." again I would prefer to table this for now -- I suspect we may need an arbitrater at the end say your internet freind starting with G. that has his own website. Anyway a 10 to 20 times reduction in lifestyle support still leaves some real support for a portion of the 1%. meanwhile an orderly and just method of transference is needed. also remember that things given are generally treaded like garbage {wealfare and renting vs owning for example} while things earned are respected and treasured. It will take one half to one generation for people to earn and aquire the capital that represents their jobs, general insurance, childerns futures, and retirement. If rich people insist on living at there old standard of living then they will have to liquidate assets faster and therefor at a lower rate so I have little consern.
Regarding "references to books": I think it would be a good idea to provide links to relevant fact and figures whenever possible. I am willing to format, and link to this page, any extra content you would like to provide. Book titles we can link to the books Amazon .com page. Post whatever you think is relevant here or email me@donotgo.com < actually I ment do you have access to books easly like a library or personal collection that happens to match mine> I suppose #3 should be an elaboration on Corporate Structure and Investment-- Any suggestions regarding language?

opps. you may start point (3) im not quite ready.
Unfortunately the interrelationships between parts of the economy makes it real work to make changes to the egg without changing the chicken (and visa-versa). In trying to define how investment capital is to be applied to the expansion and creation of businesses, I run into our old tripping stone of "what happens to old economy assets". Currently Las Vegas style markets have turned the simple process of borrowing money into a "crappy" game where debt becomes immortal and is bought and sold at prices that have no relationship to actual value or real risk. In my ideal vision of a new economy companies try own themselves and all "profit" is fed into their own growth. Similarly money is borrowed at an interest rate commensurate with risk and security. As I see it, it is preferable to have as few hands between the lender and the borrower as possible...

Getting back to the task of defining agreeable "plank" language.
3. a) Businesses net "profits" are not to be taxed by any level of government. However there will be strict regulation regarding corporate owner or management "private use" expenditures not directly related to business performance.
3. b) Labor shall also not be taxed, No government program will be allowed to use any kind of payroll tax that requires a company contribution to finance any program.
3. c) Relatives of top management (in the same company) will be prohibited from receiving compensation above a 6x cap.
3. d) Investment capital:... It is my opinion that the stock market is a pyramid scheme that messes up the price of money and makes recession not only possible but inevitable. My preference is to get rid of whole "going public" get rich quick scheme, But if you think it plays an important role I will rethink this subject from that position.

Regarding inheritance: Tabled.
Regarding education requirements: I am of the opinion the people who create a company or who are given operational control should decide how much there going to draw from the company. And that attempting to establish industry dependent salary caps would be too complicated, considering that there are easier ways to achieve the intended educational incentives. So, can we table 2. Pending: Educational Requirements , in exchange for 4. Educational Incentives?
Regarding Books: Unfortunately "my personal collection" consist of an old dictionary, a ms-dos user guide, and some national geographics from the 70's. But I do have access to library books if you think there is something I really should read.
-Gary Myzerosumgame

1a] "Because this redesign can only be implemented nationally very strict rules will have to be established regarding foreign ownership of domestic assets." {agree fully would you like some trade and forieng asset data concerning this subject?} 1b)Likewise, transfers of wealth (inheritance) will have to be suspended for the period (generation) of implementation. {lets table this one for later consideration -- If you think we still need it after pionts (2) and (4) of original post are expanded then we can debate it -- I'll flip a quarter :)

2a] wages: Income from labor or assets over 12 times the established federal minim wage (annualized 40hr/52 week, year) will be subject to a 100% federal tax. { now thats one way to get compliance :), agreed }

2b)I removed the Ph.D./CEO stuff as I see no reason to make such distinctions.{ there were several purposes to the structure provided -- (1) in america practically all CEO's are bussiness, law, marketing, finance... in japan most are design or production engineers ... consider the social and technological consiquences long run..wich have the greater value? (2) we have to few teachers, skilled trades, and engineers yet many go into supervisory / administration positions to early in their carriers.( this is partly a matter of pay and partly of trying to get into management fast track -- we need a slower track agian like japan ) pay is also a messure of respect.. should we put greater respect with lawers or doctors and engineers.. the respected occupations will draw the students. capping suppervisory pay clearly helps define the scale for all other occupations. Is a basketball player worth as much as the best R&D scientist? It is not my goal to define the pay rate of every job and person. but by picking some socially and economically significant points to define limits could help the entire system. I can provide references to books including pages in "the zero sum solution" by lester C throu if you want some general data on comparitive income distrobutions ect. {will wait for reply}

(Add)

Gary Iwonderifwewillgetpastone: we can set "one" aside until at least (6) I suggest making retitled (1b) dependant on results for middle class.
Regarding "Educational Requirements" I believe we are in agreement that corporate structure is to be radically changed and that companies are to become more like "not for profit" self-sustaining facilities for the production of quality product and dignified employment. I am of the opinion that the new shareholders "the workers" will in, self interest, ensure the quality or worth of advancement candidates. I believe by providing higher starting salaries for "usefully" skilled employees the market can provide the desirable "get skilled" incentives. I also believe it would be in or national interest for government to directly and substantially, subsidize the expense of certain science degrees.
Regarding inheritance (again): If vast assets can produce no useable income what's the point in allowing them to be inherited.
Regarding "references to books": I think it would be a good idea to provide links to relevant fact and figures whenever possible. I am willing to format, and link to this page, any extra content you would like to provide. Book titles we can link to the books Amazon .com page. Post whatever you think is relevant here or email me@donotgo.com
I suppose #3 should be an elaboration on Corporate Structure and Investment-- Any suggestions regarding language?
-Gary Nomore1%having40%

1] Because this redesign can only be implemented nationally very strict rules will have to be established regarding foreign ownership of domestic assets. Likewise, transfers of wealth (inheritance) will have to be suspended for the period (generation) of implementation.

2] wages: Income from labor or assets over 12 times the established federal minim wage (annualized 40hr/52 week, year) will be subject to a 100% federal tax.

I removed the Ph.D./CEO stuff as I see no reason to make such distinctions. Add/subtract/or agree, and move us on to #3
Gary Iwonderifwewillgetpastone

I will gladly make a post in death taxes. I think we should stick with the big picture. granted, incremental change can improve the current tax system, but I find the basic system flawed and there are related issues that can not be addressed by taxation. you may expand on one of your points or we could expand on my point (4) given that dependant point (2) was assumed implemented. they also represent the most hotly debated points of my idea.

Gary:
1) No socailist would have me for the programs I would abolish. Government SS, med, ect. belongs only to those disabled before adulthood or outlive responsable savings or insurance provissions. over 40 years I would phase out additional benifits. In no case should wealfare ever exceed 75% of minimume wage.

2) No capitalist would have me for the income I would transfer to the working class and the insentives I would give the working class to aquire capital ownership as a means to financial independance from the rich and government.

I believe that taxes should be simple, and eventually small and flat. however, Like you I have a socialist streak a mile long.
1) all federal taxes, fee's, and mandated private transfers, ect. except private income should be discontinued
2)capital returns should be regulated with a low maximune rate of return {for conglomerates this should be applied to each product line as a seperate company}. this would leave companies only five options when presented with excess income. 1) lower prices 2) increase wages 3) physical investment* 4)R&D expenditure 5)turn over funds to government. (*) depreciated original owners purchase value not market or book value. purchases of competitor assets prohibited in most cases. purchase of stocks, bonds, ect prohibited. like rules should be adopted for debt equity. For high risk ventures I suggest pools were excess venture capital returns from the pool are returned to the companies. It should be noted that the poor and middle class have good reasons to save even at almost zero return but this provides little benifit to the wealthy.

3) Consumer credit should be phased out, an optional and unlimited tax deferment program should be available for investment savings that has no government mandates or penalties conserning use or withdraw. Otherwise the tax code should have no deductions, exemptions, credits, ect. taxes should be levied against indivuals making no recognition of marital status.

4) government should not micromanage wages or labor negotiations but should set general standards for maximume compensations. example: 1) fix a minimume wage at 1X. 2) maximume supervisory compensation at 5X. 3) maximume humanities CEO at 8X 4) maximume sciences degree CEO at 10X. 5) max General PH.D at 8X 6) shortage PH.D. at 12X, maximume all classes 12X. Likewise government should discurage negative socail paterns. one example would be to require all general contracts labor and supply to be renegotiated at the same time as they are in Japan.

The above indirect-goverment-support messures I think would greatly reduce the need for direct-government-support such as wealfare and the influence of the rich without encurageing the direct confiscation of property or the futile system of progressive taxes. It would also be inducive to very low inflation. As to wealfare in general I am a strong believer in personal responsability in general, that private insureance is great and that charity and humility is much better than a militant wealfare mentality. The above should also promote balanced trade by reversing international financial differencials.

5) in all non sunset industries that are not extremely economy of scale sensitive I beleive in competition. breaking up companies is a good idea in general and the legal process should be made less expensive and time consumming.

6) in apparent but nat actual contradiction to point (5) I support using government matching funds {limit 50%) to get seperate companies within an industry to conduct joint R&D with cross licencing agreements.

this is not exaustive or well defined but it is a start. I think this should give you a good idea on my opinions of all your points except 5 & 6.
I can't say I out right disagree with the substance of your remarks, but context is everything as to how changes are made. I suppose for us to make this a productive exchange we are either going to have to narrow the discussion to, the small changes to the current system, that are achievable and worth making-- Or we can attempt to construct a complete redesign of the national and intern world economic system. In either case there are a lot of "what happens to?" and "what happens when?" questions to be answered. I have a message board at this site regarding the "death tax" Being that it is a subject easily carved out of the whole subject. If there is some "smaller" subject that you would like me to create a board for, write a concise yet complete as possible opening statement and I will include the subject as part of this web site. On the other hand if you would rather stick to the big picture we are going to have to find some coherent way to step through the huge mine field that ratical "BIG" change presents.
-Gary Itgetscomplicated

Gary -- Im ready to pick a fight :) what is yor opinion on federal taxes -- all federal taxes inc soc, med ect.
It has been my intention to write on this subject for some time, unfortunately, I just haven't found the time. It is also a vary complex subject, affecting most aspects of human social life so I don't want to just slop something together. For the sake of the fight, here are some principles and beliefs I am guided by.

1. I believe in the redistribution of wealth, as I see no ethical justice or beauty in a system that gives one group of "horses" nothing but carrots, and another group nothing but the whip.
2. I see competition as "wasted" energy and something to be avoided if an adequate level of service can be provided by a not-for-profit monopoly or government institution.
3. I believe tax payers should be given some control over how there taxes are distributed. (For expl: CEO's of defense industries vs. social welfare.)
4. I believe a higher level of efficiency can be achieved if the range of capitalist reword and punishment is narrowed.
5. I believe every dollar represents an amount of human work and sacrifice and that excess wealth only invites the squander of the "human comfort" money represents and can buy.
6. In the past a persons "worth" was meshered by raw physical strength. Today economic cleverness is the standard. As I see it, today's intellectual barbarians are just as cruel, exploitative, and abusive to society as a whole as the Goliath's of the past.
7. Regarding social security: SS is not a pension plan, it is an insurance and in part welfare plan. Privatizing is nonsense, as the whole point is to take the money not used by the people who die early and give it to the people who live past there capacity to support themselves. In my opinion payroll taxes should be abolished and the program should be financed as any other social welfare program. Currently income tax payers owe payroll tax payers close to a trillion dollars and there should not be any income tax cuts until that borrowed "investment" capital is paid back.
8. Medicare and Medicaid should also be financed out of general revenues. The programs should be combined and grant everyone a minimum level of coverage not to exceed a fixed lifetime maximum. Extra coverage or treatment should be secured through private insurance or charity.

This should be enough for starters. -Gary Socialistideals

Got something to say about this web site, me , you, them... or a subject suggestion this is the place to “stick it”.