Economics (10 posts)

1. Economics
Tue, Jan 12, 1999 - 12:03 PM/EST
Gayle

McRostie, in the education thread, you brought up the constant cry for lower taxes. I've always felt that if taxes were lowered on a federal level they would have to be raised on a state and local level, to make up for the lost "matching funds" for things such as roads, schools, etc. I've been told, by Libertarians and Republicans on other bulletin boards that I am "off my rocker". Yet they couldn't explain why.

I'd like to hear what you have to say about this, but please remember that you are going to instruct a right-brained person...mathmatics are a mysterious form of black magic to me.

2. Gayle's Rocker
Wed, Jan 13, 1999 - 12:12 PM/EST
McRostie

Your Libertarian and Republican friends are not correct Gayle. Your "Rocker" is in find shape and working well It is theirs that is not functioning.

What they don't tell you is that they come from a place where "roads and schools" are not even a function of government. That being the case, your idea that the reduction in fedral taxes would be simply offset by increased local taxes is not correct since the roads and schools under their ideas would be provided and maintained by private citizens rather than the government at any level.

If you want to give them pause, ask them for their ideas of the proper function of "government". Why should we have it? What should it do, and for whom? Those are the real questions and they are not economic.

The answers you will get will range from "As little as possible" to "For those who pay for it", In each case the idea is economic only in the sense that a penny saved is a penny earned as long as I can keep the penny. That's not economy when the conditions require that the penny be spent to maintain the society as we know it. Under those circumstances, it can only be classed as self-serving greed. .

The argument against taxes is not based on the fact that taxes are too high. It is based on the idea that they do not like, and will not tolerate, any interferrence with their ideas by government The idea of the Reagan years that we will force reducing the size of government by brining it to its financial knees through tax reduction is not dead.

It may be a little wounded in California maybe where Prop 13 brought about a reduction in real estate taxes with a resulting devestation in the California school system which was once the envy of the nation. Californians are now seeing the error of their ways and increasing spending on education over the cries of the tax reducers.

So, get back on your Rocker Gayle, you've got the right idea.

Regards, McRostie.

3. Thanks for jogging my memory, McRostie
Wed, Jan 13, 1999 - 12:46 PM/EST
Gayle

I was sure I hadn't dreamed the Reagan/Bush years and had remembered things beginning to go down the tubes.

4. Proper Function of Government
Wed, Jan 13, 1999 - 12:56 PM/EST
JimP

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Taxes are NOT too high. I am NOT a Libertarian. But I do believe that government is too large. I do feel that the federal government has taken upon itself more than those functions listed in the pre-amble copied above. I think that the concept of "general Welfare" has been expanded to areas not legitimately a function of the federal government.

I would not answer "As little as possible." I would not answer "for those who pay for it." I will tolerate interference from government if it is justified, but not just because we can.

The argument against taxes is, IMHO, the only way that the person who dislike the ways those taxes are being applied has to effect a re-evaluation. After all, was one of the reasons our Revolution occurred because of taxation? True, Calif. is now re-evaluating the effect of their actions.

The pendulum swings. Just as we have modified our political positions over the years, so too must we be willing to adjust our fiscal policies.

5. Jim P
Wed, Jan 13, 1999 - 6:07 PM/EST
McRostie

Citing the preamble to the Constitution is a quite decent way to start the discussion of the purpose of government. Not too many would have the sense of history to start that way. You are to be congratulated, and I do.

However (and there is nearly always a however) one shouldn't ignore the rest of the Constittuion. You didn't of course in that you cited the general welfare clause (aside from those words in the preamable) which many agree has been too liberally interpreted by our courts. It is, however, a part of the Constitution and has been so interpreted, so, I think we must say that it too reflects our ideas of the purpose of government.

From your earlier posts, I would have expected you to agree that taxes are not too high, and i wouldn't have expected you to be a Libertarian. I would be interested in a little more specificity as to those functions which the Federal government has taken on which you feel are not responsive to the "domestic tranquility" or "general welfare" words of the preamble or the Constitution itself..

As to tolerance of the interference of the government in our affairs, if the government interferes for no reason consistent with the purposes set forth in the constitution, I would not tolerate it either. I am, however, prepared to go along with the wishes of the majority as represented by our elected representatives, and the interpretations of the courts as to what properly comes within that purview.

I'll display my ignorance. What does "IMHO" mean? In response to what you say in that paragraph, the way one should display dislike of what taxes are used for is to argue against the use....not against the taxes. I rather suspect that if your disagreed with your children you wouldn't cut off food and water.

Finally, I agree, the pendulum does swing and as a practical matter, all we usually have to do is wait a while and we'll see things change for what we believe is the better. Unfortunately, as in California, Prop 13, that badly thought through creation of the people almost permanently disabled the ability to change for the better. One might say that it was ala David Stockman and the Reagan tax cuts.

Regards, McRostie

6. To McRostie
Thu, Jan 14, 1999 - 1:23 PM/EST
Gayle

I asked the questions you posed and received answers ranging from "because it's none of the Feds G** D*** business what we do"
to
"they have no right to tell us we have to wear seatbelts"
to
"taxes are illegal, they're not in the Constitution, except to help maintain national defense and take care of the mail."

But my favorites are these:
"who cares about the viscosity of ketchup, we can make better ketchup at home, but the government pays out my money to study the viscosity of ketchup!"
and
"you're the victim if you believe lowering taxes will hurt anything, you're not open-minded to new ideas."

Okay! Whatever!

7. Bell curve
Thu, Jan 14, 1999 - 1:36 PM/EST
JimP

The viability of gevernment is a state of tension between factions that would control it. That is precisely why the checks and balances we have in the Constitution is so valuable.

As with any normal distribution, there are deviations from the norm, or mean. From here on, keep in mind that I am not a statistician or mathmetician!!

As a conservative, I recognize that there are those who are more than one standard deviation from the norm. I'd consider myself as being probably 1 standard deviation. The folks who espouse the stuff you list above Gayle are at least 2, and probably 3 or 4 standard deviations. The other end of the curve has its policies that are also some number of standard deviations off the norm. Neither side, therefore, has the market cornered on silly responses to questions.

They must, as we speak about in another thread, be allowed the freedom to speak their points of view. That doesn't mean that those points of view are to be accepted as the only answer. Remember, there's the right way, the wrong way, and my way.

Regards, Jim

8. I agree
Thu, Jan 14, 1999 - 2:17 PM/EST
Gayle

I've never intentionally put anyone down for their opinions or beliefs. Nor would I ever try to silence anyone because I believe there is a seed in every idea.

My problem is frustration with those who can't or won't explain why they firmly believe something. I have to wonder if they are so pliable and lazy that they allow others to make their decisions for them, then follow the leader. I find that type of blindness very dangerous.

9. I didn't meat to imply
Thu, Jan 14, 1999 - 2:40 PM/EST
JimP

that you had. I was attempting to show that within any group there is a range of opinions that, at either end, are by definition the extremes.

And you are so right, the unexamined answer is almost always the wrong answer. I know, I have manyu unexamined answers in my repertoire, and when they get challenged, and must be examined, quite often they turn out to be wrong. That's why I am enjoing this group so much.

Regards, Jim

10. Yeah, but...
Thu, Jan 14, 1999 - 3:56 PM/EST
Gayle

Don't mind me. Think I'm seeing sideways or something this morning. It's one of those days.

But...where is our group? Come on guys! If the list of subjects doesn't hold your interest, then jump in and start something. Personally, I'm beginning to feel like Jim and I are at our own little tea party, giving our opinions and agreeing with each other most of the time.

There have to be more opposite views or views from a different perspective out there that will bring about more involvement and more conversation. I'd hate to see the group be the first to be axed prior to the four week period.

Where is everyone?