"Freedom" thread or something

Not only should there be a capital gains tax, there should be a transaction tax on every trade.  It might serve to restrict speculative activity and push more traders to take delivery.  Capital gains is just money earning more money, govt doesn't need to go all out to encourage it unless the country itself is basically a tax haven.

The T wrote: JJLehto wrote:   I still make liberal friends go crazy with "there should be no corporate tax" I didn't know this. Why would you be? And would you say no to a corporate tax but yes to a personal income tax?  Weed green response, to support legalization of it  Yes, and here is my rationale: These massive, MNCs already pay such a small amount in taxes, and in general the corporate tax has fallen and fallen, I think it's now like 1% of revenue?? So I figured, with it being so small and so many escaping it anyway, why not just get rid of it and maybe help encourage investment/hiring? It would also avoid the "double taxation" of cap gains, dividends and all that fun stuff. tl;dr I just don't know if I see the "point" of it these days.  JJLehto wrote: I'm not really pro union Why this?  Eh, guess it's partly my upbringing. Despite having 2 fairly liberal always Democrat voting parents, both are fairly skeptical of unions. Both my sets of Grandparents worked manual labor jobs and had experience with unions, and they did NOT like them. Usually stuff how they charged high dues but didn't actually seem to do diddly for them or even care, they seemed greedy and self interested, good conservative value immigrant stuff I kind of agree, they ARE self interested (who isn't?), and while workers rights is great I don't want em always trying to push up wages, creating potentially hostile conditions all that.  JJLehto wrote: and etc etc WHY????

Edited by JJLehto - March 21 2014 at 11:26

The T wrote: [ Marxism-Leninism which is basically what everything else but absolute free market sounds to some

Edited by JJLehto - March 21 2014 at 12:13

The T wrote: This has become basically an economics thread.  People cry when they want to put regulations to their rifle sales and cry when other things are "taken away" from them but rarely is there outcry (except from people aware of this) about how society and laws conspire to create a permanent class of misers. I'm talking about the famous drug laws that libertarians and liberals alike don't like. Now that I work in admissions for a (sadly) for-profit institution, I have seen so many, so many cases of people denied aid to go to school only because way back in their past they committed a felony or even a lower infraction related to drugs. These people are basically condemned to poverty for life. Same in job applications, where you have to sign the little box saying you have been arrested once, therefore killing your prospects of finding a decent higher-than-minimum-wage job. This is a serious problem for society that makes an underclass of people who in most cases committed victim-less crimes. Few people say anything about this.

I think you make a good point about a very sad reality, but how do you resolve that? Can you justify forcing a private company to take on people with a criminal past, however inconsequential it may have been? Should that not be the choice of the employer?

Until a way is found to legislate in an intelligent way on this, we're reliant on the goodwill of citizens to give others a chance. That kind of philanthropy is in short supply in a world where the individual has to increasingly prove their worth to get the good jobs they want. Sad state of affairs.

If I were an employer I would have no issue employing someone who had previously been arrested, even convicted of minor drugs offences. We all make mistakes. Think of the cataclysic and arguably criminal activities undertaken in the financial world. Apart from a few fall guys, most of those characters are probably still sh*tting money.

The T wrote: This has become basically an economics thread.  People cry when they want to put regulations to their rifle sales and cry when other things are "taken away" from them but rarely is there outcry (except from people aware of this) about how society and laws conspire to create a permanent class of misers. I'm talking about the famous drug laws that libertarians and liberals alike don't like. Now that I work in admissions for a (sadly) for-profit institution, I have seen so many, so many cases of people denied aid to go to school only because way back in their past they committed a felony or even a lower infraction related to drugs. These people are basically condemned to poverty for life. Same in job applications, where you have to sign the little box saying you have been arrested once, therefore killing your prospects of finding a decent higher-than-minimum-wage job. This is a serious problem for society that makes an underclass of people who in most cases committed victim-less crimes. Few people say anything about this.

Edited by JJLehto - March 25 2014 at 14:30

The T wrote: This has become basically an economics thread.  People cry when they want to put regulations to their rifle sales and cry when other things are "taken away" from them but rarely is there outcry (except from people aware of this) about how society and laws conspire to create a permanent class of misers. I'm talking about the famous drug laws that libertarians and liberals alike don't like. Now that I work in admissions for a (sadly) for-profit institution, I have seen so many, so many cases of people denied aid to go to school only because way back in their past they committed a felony or even a lower infraction related to drugs. These people are basically condemned to poverty for life. Same in job applications, where you have to sign the little box saying you have been arrested once, therefore killing your prospects of finding a decent higher-than-minimum-wage job. This is a serious problem for society that makes an underclass of people who in most cases committed victim-less crimes. Few people say anything about this.

There's psychological a large difference between a continuing prohibition and an attempted prohibition. It's much easier to accept that smoking pot is wrong and people who do it should be punished when you're born into a situation where that is exactly the case. Gun rights will be louder partly because these circumstances don't exist for it. Although, certainly deeper reasons exist for the particular case of guns, but this is one reason that drug issues will gain less attention.

I do think that plenty of people realize the issues that you're talking about. Libertarians have had the drug war as a high priority from the beginning of the movement and doubly so after Reagen's presidency. Even the democrats after Reagen paid some attention to the issue. Of course now it has become something to finally talk about in the mainstream and is being discussed by both parties.

The legal barrier are the easiest things to deal with though. Indirect causes of the situation are much more pernicious. How do you stop businesses from passing over qualified employees because of innocuous convictions? You can't make it illegal for reasons I hope are obvious and agreeable. You can decriminalize it which will certainly reduce the opportunity cost of hiring a "pot head" so you will see a decrease to some degree. However, the strictness of current policies is not wholly due to the legal issues. Some of the stigma will not be removed, nor should it be completely as data points are not meant to be ignored in decision making. Two major problems which need to be resolved as I see it are after this approaching colon:

*The economy in general must improve. With a surplus of laborers, employers can afford to be arbitrary and capricious with their hiring habits.

**We have a cultural issue where we harbor a bloodthirsty notion of justice. Our judicial system mirrors this with its entirely punitive design.

Aside from (**), I think people take plenty notice of this problem and work towards improving the situation.

I'm not sure that a program like that doesn't cause more issues than it solves.

I don't know about all that. I'm just stating a simple economic reality. I would hope most libertarians would agree with me.

Atavachron wrote: JJLehto wrote: To be fair, at least I personally, have gotten bored with non econ talk because we all largely agree There is the occasional debate but really, liberals and libertarians basically agree on social issues, and foreign policy. And since no one on PA is conservative or willing to admit it  we always end up back at econ   - I believe Jody (Progtologist) is conservative and is more than willing to admit it, he's just man enough not to have to. EDIT: Exception for guns.    - And abortion, though maybe less clearcut.

Interesting topic Atavachron, I personally have been to the USA West Coast namely San Diego, Los Angeles and Las Vegas. I love America, the diversity of land and free spirit, I might not necessary agree with the social climate of the country in terms of Medical Aid which some consider socialism, to me it's not as tax payers we pay for great infrastructure and overall wellbeing this includes water, electricity, schooling (education) etc thus to me health is one of the most important factors.

Edited by Kati - March 27 2014 at 22:09

Kati wrote: Atavachron wrote: JJLehto wrote: To be fair, at least I personally, have gotten bored with non econ talk because we all largely agree There is the occasional debate but really, liberals and libertarians basically agree on social issues, and foreign policy. And since no one on PA is conservative or willing to admit it  we always end up back at econ   - I believe Jody (Progtologist) is conservative and is more than willing to admit it, he's just man enough not to have to. EDIT: Exception for guns.    - And abortion, though maybe less clearcut. Interesting topic Atavachron, I personally have been to the USA West Coast namely San Diego, Los Angeles and Las Vegas. I love America, the diversity of land and free spirit, I might not necessary agree with the social climate of the country in terms of Medical Aid which some consider socialism, to me it's not as tax payers we pay for great infrastructure and overall wellbeing this includes water, electricity, schooling (education) etc thus to me health is one of the most important factors.

Imagine of one of your loved ones (mother, son, daughter etc) was diagnosed with cancer, treatment can cost up to a million dollar, no one well most don’t have that kind of money, however in Europe you would be covered and get the best possible treatment. People pay taxes for the Government to provide the best service to it’s citizens and health is most important for progress not only for individuals but also for corporations, a healthy employee is a most productive one thus benefitting the economy.
The American constitution has separated and church and state in the United States, thus to me being against Gay Marriage is unconstitutional and so are laws against abortion.   


Edited by Kati - March 27 2014 at 22:10

Atavachron wrote: ^ I think politically we're pretty close, Kati, I'm for universal healthcare and a woman's right to chose.

Atavachron have I told you lately that I love