@Gman

""Anyone, subject to taxation, who finds you accepting payments would be well within his or her right to subdue you with violence sufficient to ward off your aggression."

Would you include police, firemen, soldiers, and postmen as being aggressive tax feeders? Road crew filling in pot holes on a road? Air traffic controllers? Border patrol? A park ranger? '

You are avoiding the real issue here.

The issue is coercion/force/theft which is that all taxation is!

All the services you list can easily be provided by private contract. Then they would have to be accountable for results, or be terminated for failure to deliver their promises "breech of contract".

And this nation was founded on Citizen/Soldiers in the tradition of all true Republics.

That's why military service is mandatory in true Republics! Firearms ownership is also mandatory.

There are some very bright people on this blog. Social Security was supposed to be a self-supporting system, with no use of general revenues.

Instead, the surplus FICA dollars were loaned to the Treasury, paid for current expenses, and lowered the deficits. The same shenanigans have been done with the federal employees' retirement trust funds.

From a paper entitled "Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal year 2009:"

Page 345 "Since many years will pass between the time when benefits are earned and when they are paid, the trust funds will accumulate substantial balances over time. These balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures, but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. The holdings of the trust funds are not assets of the Government as a whole that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury. When trust fund holdings are redeemed to authorize the payment of benefits, the Department of the Treasury will have to finance the expenditure in the same way as any other Federal expenditure: by using then current receipts , by borrowing from the public (the most likely choice, in my opinion) or by reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large trust fund balances , therefore, does not by itself increase the Government's ability to pay benefits.

Click to view link
Don Levit

Reply from The Daily Bell

Thanks for the "original source."

"Anyone, subject to taxation, who finds you accepting payments would be well within his or her right to subdue you with violence sufficient to ward off your aggression."

Would you include police, firemen, soldiers, and postmen as being aggressive tax feeders? Road crew filling in pot holes on a road? Air traffic controllers? Border patrol? A park ranger?

I am a Gen Xer. We can not divide because of age differences. The government seems so adept at pitting one group against the other so we take our eyes off of the real evil in front of us: the government.

America is polluted with the blood of 40 million aborted babies over the past 30 years in the name of freedom to choose. These 40 million (now dead) could have supported the boomers' retirement by working and paying into the SS and taxes.

Perhaps one of these 40 million murdered babies would have discovered some new technology which would have enriched America and we would never have been in this recession in the first place. Perhaps one of these 40 million murdered babies would have been a politician who didn't close his/her eyes while his/her greedy hands were outstreteched for bribes.

Unfortunately, because of the culture of death in this country, (the craze is to wear a skull and crossbones on everything; I have seen skulls and crossbones on baby sleepers), I fear for the lives of the elderly and the boomers. I believe it is only a matter of time before the government will decide that it is too expensive to prolong the lives of the elderly, and they will be euthanized in a "pretty" sort of way, much like abortion.

At first, it will be hailed as a "right to chose" and "death with dignity", but it will progress into murder. It will especially be trumpeted by the mainstrem news where they will follow elderly around and portray them as dying with dignity. Of course the politicians will find a way to exclude themselves. They have a different health plan than the rest of us.

This is total, fact-free, ideological hogwash. You clearly haven't read a word of Paul Krugman. You just indulge in facile name-calling and the usual right-wing demonization.

It's all powerful corporations that you'd better watch out for. And of course you don't say a word about corporate welfare, corporate subsidies, corporate tax evasion, corporate capture of the government, corporate capture of public property, etc.

You right-wingers have reptilian brains. There can't be any other explanation.

@Bionic Mosquito

"In other words, it will be just as solid a social security (he says, chuckling under his breath)."

Why, I'm shocked at this response.! You have committed the heinous crime (is there any other) of being a denier! This is a nation of believers! Want proof? They will be believe anything as long as it comes from the Ministry of Truth!

Welcome to Oceania!
"War is Peace," "Freedom is Slavery," "Ignorance is Strength."

@Wayne


"They won't actually confiscate your money, but rather they will make impossible to redeem it!

"See, no problem. It's still yours. And sometime in the future, somewhere over the rainbow, your pot of gold waits for you."

This is exactly my thought. They will say that you have bought a guaranteed annuity, payable beginning age 65 or 67 or something, and you cannot get at it until then. In other words, it will be just as solid a social security (he says, chuckling under his breath).

Like the Patriot Act, the legislation is already written, waiting for the right "crisis." I think this one is a done deal, it will be voluntary, and most of the people (for fiduciary reasons or otherwise) will not refuse.

@Bionic Mosquito

"They will volunteer the next time the stock market falls by 50% or more, and the government offers the chance to come in to the government endorsed investment option at your previous high-water mark.

Start with defined benefit pension plans. These are administered by boards with a fiduciary duty. A typical plan might have hundreds of millions to hundreds of billions in assets. With the next market correction, they will lose half the value. Now the government says: "give us the assets, and we will credit your beneficiaries with the high water mark as the coming in position." As a board member with fiduciary duty and potentially personal liability for taking the "wrong" decision, how would you respond? If they give the assets to the government, there is no way they will be held liable for the decision in a government court. But if they don't? How will they defend themselves in those same courts? They did not take advantage of making the beneficiaries whole? A no-brainer for these board members. They will hand the assets (and obligations) to the government

Now, as an individual with a 401K or an IRA, how would you respond? Three years from retirement, and your assets fell from $500K to $200K. Or, five years into retirement? The government will give you credit for $500K, the previous high water mark.

Most will convert voluntarily. It will buy a few years time for the state, once again delaying the required bust, and ensuring it will be even larger."

Hmmmm! Given the market skill level of most money managers, this is a layup!

And later it will turn out that the government has been financing its own expansion by using the money to buy bonds. Naturally, they will tell us that they can't pull your money out of the bond market, because that would endanger the country's economy market.

This will be covered by an Executive Order, so it will be legal.

They won't actually confiscate your money, but rather they will make impossible to redeem it!

See, no problem. It's still yours. And sometime in the future, somewhere over the rainbow, your pot of gold waits for you.

@Jeannie Queenie

"I am not a NON productive citizen as a retiree.... I DID MY JOB AND A DAMN GOOD ONE"

When I use the term "non productive" I use it in a quite value-neutral manner. A productive person produces goods and services desired in a free market. A non productive person does not.

So non productive can include individuals for whom being productive is not an option, due to some physical or mental shortcoming. It can include someone who is no longer active in a productive capacity, after a lifetime of being tremendously productive. I make no negative statement regarding such people.

On the other end of the spectrum, non productive can include professions that would not exist, or to nowhere near the extent they currently exist, absent the coercion of the state: military personnel, defense contractors, university professors, lawyers, most government positions, etc., are some examples.

Or professions that would exist without the state, but without the excessive compensation made available only due to state involvement: the most egregious example is what passes today for bankers. But you could include lobbyists as another example.

So, by my definition, retirees are, at least to a large extent, non productive. There is nothing wrong with this, as long as they saved over a lifetime (or are supported by family) and do not demand sustenance via coercion.

Non productive as I define it is value neutral. The number of people producing goods and services desired in a free market is shrinking, or not growing as fast, as the number of non productive people that are not producing such goods and services.

So no need to yell at me!

"Are you saying that most boomers are so bereft in brains that they will just lay down and play dead after putting monies into their 401Ks for 10, 20, 30 and even 45 years...."

They will volunteer the next time the stock market falls by 50% or more, and the government offers the chance to come in to the government endorsed investment option at your previous high-water mark.

Start with defined benefit pension plans. These are administered by boards with a fiduciary duty. A typical plan might have hundreds of millions to hundreds of billions in assets. With the next market correction, they will lose half the value. Now the government says: "give us the assets, and we will credit your beneficiaries with the high water mark as the coming in position." As a board member with fiduciary duty and potentially personal liability for taking the "wrong" decision, how would you respond? If they give the assets to the government, there is no way they will be held liable for the decision in a government court. But if they don't? How will they defend themselves in those same courts? They did not take advantage of making the beneficiaries whole? A no-brainer for these board members. They will hand the assets (and obligations) to the government

Now, as an individual with a 401K or an IRA, how would you respond? Three years from retirement, and your assets fell from $500K to $200K. Or, five years into retirement? The government will give you credit for $500K, the previous high water mark.

Most will convert voluntarily. It will buy a few years time for the state, once again delaying the required bust, and ensuring it will be even larger.

@DB

oops better link below
Click to view link

@DB

"The Amish have the cure'

It's interesting that the Amish are the only group granted exemption from Social Security taxes.

"And so it came to pass that in 1965, the Medicare bill was passed by Congress. As Wayne Fisher writes in The Amish in Court, "Tucked into the 138 page bill was a clause exempting the Old Order Amish, and any other religious sect who conscientiously objected to insurance, from paying Social Security payments, providing that sect had been in existence since December 31, 1950. After Senate approval in July, the signing of the bill by President Lyndon B. Johnson on August 13, 1965, made it official and canceled tax accounts of some 15,000 Amish people amounting to nearly $250,000."
see link

Click to view link

What mystifies me is why only the Amish have ever been given this exemption? And their exemption was deviously passed by burying it in a ton of legislation. No great fanfare from Congress, or the media!

@Dan B

"Great Bell, I believe that WE can't make a judgment about the disbursement of wealth and support without defining several factors. One of the main goals of society is to insulate it's members from Darwinian pressures. How far should this be carried?"

Why should any judgments be necessary?

No one should have the right to steal from A to give to B for their support!

The insanity of democracy/communitarianism/collectivism has caused this nightmare!

Reality gives us only 2 choices here
DEMOCRACY is two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for lunch...
LIBERTY is a well armed sheep contesting the outcome of the vote.

How you choose is who you are!

Great Bell, I believe that WE can't make a judgment about the disbursement of wealth and support without defining several factors. One of the main goals of society is to insulate it's members from Darwinian pressures. How far should this be carried?

Should we support the mentally defective? As automation destroys more and more job niches, should we support those who aren't suitable for employment? Should there be limits to the "dole" to those who refuse to work?

1/4 of the households in London are without any wage-earner.

The U.S. spends about $ 26,000 a year to house each criminal. Should they be housed in primitive conditions?,,, a la Joe Arpio?

Should we support life-long non-productive people at the same level that we support retired people who were formerly productive?

How about compensation levels? Bankers make lots of money because of their position, NOT because of expertise. Should some entity mandate salaries based on productivity rather than based on ability to steal?

Is there any way to prohibit crony-capitalism from over-compensating those holding the reins of power?
50 % of the world's lawyers are in America. They write incomprehensible laws so that everything has to be litigated. Why should they be highly compensated for creating confusion?

War is becoming less profitable as the hardware becomes more expensive,,,

$2 billion planes instead of $ 500 Jeeps.

Health is becoming more expensive. Instead of a little black bag, granny can avail herself of treatments at a $ 100 million proton-beam treatment center.

Click to view link

Do we pay for unlimited medical treatment, no matter the cost? Do we allow more treatment to the formerly-productive than for the never-productive?

If we are going to assign benefits based on former productivity, how do we assign a value to a person who has spent their entire life doing a good job of child-rearing?

The Amish prefer to opt-out of SS because they believe in the young taking care of the elderly. Should that be allowed? If a person planned well and then had their 401K wiped out by the bankers, should they be supported? Should overly-generous pension plans be reduced by fiat?

I'm not a big fan of wealth distribution to those who have never been productive. Should the non-productive be allowed to starve? Should they be forbidden to marry or reproduce? Should the perennially non-productive have any limitations placed on them?

All biological organisms grow to the limits of their available resources. What percentage of non-productive people should a society allow?

Should resources be non-allocated to those who have over 2 kids,,, 3 kids,,, 6 kids,,, 8 kids?

India just passed 1.2 billion population. They have almost no reserves of farmland. Should they be sent food aid? Will that just cause a postponement?

Can the mentality of the people be changed?

Resources are limited. Who should decide the allocation,,,, GOV,,, the market,,, the rich??? Based on what criteria??
Socialism would base it on "need". That never works out without draconian population control [eugenics].

Cold-blooded capitalism doesn't seem to have the perfect answer to allocation of resources to non-producers.

The allocation,,,, lack of allocation,,, criteria for allocation,,,termination of allocation
ALL problems

Reply from The Daily Bell

The Amish have the cure. Familial based, agrarian oriented tribal (clan) cultures. The elites have shredded the way people should live and continue to explode culture with the bestial ruin of central banking.

John Kozy raises some questions in the article below that you free-market thinkers never seem to address. Would you please publicly respond to his questions? Thank you. -- Judy Burnette


Western Civilization and Classical Economics: The Immorality of Austerity

By Prof. John Kozy

URL of this article: Click to view link

Global Research, December 12, 201

Numerous critics of classical economists over the past two centuries have argued that it is immoral when judged by any of the recognized moral codes. Major aspects of it clearly violate the Golden Rule. It violates many, perhaps all, of the Ten Commandments. It conflicts with various teachings of Jesus. Aristotle's Ethics can be used to demonstrate its viciousness. It violates Kant's Categorical Imperative and Mill's Utilitarianism. Yet some of its proponents continue to argue that The Wealth of Nations is not inconsistent with moral principles. Clive Cook and Gavin Kennedy recently made such a claim, but what they cite as evidence doesn't withstand scrutiny.


First of all, they base the claim on Smith's earlier book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, in which he argues that conscience results from observing the condition of others, generating sympathy, which then serves as the basis of moral judgments.

Although I have no doubt that different communities view this book differently, the philosophical community has generally considered it sophomoric. In my decades as a professor of philosophy, not once did I see the book included in the standard philosophical curriculum. Most philosophy professors I knew had little knowledge of the book's existence. So even if someone could cogently argue that The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations are philosophically consistent, that argument would have little bearing on whether classical economics is moral.

[Adam] Smith has never been recognized in philosophical circles as a major thinker. As a matter of fact, he's hardly recognized at all. And even some economists have noticed the sophomoric nature of his thinking. One highly respected, renowned economist, whose name I shall let the reader guess at, said this: "His very limitation made for success. Had he been more brilliant, he would not have been taken so seriously. Had he dug more deeply, had he unearthed more recondite truth, had he used more difficult and ingenious methods, he would not have been understood. But he had no such ambitions; in fact he disliked whatever went beyond plain common sense. He never moved above the heads of even the dullest readers. He led them on gently, encouraging them by trivialities and homely observations, making them feel comfortable all along."

Yet Kennedy lists the elements of morality that Smith included in The Wealth of Nations. "[Smith] was no libertarian. . . . His idea of 'natural liberty' was almost the opposite of what it is usually taken to mean (namely, 'do as you wish'). He was at pains in both books to emphasize the importance of self-control, of regard for the opinions of others, and of an expansive role of government in providing security, rule of law, and economic infrastructure. Way ahead of his time, he was even in favor of compulsory schooling." An interesting list, but not one that justifies the view that Smith's view of the economy is moral. A moralist would have expected to see something about poverty, hunger, and suffering, all of which are absent.

A serious, irrefutable proof of the immorality embodied in The Wealth of Nations and classical economics in general is easily devised.

Classical theorists like Smith aver that products derive their value from the labor that goes into producing them, and that labor, itself, is bought and sold. Wages, which are the price of labor, have a natural price which is the price needed to enable labor to subsist and to perpetuate itself without either increase or decrease. These dogmas are known as the labor theory of value and the subsistence theory of wages respectively. Some revealing implications can be derived from them.

First notice this oddity: labor produces products and the amount of labor expended determines their value. But labor is paid not the value of the products it produces but merely a subsistence wage. I defy anyone, economist or not, to justify that principle on moral grounds. Can Cook or Kennedy find an application of sympathy in this principle?

Second, the subsistence theory of wages describes a condition similar to that used by animal husbands in dealing with livestock. Classical economics treats labor as animal husbandry treats cows. Can treating a fellow human being as a farm animal ever be morally justified? Where is sympathy found in this? Working people, labor, those who create all the culture's wealth, are nothing but farm, factory, and when necessary, cannon fodder.

But economists will say that these aspects of classical economics are not paid much attention any more. Perhaps, but what economists pay attention to and what goes on in the economy are different things. The Wall Street Journal's report that 70 percent of people in North America live paycheck to paycheck demonstrates conclusively that the subsistence theory of wages is still being applied; our economists are just not honest enough to tell us about it.

If a subsistence wage is all that this economy pays working people, how would the culture determine how to treat those people not in the workforce"the aged, the infirm, and the handicapped, even the unemployed? Classical economics has no answer to this question because classical economics does not exist to provide for people generally. Classical economics divides the populace into two groups" capital and labor. Anyone not in one of these groups is somehow irrelevant, which explains why the President and other governmental officials always speak of the upper class and the middle class but never mention the lower class. Yet no one seems to notice that speaking of an upper and middle class without speaking of a lower class is meaningless.

The upshot is that if the dogmas of classical economics are applied consistently, there is no need for any people not capable of functioning in the workforce. So, in keeping with this implication, Andrew Mellon, President Herbert Hoover's treasury secretary recommended that Hoover fight the depression by "liquidating the farmers, liquidating the workers, and driving down wages."

Of course, if this were openly advocated, the outrage would be uncontrollable and the system would be torn asunder. So this fact is obscured by the provision of "safety nets" that provide little safety, since what they are comprised of cannot exceed or even equal the subsistence wage. So Americans have social security which provides no security, unemployment compensation which is too meager to subsist on, welfare which is really illfare, and chancy access to healthcare at best. Yet those who promote this economy can, it seems, always find money to buttress business, create killing machines, and fight continual wars. What few seem to realize is that these consequences are logical implications of the dogm

Reply from The Daily Bell

Thank you for a thoughtful post. In response one might say only that austerity is indeed in a sense immoral, and we have argued such. We also point out regularly that government is not to be trusted and that if people think that they can rely on large governments (such as the US or EU) they are bound to be disappointed.

@Bionic Mosquito...."Today, the list of non productive goes far beyond retired parents. Politicians, government employees, military, bankers, lawyers, too many professional educators, etc. The list has grown immeasurably. For this reason, with or without confiscation, these so called private pension plans won't work well for retirement, either'.

To borrow cliches from the prez.."Let me be clear and make no mistake', it isn't a question of whether confiscation of private pensions will take place, it is a question of WHEN! And when they are taken away from the most spoiled generations ever, WATCH (as Victor Barney says), them cry like the maypo mob that they are...both the boys and the girls..and yes, even even if in their forties, too many haven't gotten much beyond boyhood/girlhood. I see all around me the new 30 is going on 10 1/2 years of age..and the 40 somethings are maybe 15. 50's good for 30.

Fewer still have put their baby toes in the pool of suffering. So when I hear retirees being blamed for the financial fiasco we are in, I get a bit hot under the collar. I am not a NON productive citizen as a retiree....I DID MY JOB AND A DAMN GOOD ONE by raising five outstanding children who now pay far bigger taxes than most. In essence those who decided to stick with their two kids will probably rely on my five to get any future benefits. No doubt you wonder why I am so down on the younger generations..put simply, they are a bunch of whiners who have had it better than any other generation before them. They voted in another one of their ilk and we see where that is going....right down the tubes of me and my maypo..and yet, it is all disguised with this veneer of liberalism and 'let us save the world'. They will be lucky to save themselves and their own...and can forget about the world. I see among my generation many who will much much better survive the coming calamity for we are survivors, not spoiled brats..and we will be the ones who teach the 'youngin' how to make it. And that's the way it is.
Only them will the younger generations learn the meaning of productivity.

Bionic, you also say, 'with or without confiscation (I think if the time comes for this, most will proceed willingly and voluntarily..') Are you saying that most boomers are so bereft in brains that they will just lay down and play dead after putting monies into their 401Ks for 10, 20, 30 and even 45 years along with their employers half...do you really believe this? I maintain that generations who have been so spoiled for so long and so used to a good life, will fight like hell to retain that standard of living...wanting your maypo doesn't necessarily equate to being stupid or mindless on what you have earned or deserved, does it?

I don't post here very often, but some of you younger men really do hate us old folks. I can tell by your attitude. All I can say is, that when you become old, I hope you remember what you said, as you sit in a tent somewhere, eating dirt.

@ Daily Bell

Yes. Thank you. You are teaching me to be more polite. Like "mercantilism" instead of Fascism.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Ha, and authoritarianism instead of totalitarianism.

Our democracy will only survive if we remind ourselves continually that we must seek freedom with responsibility, not freedom from responsibility.

@Lejano

"...that the dark ages actually occurred and that they are quite capable of returning..."

I have only scratched the surface in my study of the dark ages, but it seems the only manner in which they were truly "dark" was as it relates to the absence of "state."

The "dark ages", the time in Europe after Rome and before the emergence of what we today would begin to recognize as state power. A time when there was little central authority, where most authority was vested locally in tribes, or through minor principalities, etc.

Is it any wonder we are taught that these ages were "dark"? How could there have been "light" without a state or central authority, after all?

@Jeannie Queenie

With or without confiscation (I think if the time comes for this, most will proceed willingly and voluntarily, BTW), the pyramid scheme is the same in a 401k or IRA (same for wealth in your home of residence) as it is in social security. In the end, when you want to start your 401k withdrawals, there must be someone willing to buy. In other words, there must be enough excess productive in the market to support another who is working less, or not working at all.

In the end, the problem is the same: too many non productive being supported by too few productive. This formula of supporting the non productive (in the form of retirees) worked well when children took responsibility for parents: two parents had usually 3 or 4 children, such that the burden could be handled.

Today, the list of non productive goes far beyond retired parents. Politicians, government employees, military, bankers, lawyers, too many professional educators, etc. The list has grown immeasurably.

For this reason, with or without confiscation, these so called private pension plans will not work very well for retirement, either.

@Lejano

"why the political minds that are directing this current debacle cannot believe that the dark ages actually occurred and that they are quite capable of returning, is beyond my understanding. At this point, I do not believe another dark age is, as yet inevitable, but it is not far off and we lack the kind and quality of leadership to turn the tide or hold it off."

Perhaps they know it will happen again, and just want to go out partying! Everybody aboard, as the Titanic is ready to leave port.