[benji25]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

Social mobility is important to an economy.
Math and Literacy rates effect the quality of our labor market.
Imprisonment, Homicide, Infant mortality, and Life expectancy effect the quantity of labor market.
Trust rates are vitally important to our economy.

The rest is in Umami's links.

1. I agree people need to be able to move up in economy, but taking from the rich and giving to the poor is not the way to do it. Educating yourself and hard work should be the way to do it.

2. Last time I checked a public education is free. Barring some unfortunate expensive chronic illness wealth does not equate to a longer life, especially with Obamacare now. Infant mortality: if you can't afford to keep your keep alive you shouldn't have a kid.

3. I assume you are referring to trust as defined in that video which was stated as "proportion of the population who agree that most people can be trusted." There is way too many factors in people's lives to make the argument that this is vital to our economy. If you ask people in rural areas like farmers, I am sure they will trust people because they know everyone around them. If they were to ask a New Yorker who has been robbed 6 times I doubt he would say the same.

I am going to try and portray a thought here and I hope it comes out the way I want. Life is not fair. Some people are born millionaires, some are born in to slums. However a good majority are not born in situations that we cannot over come. Think Uganda, Haiti, Somalia, etc. As a matter of fact, the very fact that someone is born worse off than someone else should be the motivation to get ahead in life. If you desire to surpass a certain point in social status you need to do the moving, don't bring the other people down to your level.

Originally Posted by Frank101

taxation is theft, coercion, and force. You wouldn't go to your neighbor's house steal 20% of their yearly income worth of stuff, pawn it and give the proceeds away to various interest groups you deem needy. Why is it okay for you to vote for a government agent to do it then?

Its cowardly and lacks compassion.

Your neighbor also doesn't provide you an army, education or infrastructure.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by benji25

I am going to try and portray a thought here and I hope it comes out the way I want. Life is not fair. Some people are born millionaires, some are born in to slums. However a good majority are not born in situations that we cannot over come. Think Uganda, Haiti, Somalia, etc. As a matter of fact, the very fact that someone is born worse off than someone else should be the motivation to get ahead in life. If you desire to surpass a certain point in social status you need to do the moving, don't bring the other people down to your level.

One thing you will realize at some point is life cannot be overcome. Eventually every one of us will face a situation we cannot beat. In all too many cases that devastates even well-laid plans, family savings, childrens' lives, etc.

[benji25]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

One thing you will realize at some point is life cannot be overcome. Eventually every one of us will face a situation we cannot beat. In all too many cases that devastates even well-laid plans, family savings, childrens' lives, etc.

I am not sure what you are referring to. The point of my statement was the vast majority of us, especially US citizens, can get the basic skills needed to succeed in life, such as a high school education and ideally some college.

Obviously something can happen like you become paralyzed so your dreams of being a sprint are done.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by benji25

I am not sure what you are referring to. The point of my statement was the vast majority of us, especially US citizens, can get the basic skills needed to succeed in life, such as a high school education and ideally some college.

Obviously something can happen like you become paralyzed so your dreams of being a sprint are done.

Everyone will be done at some point, and depending on how they finish, all kinds of havoc can happen to one's life plans theretofore.

[TheSilentAssassin]

In all reality, i do not think this discussion can possibly be done well in this forum. If you are truly interested, pm me and I can send you information, literature, and experts who present on this idea. A good place to start in Richard Wilkinson (the video linked and posted by me and Umami) as well as a lot of Umami's links.

Also, here is Wilkinson and Pickett's website:
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/

[Frank101]

Originally Posted by licence2kill

that wealth wouldn't exist without the government

False, wealth needed to be created in the first place for anything to even be available as a surplus to be taxed.

[Frank101]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

Try ... because it's explicitly authorized by the constitution?

Gimme a freakin' break with this bull**** antitax rhetoric. Taxes are how governments are funded. This is an elementary school level concept and it is not up for discussion.

Lysander Spooner is my dude.

[licence2kill]

the wealth does not exist independent of the state

[Frank101]

Originally Posted by benji25

Your neighbor also doesn't provide you an army, education or infrastructure.

You act as though only a government can provide those things and that people won't voluntarily choose to provide those things. The idea that only government has the means to do it is such a good idea it needs to use force to do it is moronic.

[licence2kill]

no government always = insufficient supply of public goods

[Frank101]

Originally Posted by licence2kill

the wealth does not exist independent of the state

Gas tax was initiated after oil was refined into gasoline/ cars became widely available. The gas taxes were implemented retroactively well after wealth was created, that is well after people began producing cars and being able to afford them.

It's not like if it hadn't been for the government investment in roads, people would not have invested in cars. Wealth was created before the tax was implemented. You are implying if it wasn't for government, people would not be able to create wealth and I find that premise to be untrue.

[Frank101]

Originally Posted by licence2kill

no government always = insufficient supply of public goods

I disagree, with government we get subsidization of public goods. For example, with government usurping money and power to build road, the government effectively subsidizes richer people who can afford to commute or live further way from an inner city at the expense of everyone using fuel that pays the tax.

People don't just build a business and a road out in the middle of no where unless they could afford to efficiently. When the government diverts resources to do that, it subsidizes investors do it without risking capital to expand a network of road.

[custar]

Originally Posted by licence2kill

that wealth wouldn't exist without the government

Government would not exist without the wealth of the people governed.

Originally Posted by drgonzo

Employee stock compensation I suppose.

What happens when one leaves? Also, a large number of people work without a margin from which to take stock compensation.

Originally Posted by drgonzo

No, nothing stopping people from doing this, other than a sane growth model that might make them vulnerable to market manipulation by wealthier competitors.

All start-ups face this same competition regardless of how they are owned. I don't see how either ownership model is inherently disadvantaged more than the other by competition. Am I missing something in that?

custar

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by custar

What happens when one leaves? Also, a large number of people work without a margin from which to take stock compensation.

One would sell their share back to the company. Stock compensation would ostensibly be in addition to cash compensation.

Originally Posted by custar

All start-ups face this same competition regardless of how they are owned. I don't see how either ownership model is inherently disadvantaged more than the other by competition. Am I missing something in that?

Yeah, outside investment.

[custar]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

Yeah, outside investment.

First, they aren't limited to issuing stock as an investment medium for outside investors. Second, if lack of outside investment does hold back employee-owned businesses, that makes that model competitively inferior, doesn't it?

custar

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by custar

First, they aren't limited to issuing stock as an investment medium for outside investors. Second, if lack of outside investment does hold back employee-owned businesses, that makes that model competitively inferior, doesn't it?

custar

If the company were entirely employee owned, it would be unable to issue stock for that purpose. It would be vulnerable to market manipulation by larger players, this is where regulation would step in to preserve competitive balance. If all companies were employee owned, of course, there would be no such regulation needed.

[custar]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

If the company were entirely employee owned, it would be unable to issue stock for that purpose.

We could quibble over whether such a company could legitimately offer non-voting, second-in-line preferred stock, but the company could undoubtedly issue bonds which are debt, not ownership.

custar

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by custar

We could quibble over whether such a company could legitimately offer non-voting, second-in-line preferred stock, but the company could undoubtedly issue bonds which are debt, not ownership.

custar

Bonds yes. At any rate, the point of employee ownership would be to better distribute profits to those who create them, and to decrease or eliminate the phantom economy created by speculation.

[custar]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

Bonds yes. At any rate, the point of employee ownership would be to better distribute profits to those who create them, and to decrease or eliminate the phantom economy created by speculation.

Ah, but interest on bonds is an expense of doing business and would, ideally, be retired out of profits.

So is your primary goal in going to employee-owned businesses to eliminate that phantom economy?

custar

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by custar

Ah, but interest on bonds is an expense of doing business and would, ideally, be retired out of profits.

So is your primary goal in going to employee-owned businesses to eliminate that phantom economy?

custar

It would be primarily to keep more company profits in the company, with the workers. I would like the employment aspect of companies to be looked at as a function rather than an expense.

[2ffu]

So how would all of these workers decide what direction to take the company that they would now own under your Workers Party dictatorship?

What if they don't want to carry the risk of having their money tied up in epuity in the company that could go out of business.