Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Koligman who wrote (16646)	4/12/2010 9:13:42 AM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Don't think that is the case now or anytime soon, and even if it was, is it more of a problem than the rich pushing things their way??? I think each is important. I don't understand why you don't. The vast numbers of middle class and poor in a democracy where everyone gets one vote serves as a brake on plutocracy. Ideally, government acts on behalf of the country as a whole. Most of what the government does is in behalf of all, more or less. With a limited government, that is more the case than with a government with its fingers in everything and a bent towards redistributing the wealth. This is independent of which citizens it chooses to be receivers and givers. When the government starts redistributing beyond the obviously helpless, folks start putting their hands out and demanding their share. That goes for rich, poor, and everyone in between. It becomes a game of who can give the least and get the most. Of course, everyone thinks his share should be bigger. From my point of view, the answer to that problem is limited federal government. Then the government doesn't give to the rich or the poor. It doesn't take in money from some to give to others. But if you insist on having a government that redistributes the wealth, then you have to recognize the problem when the receivers outnumber the contributors and are in a position to strip the country bare. As I said up top, there is a natural constraint in a democracy on the minority. There is no constraint on the majority other than wisdom, which is not in abundance. How can you watch that unbalance happen and brush it off or blithely say you'll deal with it once it's too late?

To: John Koligman who wrote (16646)	4/16/2010 9:36:03 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Here is a suggestion from Megan McArdle re the problem I mentioned of skin in the game where half pay no income tax. FWIW. I think the real problem with the current setup is the political economy of it. A very large percentage of our electorate has nothing at stake when they vote for new spending. Since that spending imposes real costs on other people, and the economy at large, this is a problem. We don't want to end up in a situation where 65% of the population is systematically voting to take the stuff possessed by the other 35%. But that doesn't mean we need to raise taxes on poor people; rather, it means they should have some skin in the game. Simplify the tax code, and expand the EITC into a negative income tax which then continuously scales into a progressive income tax up to some maximum . . . and then make it clear that new spending means that all the marginal rates go up a little bit. If you want a new project, you have to be willing to give up some of your EITC to pay for it. Not as much, percentage-wise, as Warren Buffet might pay. But no free programs. This is something of a pipe dream, but it seems to me that this should be something liberals and conservatives can broadly agree on. Liberals get a somewhat more generous welfare state--and conservatives get a natural check on further growth. theatlantic.com