Federal Government Revenue: the Income Tax

[Gokul43201]

This thread is meant to re-examine current systems of revenue generation and, more importantly, explore the potential for alternatives out of which governments may provide citizens with the services that they are charged with providing. The thread is not meant to be restricted to solutions for anyone specific country, but if your response is more likely to apply to a specific country than have universal implementability, please identify which country/region you are talking about. In particular, I'm hoping for some focus on the issue of taxation based on income.

Today, most of the world's governments generate a significant fraction of their revenue from personal income taxes. We've heard arguments from advocates of personal freedoms, that such a system is an unnecessarily excessive incursion of privacy, and arguments that it is inherently unfair. And we've heard rebuttals that they are not only not unnecessary, but that they are additionally a means of establishing justice and equity. In this thread, I'm a little less interested in repeating these arguments (I won't cringe if they come up again, for re-examination), and a little more interested in exploring possible alternatives, or reasons for why any suggested alternatives may be infeasible or unpalatable.

I speak for myself, but hope to speak for the majority, when I say that posts with more factual substantiation of arguments will be more appreciated than posts with less factual substantiation. Arguments of philosophical preference naturally demand less external support than arguments about practical implementation or expectations of results.

So, would you prefer to see more import tariffs, or sales/use taxes, or some combination of these and other less intrusive taxes? Or do you think it's better to keep income taxes? Or is the answer somewhere in between. Or somewhere else, entirely? What are the practical advantages or disadvantages of your preferred choice?

PS: Please note that the poll above this post is not an anonymous poll.

 

[Aknazer]

I think it depends on the type of government we're talking about as well. The governments of communist, socialist, and capitalist countries operate very differently and I don't think a "one size fits all" works for all of them. The next question also becomes the size of the government compared to the income of the citizens and native businesses.

A smaller government with a prosperous citizenry and businesses should be able to get plenty of money from the citizens and businesses with lower tax rates. As the government grows it will need to find more ways to increase it's budget to pay for the bigger government.

A larger government that is more socialistic in nature should get most of the money from the citizens, with a decent amount from businesses as well.

A communist country has a very large government with most everything being provided by the government. Since pretty much everything is provided/controlled by the government in some way and the people generally make very little of their own money (compared to a capitalist nation), most of the cash should come from the companies.

Import tariffs are useful, but can be dangerous. They can help keep a country's own businesses competative with imports. They also can help take some of the burden of a large government off of the people. But too big and it can drive away foreign money, which would ultimately hurt the government.

As for your question. It takes a proper balance of taxes/tariffs for a country to properly run. That proper balance is going to vary based on the type of government we're talking about.


My personal views are this. I would rather see higher personal/business taxes with tariffs used only to keep our home-made goods competative with countries that basically try to underbid our workfoce. Also everyone who has a job would need to pay their taxes and no one could be exempt. By no one being exempt and most of the money coming from the people and local businesses it makes everyone care more about just what the government is doing with the money it receives and promotes the people to be involved and on top of the government's fiscal responsibility. Also by the people being more involved they will be able to better control the size of their government. If they want a smaller government then they would decry raises in taxes, while if they want a larger government then they would need to accept raises in taxes. The biggest danger is when the people want low taxes but a large government and try to pass the buck to someone else.

But this also requires people to be reasonable with their wages. If the peoples wages are simply too high it will drive up the tariffs to levels that foreign companies simply won't want to import their goods. This in turn will cause issues with government income and cause various other issues at home.

I don't agree with both an income tax and a sales/use tax. This means that you're basically being double taxed. First when you make your money, and again once you go to spend your money. I think an income tax would be better for the government as it allows them to get their money at the start, rather than having to wait till the end (so if someone decided to hoard their money the government isn't basically without income; most important if it's the rich who decide to just quit spending most of their money).

As for tax brackets, I'm on the fence about them. A flat tax % with no exemptions makes everyone care roughly equally about government spending, but when certain people make disproportionately more money than those that work for them I can see the need to tax those at the very top more (more to help promote even pay).

Disadvantages that I can see is that it wouldn't work for every type of government (namely communism) and it likely wouldn't work too well in countries like India where companies pay the workers very little and then export the goods. Reason being is that these people already aren't making a whole lot of money. In places like this the governments would need to tax the companies doing business within their borders more. It also doesn't work to directly fix pay issues where the upper top makes most of the money and those under them are basically left without (this issue could be addressed through laws and what not, but the system of government doesn't directly do anything to discourage it).

I'm sure people will be able to find more disadvantages, but the overall goal is a government system that mainly uses it's own citizens to pay for what it does and that promotes the citizens being involved and truly caring about what their government does.

 

[Al68]

I would point out another aspect of the income tax, at least in the U.S.: it is purposely too complicated to comprehend, resulting in the ability of politicians to mislead people about who is being taxed how much, and who is affected by any changes.

People are easily convinced that their taxes were unchanged, when in fact they were raised or lowered, and vise versa. And people are easily convinced of the same thing regarding the taxes of others.

It's basically not just a tool for revenue, it's a tool for fraud and theft by politicians, in a way that would not be possible with a sales tax, for example.

 

[AlephZero]

First, define "income".

There is no great problem defining "wages" or "salaries", and taxing them in a straightforward and easy to understand manner. (I don't have any experience of the US system so I can't judge whether that aspect of it is easy to undertstand or not).

However as soon as your income level rises beyond the level of ready cash that you need for day to day living, nothing is simple, and you don't need either genius or a lot of training to think of ways to defer actually receiving "income" in a form that is identifiable as such.

Most taxation systems have got to their current state as the authorities try to plug the loopholes in the system, and create more unintended consequences as they do so.

Of course the largest unintended consequence is that the "little people" can't avoid the tax on their montly pay checks, but for the top earners "income tax" is almost entirely voluntary. As my later post shows, they still pay a lot of it, but that is not inconsistent with the statement that it is voluntary!

 

[Al68]

...I don't have any experience of the US system...but for the top earners "income tax" is almost entirely voluntary.

In the U.S., top earners pay the bulk of actual income tax revenues, while the bottom half pays almost none.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8885/EffectiveTaxRates.shtml

 

[AlephZero]

A summary of the UK tax system (about 50 pages, but fairly easy reading) here: http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn09.pdf

Some key numbers (2009 data):
Sources of government tax revenues:

Income tax (less tax credits) 27%
National Insurance (paid by employers, per employee) 18%
Value added tax (sales tax) 15%
Other indirect taxes (alcohol, fuel, tobacco, etc) 11%
Council tax (based on the value of the property you live in, whether or not you own it) 5%
Taxes on capital gains etc 3%
Company taxes 13%
Miscellaneous 8%

Sales taxes as a percentage of cost of items:
Standard rate 17.5% (in 2009) Note: many items including food are not taxed.
Beer 29%
Wine and spirits 55-60%
Motor fuel 58-62%
Cigarettes: 79%

Number of income tax payers (total UK population about 55m)
Basic rate: 26.7m
Higher rates: 3.6m
The top 1% of taxpayers paid 23% of the total income tax
The top 50% of taxpayers paid 89% of the total.

 

[nismaratwork]

I want to discuss this, but I don't see a way without it becoming an ideological fight. I applaud the attempt however... I will say that I voted for a slightly higher income tax.

 

[Proton Soup]

ultimately, the end consumer/producer pays all tax. so i think, not only as a matter of principle, but as a practical matter, and for reasons of efficiency in the system, it is better to tax products, services, and corporations. the tax will be included in the price of goods and services, and therefore the individual still pays federal tax on his income as he spends without being taxed directly. so, it's silly to tax individuals.

i think what you see today though, is that the IRS isn't so much taxing low income people as it is performing a means-testing service for the distribution of government benefits. and this is the real reason that you won't see the individual income tax going away anytime soon.

 

[Aknazer]

ultimately, the end consumer/producer pays all tax. so i think, not only as a matter of principle, but as a practical matter, and for reasons of efficiency in the system, it is better to tax products, services, and corporations. the tax will be included in the price of goods and services, and therefore the individual still pays federal tax on his income as he spends without being taxed directly. so, it's silly to tax individuals.

i think what you see today though, is that the IRS isn't so much taxing low income people as it is performing a means-testing service for the distribution of government benefits. and this is the real reason that you won't see the individual income tax going away anytime soon.

My question then is, what happens when someone makes 1billion+ a year, but only spends a fraction of that? If you tax them at the start instead of the end then you don't have to worry about the hoarding of the money.

I do agree that if you tax the end goods that the tax will be passed on to the individual, but what about goods that aren't bought from a retailer or are from out of the country? Waiting till the end simply means that there's that many more ways to potentially get around it imo.

 

[Proton Soup]

My question then is, what happens when someone makes 1billion+ a year, but only spends a fraction of that? If you tax them at the start instead of the end then you don't have to worry about the hoarding of the money.

I do agree that if you tax the end goods that the tax will be passed on to the individual, but what about goods that aren't bought from a retailer or are from out of the country? Waiting till the end simply means that there's that many more ways to potentially get around it imo.

i don't think hoarding is an issue. people don't get to be that rich by stuffing their mattresses with their wages.

when you bring goods from outside the country, you add a duty to them. if a company imports items to sell, you tax the import company.

 

[AlephZero]

i don't think hoarding is an issue. people don't get to be that rich by stuffing their mattresses with their wages.

No, but they don't spend every penny of goods and services either. Or are you proposing making a financial investment in a company (either by setting up a new company yourself, or buying shares in it) should be taxed at the same rates as other "goods and services"?

If you do impose those rates of tax, then stuffing mattresses suddenly gets to be WAY more attractive than it is right now. That is probably not a good thing in the long term.

 

[Proton Soup]

No, but they don't spend every penny of goods and services either. Or are you proposing making a financial investment in a company (either by setting up a new company yourself, or buying shares in it) should be taxed at the same rates as other "goods and services"?

If you do impose those rates of tax, then stuffing mattresses suddenly gets to be WAY more attractive than it is right now. That is probably not a good thing in the long term.

so what? do you spend every penny, or do you save some?

arguments over "fairness" are a bit tiresome, anyway. let's say you raise tax on income so that a CEO at some manufacturer loses 5% of his takehome pay. he's got to make up for that somehow, maybe with a salary increase. to pay for that increase, he can raise prices on the consumer (you pay the tax), or find a way to make his product cheaper. cheaper might include moving some of the work offshore, lowering the tax base. now what?

 

[Aknazer]

so what? do you spend every penny, or do you save some?

arguments over "fairness" are a bit tiresome, anyway. let's say you raise tax on income so that a CEO at some manufacturer loses 5% of his takehome pay. he's got to make up for that somehow, maybe with a salary increase. to pay for that increase, he can raise prices on the consumer (you pay the tax), or find a way to make his product cheaper. cheaper might include moving some of the work offshore, lowering the tax base. now what?

If he moves it off shore that's where the tariffs and import taxes come into keep your jobs at home competative. But the issue that you're not addressing is that if people aren't spending money then the government isn't making money. And if the government isn't making money then it can't provide the services that it has agreed to provide.

Now this isn't a big worry during economic prosperity, but when there's an issue (such as a recession) and people start tightening their belts the government takes a double hit. First it's not going to be making as much because it's people aren't making as much. Secondly it's going to take another hit because the people who are still making money simply aren't spending as much of their money as they were before.

So while we the people might not like it as much, I feel that taxing at the start rather than the end is better overall in terms of keeping the government running. Plus it helps prevents the government from trying to hide things by them trying to play games with how much certain goods are taxed. The simpler the tax code the better it is for both the people and the government.

 

[nismaratwork]

so what? do you spend every penny, or do you save some?

arguments over "fairness" are a bit tiresome, anyway. let's say you raise tax on income so that a CEO at some manufacturer loses 5% of his takehome pay. he's got to make up for that somehow, maybe with a salary increase. to pay for that increase, he can raise prices on the consumer (you pay the tax), or find a way to make his product cheaper. cheaper might include moving some of the work offshore, lowering the tax base. now what?

Kill them? jay kay...


No fairness cuts both ways however, which is my point. I would rather be unfair to a powerful and wealthy minority than the vast majority.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I voted for no taxes other than income taxes. All my life I have been paying taxes on my income and have been able to save for retirement. Now in the middle of the game I don't want to see the rules change so that my retirement savings will be taxed as they are spent.

I get an apple a day and so does my neighbor. I like to eat my apple in the afternoon and my neighbor likes to eat his in the morning. This is fair and good. However, a socialist came by at noon and noticed that I had an apple and my neighbor did not. This is not fair he declared and proceded to make things equal. He divided my apple into three equal pieces. One for my poor neighbor, one for me, and one for the socialist.

 

[nismaratwork]

I voted for no taxes other than income taxes. All my life I have been paying taxes on my income and have been able to save for retirement. Now in the middle of the game I don't want to see the rules change so that my retirement savings will be taxed as they are spent.

I get an apple a day and so does my neighbor. I like to eat my apple in the afternoon and my neighbor likes to eat his in the morning. This is fair and good. However, a socialist came by at noon and noticed that I had an apple and my neighbor did not. This is not fair he declared and proceded to make things equal. He divided my apple into three equal pieces. One for my poor neighbor, one for me, and one for the socialist.

That's not socialism, that's a kleptocracy.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

That's not socialism, that's a kleptocracy.

Tell it to the socialists.

 

[Al68]

That's not socialism, that's a kleptocracy.

Aren't those synonyms? Seriously.

 

[nismaratwork]

Very funny guys, but no, they're not synonyms, and I'll tell it to the kleptocrats. Socialism is like pacificsm... it's an ideal, in practice it turns into something other than its original intent, and ceases to be Socialism. Still, let's not confuse the principle with the practice.

 

[Al68]

Very funny guys, but no, they're not synonyms, and I'll tell it to the kleptocrats. Socialism is like pacificsm... it's an ideal, in practice it turns into something other than its original intent, and ceases to be Socialism. Still, let's not confuse the principle with the practice.

Isn't the principle the same for both: the use of force against citizens to own (control) their property/fruits of their labor?

Or are you using the word socialism to refer to people all just inexplicably deciding to "share" voluntarily?

I'm perfectly serious, as you should know. I've made this exact point multiple times.

 

[nismaratwork]

Isn't the principle the same for both: the use of force against citizens to own (control) their property/fruits of their labor?

I'm perfectly serious, as you should know. I've made this exact point multiple times.

If not force, then means of coercian, but what other means does any group have (ultimately) to enforce ANYTHING?

Still, the major issue here is: socialism would be to share the apple, or better yet, the orchard... no middleman taking a third of it is needed. In practice, you need that middleman, or a fundamental shift in human nature, so the theory really is about spontaneous cooperation... the practice is about force.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Still, the major issue here is: socialism would be to share the apple.

It's my apple. That guy already ate his apple and I didn't get any share of it. These are the principles and practices of a thief.

 

[Al68]

Still, the major issue here is: socialism would be to share the apple, or better yet, the orchard... no middleman taking a third of it is needed.

The middleman stole two thirds, not one third, of the apple. Presumably if the socialist agent didn't take a cut for himself, he would steal half the apple.

In practice, you need that middleman, or a fundamental shift in human nature, so the theory really is about spontaneous cooperation... the practice is about force.

But those are very different things. One person giving half of his apple to another is very different from someone taking half of his apple by force. The word socialism is normally used to refer to the latter, but not the former.

The word socialism simply does not mean voluntary sharing, despite attempts by socialists to equate their kleptocratic agenda with voluntary sharing.

 

[Aknazer]

The middleman stole two thirds, not one third, of the apple. Presumably if the socialist agent didn't take a cut for himself, he would steal half the apple.But those are very different things. One person giving half of his apple to another is very different from someone taking half of his apple by force. The word socialism is normally used to refer to the latter, but not the former.

The word socialism simply does not mean voluntary sharing, despite attempts by socialists to equate their kleptocratic agenda with voluntary sharing.

In an "ideal" world (read, utopia) it would be voluntary sharing and everyone would give their best effort to work towards the common good. But that isn't how the world is. You have some people who are greedy, and others who just plain don't agree with the concept, among other issues. And due to this the only way to enforce the "ideal" is with force. Of course using force perverts the ideal. And that is ultimately the biggest issue with both socialism and communism. The "ideals" are great, but given human nature they don't work in real life. Which means that you have to stifle liberty and freedom in order to try and enforce the ideal, at which point the ideal is lost. Now some countries are able to enforce this, but there generally comes a point where the people simply won't tolerate it anymore and the country collapses.

I would recommend you don't confuse the real world application and how the idea plays out with what the original idea was.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I would recommend you don't confuse the real world application and how the idea plays out with what the original idea was.

I have this great idea that will benefit everyone. First hand over your money. Only please, as you fork over, please don't confuse the real world application and how the idea plays out with what the original idea was. Oh, and your watch too.

 

[Aknazer]

I have this great idea that will benefit everyone. First hand over your money. Only please, as you fork over, please don't confuse the real world application and how the idea plays out with what the original idea was. Oh, and your watch too.

You need to quit with the attacks and work on understanding just what I was saying and what my response was aimed at. The person that I quoted was saying that "socialism" means that you are forced to share, or in essence are "stolen" from regardless of your view. Yes that is how it plays out for those that don't agree with socialism but are forced to live under it, and needs to be accounted for when discussing things (basically it works so long as everyone agrees, but can quickly deteriorate once people don't agree with it); but what socialists want is for everyone to freely give for the good of the society and that isn't stealing.

Also what you're saying doesn't make sense. You're just saying hand over all your money but then you don't give any reason for this and you don't state what your original ideal is for the handing over of the money. If you're going to talk about something like this try to keep it relavent. So what is the system of government, how would it "ideally" pay for itself, and what are the issues with it when applied to the real world and human nature?

So getting back to my original post. The fact that socialists generally resort to "stealing" to achieve their goal does not mean that socialism is based around the idea of stealing. Rather, the general idea of socialism simply isn't that compatible with human nature and so force must be used in order for the underlying idea of socialism to work. That "middleman" isn't stealing so much as he is enforcing that style of government.

This is also why you would want more of your people to be involved in the government. If you had a population who truly didn't mind this style of government then once again it wouldn't be "stealing" and they would freely give. If the people don't like this type of government then by having more people involved the people are more likely to put a stop to this type of rule.

Things like socialism, communism, and several other types of government are not what I would want to be under. But that doesn't mean those types of governments can't work so long as the people under them agree to that type of rule. And so it is possible to reasonably talk about those types of governments even if you wouldn't want to be under them. If you're going to talk about various types of government you also have to look at the ease that the government can become corrupt, but that is all getting away from the original question. And that was, what do you think is the best way for a government to finance itself and why.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

what socialists want is for everyone to freely give for the good of the society and that isn't stealing.

When socialists want money for defending the country, for building roads, and otherwise making improvements, that is for the good of the society and they are no different from any other form of govt. However, when they take money from one for the sole purpose of giving it to another, it certainly is stealing.

 

[Jasongreat]

You need to quit with the attacks and work on understanding just what I was saying and what my response was aimed at. The person that I quoted was saying that "socialism" means that you are forced to share, or in essence are "stolen" from regardless of your view. Yes that is how it plays out for those that don't agree with socialism but are forced to live under it, and needs to be accounted for when discussing things (basically it works so long as everyone agrees, but can quickly deteriorate once people don't agree with it); but what socialists want is for everyone to freely give for the good of the society and that isn't stealing.

Also what you're saying doesn't make sense. You're just saying hand over all your money but then you don't give any reason for this and you don't state what your original ideal is for the handing over of the money. If you're going to talk about something like this try to keep it relavent. So what is the system of government, how would it "ideally" pay for itself, and what are the issues with it when applied to the real world and human nature?

So getting back to my original post. The fact that socialists generally resort to "stealing" to achieve their goal does not mean that socialism is based around the idea of stealing. Rather, the general idea of socialism simply isn't that compatible with human nature and so force must be used in order for the underlying idea of socialism to work. That "middleman" isn't stealing so much as he is enforcing that style of government.

This is also why you would want more of your people to be involved in the government. If you had a population who truly didn't mind this style of government then once again it wouldn't be "stealing" and they would freely give. If the people don't like this type of government then by having more people involved the people are more likely to put a stop to this type of rule.

Things like socialism, communism, and several other types of government are not what I would want to be under. But that doesn't mean those types of governments can't work so long as the people under them agree to that type of rule. And so it is possible to reasonably talk about those types of governments even if you wouldn't want to be under them. If you're going to talk about various types of government you also have to look at the ease that the government can become corrupt, but that is all getting away from the original question. And that was, what do you think is the best way for a government to finance itself and why.

Government of any type is about governing humans, if a system of government is not compatible with human nature then it will never result in a happy populace, which is the sole pupose of any government. The fact that socialism and communism won't work as it "should" because it is contrary to human nature should be the end of the discussion on those types of government, imo.

There are ways, which have been discussed already in this thread, in which to fund a government without the use of force. Such as sales taxes and tariffs on the products one buys. I would like to see a system in which everyone gets to keep their wages up to the point where they have money left over from cost of living(operating expenses) and start to be able to let their extra revenue make money of its own which is income(profit). Of course that would require a limited government, atleast one that is limited to certain powers and in doing so to stay within its means.

 

[Aknazer]

When socialists want money for defending the country, for building roads, and otherwise making improvements, that is for the good of the society and they are no different from any other form of govt. However, when they take money from one for the sole purpose of giving it to another, it certainly is stealing.

So then would you call programs like welfare, social security, education scholarships, etc? In welfare the money you pay in taxes is simply given to another person (I have other issues with welfare, but the simple act of giving them money isn't the issue). And with social security the money you're paying in now is being directly given to another person. Even with the educational sholarship it can still be boiled down to the taking of money from one person in order to give it to someone else. So then, where do you draw the line?

Government of any type is about governing humans, if a system of government is not compatible with human nature then it will never result in a happy populace, which is the sole pupose of any government. The fact that socialism and communism won't work as it "should" because it is contrary to human nature should be the end of the discussion on those types of government, imo.

I agree that it should be the end of discussion for those types. I was simply trying to make the point that socialism isn't "stealing" if you actually agree to that style of government. It's only stealing when it's forced upon you (which really could be said of any form of revenue collection that's forced onto someone).

There are ways, which have been discussed already in this thread, in which to fund a government without the use of force. Such as sales taxes and tariffs on the products one buys. I would like to see a system in which everyone gets to keep their wages up to the point where they have money left over from cost of living(operating expenses) and start to be able to let their extra revenue make money of its own which is income(profit). Of course that would require a limited government, atleast one that is limited to certain powers and in doing so to stay within its means.

I also agree with wanting a limited government and for that government to stay within it's means. As well as for people to make enough money that so long as they are responsible they're able to save for the future. For me the sales tax only (or primarily) approach causes concern when there's a recession. Not only will people be making less money (or flat out fired) which will lower the government's income, but those that can will try to save even more money than before, which further lowers the government's income. Now if the government had a decent savings account prior to the recession it might not matter for awhile, but the double hit to the gov's income (reduced income of the populous and a further reduced spending level than before) could end up seriously affecting it's ability to provide the services it was providing before. Especially if it didn't really have much of a profit margin to begin with.

 

[russ_watters]

I would recommend you don't confuse the real world application and how the idea plays out with what the original idea was.

If the idea cannot be implemented in reality, then what good is it? Marx talked about a communist revolution - as far as I know, he meant that he thought it would actually happen. Do we even know what the system of government would look like after that revolution ended? Did he even bother to speculate specifically?

The flaw outlined by several posts above and the difficult in talking with socialists comes from the insistence of separating the idea from the implementations. You get into this:

Person A: Socialism doesn't work.
Person B: How would we know? It's never been tried.
Person A: Sure it has - here's 3 examples.
Person B: They don't exactly match Marx's vision.
Person A: It came as close as is possible/they tried.
Person B: But it still wasn't.
Person A: Ok, so does that mean Marx's vision can't work?
Person B: No, it could work.
Person A: How? Where?
Person B: Um...I don't know, but I'm sure it can.

In the real world, if an idea can't actually be implemented, then it doesn't have a lot of value.

 

[nismaratwork]

If the idea cannot be implemented in reality, then what good is it? Marx talked about a communist revolution - as far as I know, he meant that he thought it would actually happen. Do we even know what the system of government would look like after that revolution ended? Did he even bother to speculate?

A model, an influence, and a mediating factor in an already selfish species. Obviously any single ideal is going to fail in practice, and from past attempts it's clear that failed Socialism leads to an ugly kleptocracy. That said, it's no reason to ignore the idea, any more than we should ignore the idea of a truly free market which ALSO doesn't survive, "contact with the enemy," like any plan.
edit: (re: to edit)

<snip>
In the real world, if an idea can't actually be implemented, then it doesn't have a lot of value.

I'd love to see that same argument made in the realm of theoretical physics, I know you're an engineer, but come on. You think that in the totality of human history we have a grip on what does and doesn't work? There is a place for theory, just none for zealots and people who think they can make that ideal an ideal reality.

@Jimmy@Al: Again, this is the difference between ideal and practice... I don't endorse the practice; it's a competative and nasty world in too many ways. That doesn't invalidate the idea however, anymore than the trying to achieve, "a more perfect union..." is somehow a flawed notion. striving and achieving are different, and an influence doesn't have to be a complete roadmap.

 

[russ_watters]

A model, an influence, and a mediating factor in an already selfish species. Obviously any single ideal is going to fail in practice, and from past attempts it's clear that failed Socialism leads to an ugly kleptocracy. That said, it's no reason to ignore the idea, any more than we should ignore the idea of a truly free market which ALSO doesn't survive, "contact with the enemy," like any plan.

The difference, of course, is that:

1. The "free market" model was easily implemented in its originally designed form and functioned reasonably well.
2. Then enhancements were made to that model to make it better.

Whereas socialism/communism never saw step 1, much less got to step 2.

 

[nismaratwork]

The difference, of course, is that:

1. The "free market" model was easily implemented in its originally designed form and functioned reasonably well.

Yes, I can see how it's been a raging success, inasmuch as it's been implemented, which it never really was. Perhaps you meant that ideals that you disagree with have no value despite their lack of an objective reality beyond the conceptual?

2. Then enhancements were made to that model to make it better.

Whereas socialism/communism never saw step 1, much less got to step 2.

True, they fell, we're taking a much longer plummet in stages. I'd add, enhancements = no longer a free market, which again would seem to fly in the face of your original point.

 

[russ_watters]

I'd love to see that same argument made in the realm of theoretical physics...

This has nothing whatsoever to do with theoretical physics. Theoretical physics is research, not implementable devices. Communism is a system of government that was intended to be implemented and it didn't work. It is exactly like the thousands of failed perpetual motion machines littering the wastebasket of history. It is engineering, not physics. If it were presented as a hypothetical thought experiment, never intended to be implemented, then it would have been better (it would have been more like physics), but that is not what it was.

You think that in the totality of human history we have a grip on what does and doesn't work? There is a place for theory, just none for zealots and people who think they can make that ideal an ideal reality.

Huh? You misunderstand: I have nothing against Marx and certainly nothing against science and the process that yields countless failed theories before the proper ones are found. What I have a problem with is people clinging to a failed theory or failed device. Once a theory is proven a failure, it gets thrown in the trash (or, rather, the "failed ideas" drawer for future reference on what not to do). Marx's followers, on the other hand, still treat it like it is a viable system of government as Marx wrote it. My disdain for them is the same as my disdain for Aether theorists who still claim the Michelson Morley Experiment didn't fail or wouldn't fail if done to a higher precision. They have a straightforward refusal to accept reality.

 

[nismaratwork]

This has nothing whatsoever to do with theoretical physics. Theoretical physics is research, not implementable devices.

Really? I'm pretty sure FETs the world over are hurt to be so callously discarded.

Communism is a system of government that was intended to be implemented and it didn't work. It is exactly like the thousands of failed perpetual motion machines littering the wastebasket of history. It is engineering, not physics. If it were presented as a hypothetical thought experiment, never intended to be implemented, then it would have been better (it would have been more like physics), but that is not what it was.

True, although to be fair 'Socialism' was the topic at issue, but as far a Communism goes you have no argument from me. Still, I see a clear separation between the thought experiment (say, the US constitution) and the implementation whichis ongoing. I think virtually all of the 'isms' suffer from the delusion that they're practical, when in fact they're thought experiments that have been forced into service. Is it any wonder that they fail upon contact, and require, "enhancement"?

Huh? You misunderstand: I have nothing against Marx and certainly nothing against science and the process that yields countless failed theories before the proper ones are found. What I have a problem with is people clinging to a failed theory or failed device. Once a theory is proven a failure, it gets thrown in the trash (or, rather, the "failed ideas" drawer for future reference on what not to do). Marx's followers, on the other hand, still treat it like it is a viable system of government as Marx wrote it. My disdain for them is the same as my disdain for Aether theorists who still claim the Michelson Morley Experiment didn't fail or wouldn't fail if done to a higher precision. They have a straightforward refusal to accept reality.

I agree.