Minimum Wage of $15

[Scott]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JEKwzepdc0

[gordie91]

Teresa,

The societies that you referenced were not free societies and after the revolutions were worse off than before the revolution. Both were run by a monarchy and the the ruling class did not consider a commoner to be their equal. By equal, I mean, equal under the law and that each individual possess certain rights that are inherent with being a human. After the revolution in Russia and to a certain extent in France life became even more difficult and life became more expendable, especially in Soviet Russia.

We can not avoid redistribution if we hold altruism as the highest ideal but if we regard the individual as the sole owner of his life and free to live it as he sees fit then that person would not need or want a government to provide for them, it would go against his nature to accept otherwise.

A poor person can be a good person and does not have to resort to a life of crime.

As to how to fund a national army for the protection of the citizens, I would refer you to some of Hamilton's ideas about how to fund national defense. He spent most of his time when secretary of treasury addressing how to fund such things. I thinks some are good and some not so. I do not believe the army should be in the "business" of war. It should be in the business of winning when provoked. There can be a way for a government to impose taxes on the citizens for national defense but it should (IMO) always do so objectively and respect the rights of the individual. On the idea of defense or protection, I find it interesting that virtually every city in the country has a police force and counties with a police force and of course the individual states have police as well at tax payer expense and yet the security business is doing quite well. In a free market/free society people, I believe, would be willing to pay for protection.

[tarheel]

Well in past years those people unfortunate enough to be injured or ill generally just quietly died off, thus saving society untold amounts of money.

I should not have to rely on the 'kindness of strangers' for sheer survival if I am unable to provide alone. I should be able to rely instead of the social safety net which assists ALL citizens who need it, instead of having to start a GoFundMe page and hope I look cute enough and desperate enough to garner sufficient funds so I don't die or my children don't starve to death.

I prefer, in fact, to live in a society that DOES actively provide a basic level of care, a basic level of available education, a basic level of human services (including roads and bridges) and things like a postal service that doesn't serve ONLY large wealthy cities and ignores small, rural ones.

Agri, the real issue here is how to fund it. We can postulate on what should or should not be done but action is going to come from Congress. I don't have the patience for all the postulation. (Is that a real word?) I am hardwired for action. Do Something. Unfortunately the Congress of recent past nor what we have today is willing to do what needs to be done. The spending waste is well documented but no one will do anything about it because they won't be re-elected. The Republicans want to cut taxes but the cuts won't be revenue neutral. As of today their proposal will add 1.5 TRILLION to the national debt over the next 10 years. This is just not sustainable. We had the Tea Party, now the Trump revolution (a total disaster) which was supposed to reverse this but look where that has got us. So I see time spent to debate these particular issues a waste of time for the moment. I think the solution in large part would be to limit House and Senate terms to one term of 6 years to remove the re-election issue. But that would require them to do this to themselves wIil never happen. So I am afraid we have ourselves a situation where we are just going to watch ourselves slowly destruct.

[tarheel]

Part of the reasons for the licensing is revenue generation on the state and local level. The other part is regulating professionals which I have no problem with. I am also a CPA and I don't want just anyone to be able to hold them-self out as an accounting professional. Same for physicians. I do think that in some cases regulating the "professional" aspect has been taken a little too far.

Revenue for what? More rights violating laws and regulation and people to enforce and dream up? Government needs only to have an army to protect the citizens from external forces, law courts to settle disputes between individuals and police to protect citizens from each other using force.

Contracts can stipulate voluntary actions by which each party must adhere to and if there is a violation of the contract the law courts can come into play. One possible way to pay for the law courts is to agree to a certain percentage of the contract to be paid to the courts in the event of a dispute. If no dispute, the courts have just made some dough.

I contract with an accountant to account for my money, if he fails in honoring the contract I will have standing with the court. I do not need him to help me get all my deductions on my taxes because there wouldn't be any. If he is good and deals honestly he should profit well, if not he shouldn't profit. Why does some government entity that receives taxes (received by force of law) have the right to regulate and create rules by which to prevent some from working as an accountant?

J.D. Rockefeller wasn't a CPA, he started as an accountant apprentice at sixteen, would he be a good accountant to hire? My son, who is a CPA, stated to me recently that his Masters Degree was worthless and that he learned more working at a large firm than he had in the class room of a major university.

Just a thought from a mean ole objectivist

Gordie, we are obviously coming at this from different perspectives so I won't debate the point with you as neither one's viewpoint would change.

I also started out in accounting with a large national accounting firm (48 yrs ago) and it was terrific experience. However worthless your son considers his Masters Degree I think it is highly unlikely he would have passed the exam without the education. The exam is almost all knowledge obtained from the classroom and the textbooks.

Someone else on this thread asked the question if a self educated person should be allowed to practice law or practice as a CPA if they passed the pertinent exam. I would have no problem with it. I am fairly confident it would be a rare (very rare) instance in the accounting profession. Not qualified to comment on the bar exam. In the accounting profession, there is an experience requirement in addition to passing the exam.

[teresa]

The societies that you referenced were not free societies and after the revolutions were worse off than before the revolution. Both were run by a monarchy and the the ruling class did not consider a commoner to be their equal. By equal, I mean, equal under the law and that each individual possess certain rights that are inherent with being a human. After the revolution in Russia and to a certain extent in France life became even more difficult and life became more expendable, especially in Soviet Russia.

Yes, good point. The revolutions were not effective in redistributing the wealth. However, that did not stop the attempt at redistribution of wealth.

We can not avoid redistribution if we hold altruism as the highest ideal but if we regard the individual as the sole owner of his life and free to live it as he sees fit then that person would not need or want a government to provide for them, it would go against his nature to accept otherwise.

I am not sure I am understanding you. But I think you might be contrasting (1) those who think in terms of the good of the group --local community, nation, world -- as a whole, and (2) those who value individualism.

A poor person can be a good person and does not have to resort to a life of crime.

I agree. They can be homeless and panhandle. Live in a tent in the woods, if it's not forbidden.

I am really considering the idea, though, that prisons are a form of redistribution of wealth, albeit an ineffective one. Taxpayer money goes to house, feed, and clothe the prisoners.

There can be a way for a government to impose taxes on the citizens for national defense but it should (IMO) always do so objectively and respect the rights of the individual.

What way would that be? If the government is compelling citizens to pay taxes for national defense whether they want to or not, how would that be respecting individual rights? And can you unpack what you mean by the word "objectively"?

[Moogy]

I have spent the last couple of months taking a friend back and forth to numerous medical appointments and surgeries. She is dirt-poor, retirement age, and also disabled. She left an unworkable marriage at a late age and survives on only a very small Social Security check from her working days, plus she has Medicare and Medicaid. She lives in low-income housing. In other words, she is a beneficiary of several government programs.

In the past two months, she has had three surgeries, plus multiple tests and procedures. She has experienced several serious problems (uterine cancer diagnosis, a less than successful hysterectomy that had to be revised, raging infections, necessary radiation for the cancer which has been delayed until she heals, and a huge kidney stone requiring surgery--that one was just today.). Each appointment means a drive of about 45 miles each way to the nearest decent town. She has no car. Yes, as her friend, I am willing and able to transport her. Her church pitched in for some gas money, which I decline when possible.

However, if she did not have any government benefits, she would simply die in pain. There is no one in our little town who could or would pay the huge medical bills for her hospital stays and procedures.i could not pay for those costs. It is not her fault that her life fell apart after she was disabled. Two hundred years ago she would have wasted away in pain. Two hundred years ago, doctors might not have known what was wrong, even.

There are thousands of people in such situations. Private donations would never care for all these people.

I have been totally immersed in her care during recent weeks. I can see, up close and personal, that government benefits are crucial. Crucial. And I live in one of the stingiest states in the US (Texas), which restricts benefits to the very poorest of the poor.

[B.H.]

What if someone doesn't want to pay any taxes to support government employees, police, and military?

[agricola]

Moogy you are a gem.


and BH, people have done that - it is called 'civil disobedience' and one is permitted to be housed and clothed and fed by the government (i.e., they go to jail) free of charge, with their living expenses paid for by people who DID pay their taxes.

[B.H.]

Moogy you are a gem.


and BH, people have done that - it is called 'civil disobedience' and one is permitted to be housed and clothed and fed by the government (i.e., they go to jail) free of charge, with their living expenses paid for by people who DID pay their taxes.

All true agricola. I am just saying if you object to paying taxes for medicaid for poor people because you shouldn't have to what is to stop someone from arguing they are being oppressed by having to pay for a police force or army they do not want. It seems like a never ending spiral.

[KLP]

My post seems to have evaporated but all this "agreement" is playing out as I said. More popcorn please