Originally Posted by Katczinsky

Above all, however, the one thing that seems to make Americans mad somehow are taxes (even though we enjoy some of the lowest rates in the industrialized world). Heck our country was founded by tax protesters and smugglers.

New wars? Lies? All of them alright, just so long as they don't raise taxes!

Originally Posted by Ralph

Yea right that is why we have the "HIGHEST" corporate tax rate in the entire industrial world, leading with a whopping 39.3% total, 35% federal plus 4.3% state.

Originally Posted by garysher

Allowing the US dollar to devalue against all other major currencies is the current fiscal policy aimed at reducing the humongous trade deficit with the least pain.

As the years go by it's hard to see how any administration will be able to meet financial requirements for Social Security, Medicare etc on an aging, retired population, without raising taxes on the decreasing numbers of people still in the workforce.

In other words steadily increasing taxation seems inevitable.

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

Lets forget the fact that I was talking about the American people, and therefore income taxes on individuals. Unless you believe in the idiocy of corporate personhood, which arguably even this nation's founders (the capitalists you like to talk about) even opposed. Which I truly hope you would agree with them on this issue.



And yet personal income taxes in those countries have gone up (specifically on the rich in a progressive tax system). In the end, many of those burgeoning European nations have about the same corporate tax rates as the United States. Though, we're ignoring the complete and utter lack of true context in our arguments. The merger of the two Germany's required of them to attempt to build the economy of which the East was greatly slowing down.

Many European states have been moving left as a consequence of their discovery of the benefits of a progressive system and the social benefits it renders. If you're arguing against a further 'socialization' of a nation's economy, then practically any Western European nation would be a terrible example for you to supply. The former states of the Soviet Union however, didn't see anything wrong in the radical privatization of their economies, and they've all slipped back into the third-world as a consequence.




If it is the formation our country (the states) you're referring too, then this nation was built on mercantilism, slavery, and indentured servitude.

However, if you're referring to the revolution and the formation of the Confederation/United States as a political entity then I would say yes and no.

The "United States" was founded on slavery as much as it was capitalism (although you can argue that slavery as a mere subcategory of capitalism which I actually disagree with). Though, Thomas Paine, arguably the author and savior of the American Revolution, was the one who was responsible for garnering 'popular' support for the revolution, and he did so by incidentally including in his arguments the need of a progressive tax system and providing a wide host of social programs as a return. Something you apparently like to call income redistribution.



I certainly learned lessons. That is, Russia was quickly brought out of the third-world of feudalism where mass oppression and starvation was the norm into the second-world where Russia quickly became a contending world superpower and a wide host of social programs were made available. As soon as central planning was ended in Russia so was the economic benefits and Russia and the other Soviet states quickly slipped back into the third world. However, Russia also provided a prime example of the evils of "authoritarian socialism" (in actuality a contradiction in terms), bureaucratization, and the mere usurping of the ruling bourgeois class with a group of proletarians.

Cuba, although not socialist (with the replacement of a dictatorship with just a less smelly one), also taught me some lessons. That even a poor third-world country that suffers a decades-long economic blockade can take care of its people with comparatively world-renown free education, health care, economic participation, and grass-roots organized local politics. It taught me how wasteful our system is, that being the richest nation in the world, we're still outbeaten by Cuba in infant mortality rates, literacy rates, and even life expectancy. Cuba's political failures (restrictions on free speech and assembly) also taught me what not to do, even though some of those restrictions arguably saved their revolution from foreign intervention.




Perhaps you could provide some sources?



I wasn't aware that the 2007 military budget of $439.3 Billion (excluding the funding of our two wars, and other military funding that falls outside of the Defense Department budget) could be considered "a few billion". And it continues to go up considering Bush is now asking for over $600 billion.

If you want to talk about a lack of return for all the taxes we pay then I think the defense budget would be the most relevant. With the cost of our two wars surpassing a trillion dollars (that's trillion with a "T") and with billions of dollars literally "disappearing", and nothing to show for it other than hundreds of thousands of people dead, two countries torn apart and unstable, a more unsafe world, and broken foreign relations.

Originally Posted by Ralph

First things first. 1.) Corporations produce "work" which in turn produces employment for "individual taxation", and in the end these "mean old corporations" provide the MAJORITY of income to these United States of America. Yet, we wish to tax them into "bankruptcy", thus the wish to "outsource" to other parts of the world.

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

Irrelevancy seems to be your game. Individual tax is not corporate tax and vice versa. The former is a taxation on money earned through the trade of your labor (minus taxations on those who earn profits), and the latter is inevitably a taxation on profits of an organization (accumulation of unpaid labor).

To tax this source of unpaid labor and redistribute them as public services is moral IMHO. Obviously total income redistribution can't work under the heading of capitalism and even as a socialist I will have to extend some truth to your arguments.

A lot of people earn their paychecks by employment in corporations. But if it is corporations you are arguing then perhaps you will have a hard time finding an example of one corporation being "taxed into bankrupcy" by corporate tax rates in the United States. Such a case would indeed be curious.

The ones you call communists and socialists merely want to tease the working class with scraps of meat instead of the original revolutionary idea of overthrowing all existing means of production.

Comparing the contemporary epoch to earlier ones is always helpful. I'm not just interested in taxing the slave owner to death and giving all those benefits to the slave, but rather I am interested in emancipation.




Have I said anything that would threaten this mandate?

The founders also believed strongly against standing armies and involving the country in foreign wars and alliance systems....go figure.




Irrelevant. Freedom for slaves wasn't a constitutionally mandated concept either. In fact the original Constitution actually protected slavery for a set period of time.



You seem to continue to pull numbers out of your ass even after credible sources were requested of you.



Indeed, imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism.




The heritage foundation? How about I just supply articles written by Communists in ISO's International Socialist Review to supplement my argument? How would you feel about that? Or you could perhaps look for some objective source?