Posted on 05/30/2004 2:10:00 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis
HR25 is different...
Have you read it?
What specific section are you referring to? If you name it, I shall read it and get back to you.
Alas, Locke fails to fully address the most important part of this: the role of corporate management in promoting and expanding the corporatist model. Big business is not merely a bystander -- it benefits greatly from "corporatism." Locke appears ready to give big business a pass, but that would be a mistake.
Locke's underlying assumption seems to be that "big business" really is self-regulating -- but is there really any basis for this assumption? Aside from the brief mention of "managerialism," he doesn't seem to consider that corporate management often uses government to achieve its own ends. (For example, Wal-Mart has been become famous for getting local governments to exercise eminent domain on its behalf.)
Locke also dwells on the advantages that big government has over small government, but he somehow fails to note that big businesses have exactly the same advantages over small businesses -- there's seldom "competition" involved: big companies usually just steamroll the little guys. One can argue about whether this is good or bad; the point here is simply that in this respect big government and big business use the same approach.
It also seems that Locke may be hiding behind a tacit assumption that the beliefs and behavior of those in government is somehow different from that of people in the boardroom. Is that a valid assumption? Probably not -- the power aspect is similar, and the wealth is typically much greater in business than in government.
Bottom line: Locke's underlying point has merit. But for whatever reason, in turning "corporatism" into a political left-right/government thing, he seems to be glossing over the fact that businesses are also significant players.
A real assessment of "corporatism" needs to take a very close look at the practices, motives, and effects of the business side of this. This seems like an obvious thing, which Locke unfortunately does not really address. It makes me suspect he's got his ideological blinders on.
Not true. America was built on a moral and religious foundation. The original small-government society was possible, because people were largely self-regulating.
Free Capitalism naturally thrived in this environment, but it must be acknowledged that the early industrial tycoons were not particularly well-behaved. It's fine to blame "progressives" for the rise of big government, but it's necessary also to acknowledge that they were responding to the excesses and real wrong-doings of a "Free Capitalism."
The more government regulation there is the more a business depends on government to make a change in its business and therefore the more business has to influence the government in order to make a profit instead of better satisfying the customers. That is, a system that guarantees tycoons financing politicians and taking bureaucrats to dinner.
You're forgetting that things like trade unions, child labor laws, and workplace safety regulations came about for a reason -- namely, the Robber Barons often treated their employees like expendables instead of people. (See, for example, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire.)
One thing we on the right tend to do -- and the left has been successfully bashing us on it for decades -- is to dismiss the arguments of the other side. That's a dumb thing to do, as there are often parts of the complaints that are valid, even if the leftist "solution" is not.
I don't see your concern about SS/medicare allocation
There's no SS/Medicare trust fund anyway; it already goes into the general fund.
`SEC. 904. TRUST FUND REVENUE.
`(a) SECRETARY TO MAKE ALLOCATION OF SALES TAX REVENUE- The Secretary shall allocate the revenue received by virtue of the tax imposed by section 101 in accordance with this section. The revenue shall be allocated among--
`(1) the general revenue,
`(2) the old-age and survivors insurance trust fund,
`(3) the disability insurance trust fund,
`(4) the hospital insurance trust fund, and
`(5) the Federal supplementary medical insurance trust fund.
`(b) General Rule-
`(1) GENERAL REVENUE- The proportion of total revenue allocated to the general revenue shall be the same proportion as the rate in section 101(b)(4) bears to the combined Federal tax rate percentage (as defined in section 101(b)(3)).
`(2) The amount of revenue allocated to the old-age and survivors insurance and disability insurance trust funds shall be the same proportion as the old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate (as defined in
subsection (d)) bears to the combined Federal tax rate percentage (as defined in section 101(b)(3)).
`(3) The amount of revenue allocated to the hospital insurance and Federal supplementary medical insurance trust funds shall be the same proportion as the hospital insurance rate (as defined in subsection (e)) bears to the combined Federal tax rate percentage (as defined in section 101(b)(3)).
`(c) Calendar Year 2005- Notwithstanding subsection (b), the revenue allocation pursuant to subsection (a) for calendar year 2005 shall be as follows:
`(1) 64.83 percent of total revenue to general revenue;
`(2) 27.43 percent of total revenue to the old-age and survivors insurance and disability insurance trust funds, and
`(3) 7.74 percent of total revenue to the hospital insurance and Federal supplementary medical insurance trust funds.
`(d) OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE RATE- The old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate shall be determined by the Social Security Administration. The old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate shall be that sales tax rate which is necessary to raise the same amount of revenue that would have been raised by imposing a 12.4 percent tax on the Social Security wage base (including self-employment income) as determined in accordance with chapter 21 of the Internal Revenue Code most recently in effect prior to the enactment of this Act. The rate shall be determined using actuarially sound methodology and announced at least 6 months prior to the beginning of the Calendar year for which it applies.
`(e) HOSPITAL INSURANCE RATE- The hospital insurance rate shall be determined by the Social Security Administration. The hospital insurance rate shall be that sales tax rate which is necessary to raise the same amount of revenue that would have been raised by imposing a 2.9 percent tax on the Medicare wage base (including self-employment income) as determined in accordance with chapter 21 of the Internal Revenue Code most recently in effect prior to the enactment of this Act. The rate shall be determined using actuarially sound methodology and announced at least 6 months prior to the beginning of the calendar year for which it applies.
`(f) ASSISTANCE- The Secretary shall provide such technical assistance as the Social Security Administration shall require to determine the old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate and the hospital insurance rate.
`(g) FURTHER ALLOCATIONS-
`(1) OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS AND DISABILITY INSURANCE- The Secretary shall allocate revenue received because of the old-age, survivors and disability insurance rate to the old-age and survivors insurance trust fund and the disability insurance trust fund in accordance with law or, in the absence of other statutory provision, in the same proportion that the old-age and survivors insurance trust fund receipts bore to the sum of the old-age and survivors insurance trust fund receipts and the disability insurance trust fund receipts in calendar year 2004 (taking into account only receipts pursuant to chapter 21 of the Internal Revenue Code).
`(2) HOSPITAL INSURANCE- The Secretary shall allocate revenue received because of the hospital insurance rate to the hospital insurance trust fund and the Federal supplementary medical insurance trust fund in accordance with law or, in the absence of other statutory provision, in the same proportion that hospital insurance trust fund receipts bore to the sum of the hospital insurance trust fund receipts and Federal supplementary medical insurance trust fund receipts in calendar year 2004 (taking into account only receipts pursuant to chapter 21 of the Internal Revenue Code).
Please note: any time there is a statutory requirement that a certain level be maintained, if that level is not maintained, the statutory requirement is also the statutory authority to make changes that will recover the required level.
By the way, I have looked at the math on your thread and found no refutation of that math on the thread. Did you find someone that took the actual math to task and shot it down?
Also, remember, that the 23%(30%) rate is only for the first year. It increases by statute the second year.
A curious question. If the projection of tax rates really are accurate, and we face extraordinarily high NRST rates two to five years after the institution of NRST, would you be still in favor of it? The reason I ask, it seems you folks are defending a position, that is to say, that you want to win the argument, in spite of the very probable reality that the NRST position may actually be a bad thing.
An indication thereof is that you posted that article at the link with the request that it be refuted, not that it be verified or not, because, from the implication of your attitude, the NRST is GOOD, therefore anything indicating that it is not GOOD therefore MUST be bad, or inaccurate. And, that IF such information proves the NRST bad, it should be discredited by any means possible or hidden from view.
This last allegation being extrapolated from the facts that the NRST is called the "FairTax" instead of what it is, and the leaning on the "23%" rate, always with the specification "tax inclusive", surely knowing that most everybody won't understand what "tax inclusive" means to the rate.
What disturbs me most is the indications of an attempt at truthful fraud, like that ad agencies indulge in to sell a product. If a thing is really a good thing, fraud need not be necessary to sell it.
The problems you claim to be the ills of capitalism (in response to my posted Friedman article) are not ills of capitalism as all, but corporatism. Read this article; it will change your entire outlook.
I bumped another post to you, this one regarding "Conservatives under Corporatism".
I believe that I stated that it is the way that capitalism is practiced that is the problem. But Chesterton said that 80 years ago and he was very prescient.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.