I think it is error to generalize the entire group and to believe that the bastions of that one party were really the impetus, or represent the total. Many of the people were there specifically in protest of the bailout that happened against the wishes and clear mandates of citizens of all stripes. It was the media gatekeepers and their puppeteers that co opted the message and deliberately portrayed the protests as the business as usual of the “never tax” crowd, which is an incomplete context. The protests need more plurality . . . this is a message that the other side(s) of the spectrum should refine and make less ridiculous.

Many working folk who fall into these groups and end up working against their own interests would benefit from hearing the messages so well laid out in above comments. They could be saved from the perverse subculture that taints these protests.

I hope some of you are putting that wisdom to good use in local politics. We desperately need that . . . it’s not that public services are bad, it’s that the bulk of the taxes are use for destructive means and cushy retirements for incumbents that haven’t earned them in true service.

Let’s get rid of corporations.

Peace, Resistance, Hope,
Melissa

We’re definitely in agreement. Back in the day our government was funded 95% by tariffs. I don’t know if that’d work into today’s world, maybe we’d need something different but still voluntary (something that’s not coming straight out of our checks), being able to reject paying taxes is the only way a citizen has to keep their government in check and stopping it from growing into a Leviathan.

I am willing to pay local taxes for local roads, police, fire and other services, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to listen to your abusive and deceptive article telling me I have to pay taxes to support brutal wars of aggression and criminal takeover of our government by a moneyed mafia.

Here’s an improvement to your article – makes all taxes voluntary and let citizens choose what services they will fund. Not some bought and paid for congressmen, some know-better than you bureaucrats, or hypocritical idiots like the author of this pestilent scream for more statism and oppression.

Sorry, but you’ve got that backwards. In truth, Barry won’t be able to continue funding the war machine without reducing expenditure on the public good. His record as senator and president is nothing if not consistent: when those two interests conflict, the public good will always be the one that suffers.

Err no. I believe Sir Tim Berners Lee (from the UK) who worked at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland is generally credited as the father of the internet.

The Republican Party along with its white-nationalist, neo-nazi allies, are trying to do whatever they can to overthrow Obama from power.

An ultra-right wing movement is rising in America, we are living in dangerous times. And the task of the US liberals and leftists is to do whatever they can to educate americans on the danger of the right-wing and ultra-right wing ideology.

.

Exploitation is a problem at all levels of society and there is little on record to show it has ever been eliminated.

The exploition of labor is something that can be addressed through various models of community ownership. But there is no utopia in this life. It takes vigilance and deep living democracy to reduce the inclination to exploit.

Justice is not fully achieved it emerges, and changes as our expectations change. This is not a one and done “project”. Human social structures are complex. Biology and the cognitive sciences provide a window into emergence, which is dynamic, which is why there is no “end-state utopia”. It provides a window into human nature. So, we can provide social structures which guide us toward justice for all. Those stuctures are a three legged stool: Polity, Economy, and Culture. Together they weave our world-view.

I would base any attempt at a just society on relatively static universal needs realizing that fulfillment is dynamic and prone to corrupting forces. For example, humans need safety. Once that need is statisfied there are other needs; but if safety is exploited it turns into a Military Industrial Complex. This “need” begins to poison other needs like community; while it exploits safety through fear.

Once we understand what people need and that the dynamics of satisfaction which can be positive and negative, we can begin to develop as individuals and communities into healthy (non-exploitative), fulfilling relationships.

But to be clear: there is simply no guarantee. It requires this deep understanding of basic universal human needs and the constant danger of those needs being exploitated. This awarness arms us with tools to combat through vigilance the corruption we are living in today. We are capable of seeing when it becomes pronounced, but it can subside and return as it does.

In a word, DB, there is no simple answer, no ideology, no single text or opus that springs from one mind. Human communities, whether healthy or sick feed off of the individuals that make up the community. We do, in fact, create our world through communication, through social exchanges. This happens for all species, even single celled creatures.

Human beings are land creatures and so there can be no human life, no justice without access to a commons, to a public domain. Privatization is the destruction of the commons, the destruction of life, a form of genocide. And land as defined as all natural resources is clearly central to justice and the elimination of poverty and exploitation; but it is only the foundation to build from. Those moments in time with various forms of indigenous wisdom understand this. When humans create a world-view that supercedes the natural, they create an unsustainable trajectory doomed, as I think we are, to implode and collapse.

I don’t think this is simply a capitalistic phenomenon. Capitalism is relatively new and has evolved in ways contrary to even what Adam Smith penned. We have to look beyond/beneath capitalism to create very different set of relationships, rather than seeing an “ism” as the enemy when the problem is deeper and far more human than that.

Land is non-elastic, is the most progressive of any “tax” and since humans do not make land, land value is the most stable and limited revenue sources. This is very important when understanding economic justice. Land, the air, water is not owned by anyone. To be a good steward of land, a rent on it’s use would make it both accessible to all, put it in the public domain and capture community wealth for a stable human-scaled economy.

Much of what you say Max is true. I agree with you that land, water and air should be free and shared by all. Unfortunately Max your solution still doesn’t address EXPLOITATION at the point of production which is why the United States is in its current predicament. The exploitation of the working class shifted their wealth into the banks only to have the banks lend the money back to hapless workers in order to achieve the “American Dream” at exorbitant rates and fees. Notice that Obama has no intention of debt forgiveness for workers.

The exploitation has now fed back onto the Capitalist system. The REAL problem Max is the lack of solidarity among workers to fight for a system of economic democracy and equality. Before there can be a “land tax” the struggle for economic equality and justice MUST precede it.

While this may sound heretical, I think it is wrong to tax earned income. And earned income can be easily identified and defined.

Actually I agree and this is not heretical although I believe there needs to be a cap on income. Nader’s plan to impose a “sales tax” on stock transaction and to eliminate all income taxes on everyone making less than $100,000.00 is an excellent idea. What a maximum wage does is forces income to spread out and become evenly distributed rather than become concentrated.

Much of what we call “wealth” is not earned; and produces little to no value. Such income (unearned) is immoral and exploitive. I would look for other means to eliminate it rather than tax it.

I wholeheartedly agree. In fact at one time unearned income were taxed at higher rates than labor income. That started to change in 1978 when the head of the Finance Committed, the Democratic Lloyd Bensten and signed by Democrat Jimmy Carter, lowered capital gains tax rates.

But there is something inherently wrong with the idea of taxing earned income. Why should someone work and after putting in time, energy and all whatever personal investment be taxed on it?

The problem here is that you have people like bankers, lawyers, insurance agents, and real estate agents all working in the non-productive FIRE sectors that has been allowed to balloon during the past 30 years while their brethrens in manufacturing were extremely exploited. These fire sector “workers” did “labour” but the problem is this sector is highly rewarded for non-production. You’ll have a problem Max making the argument that this income should not be taxed as their activity produced nothing but inflated assets and dislocation.

The case for a rent on land (resource usage) is strong. Many economists have stated that such a rent would provide the best means to ensure distribution and access to the sources of wealth, would pay for most, if not all, social services, infrastructure and education.

My argument is that your advocacy doesn’t of far enough to tax activity and behavior where wealth can be extracted with land use. I agree with your advocacy of that land is a common resource. But the fire sector is NOT the largest consumer of land. They have unfortunately use their control of money and use that money to have laws written and regulation eliminated that allowed them to get rich on inflating asset prices. My point is that a land tax won’t capture that activity. It would have missed much of the growth of FIRE sector which when onto to control much of the politicians and thus the government itself.

As such [the land/resource usage tax] would eliminate the need to penalize general purchases (sales tax) and against one’s income.

Your assertion is based solely on an assumption. Perhaps there will be enough money collected but so would a progressive income tax. But what your assumption misses the real reason why governments rely on regressive sales and labor taxes — POWER. The workers have failed to exercise POWER to make taxes more progressive.

[Income taxes] has been sold as progressive. The problem with income is that it is elastic which means that it can be hidden (usually by those with the means to do it) and the most wealthy rarely pay much even after innumerable efforts to “plug” loop holes for as many reasons that there are loop holes. Sales taxes generally either hurt poor people or are so erratic (requiring discretionary spending that dissipates during economic downturns).

I agree but then Max you fail to point out that income taxes WERE more progressive in the 1950′s when the top rate was 92%. States had to rely more heavily on sales taxes as revenue share was diminished and as taxes have been made more regressive during the past 30 years. Even your land/resource tax can be structured to be regressive if you lack the solidarity and power to make it progressive.

Land is non-elastic, is the most progressive of any “tax” and since humans do not make land, land value is the most stable and limited revenue sources. This is very important when understanding economic justice. Land, the air, water is not owned by anyone. To be a good steward of land, a rent on it’s use would make it both accessible to all, put it in the public domain and capture community wealth for a stable human-scaled economy.

The exploitation has now fed back onto the Capitalist system. The REAL problem Max is the lack of solidarity among workers to fight for a system of economic democracy and equality. Before there can be a “land tax” the struggle for economic equality and justice MUST precede it.

Hello all: We are in a very delicate, dangerous and economic-unstable times which kills reason in many US citizens. I know that Obama is a corporate puppet, and that the Democrat Party is a capitalist-party. However, people should not support extremists, radical far-right movements as the solution for our problems.

Even a far-right wing TN Nazi Republican Party congressmen wants to pass a resolution to ban socialism in TN, and in USA.

I mean, what the f*ck is going on in the United States of America? are people losing their minds or something?

When you hear that a US Congress lawmaker wants to ban socialism in USA, you know that something smells fishy. And that americans should wake up and smell the spectre of nazism and fascism alive in America.

http://www.waaytv.com/Global/story.asp?S=10188368

Tennessee is a dumb, fat and fascist state, full of dumb, fat and fascist people even TN congress people are real dumb.

A TN Republican Party lawmaker wants a law to ban socialism in TN. (What a f*cking asshole)

.

Much of what we call “wealth” is not earned; and produces little to no value. Such income (unearned) is immoral and exploitive. I would look for other means to eliminate it rather than tax it.

But there is something inherently wrong with the idea of taxing earned income. Why should someone work and after putting in time, energy and all whatever personal investment be taxed on it?

The case for a rent on land (resource usage) is strong. Many economists have stated that such a rent would provide the best means to ensure distribution and access to the sources of wealth, would pay for most, if not all, social services, infrastructure and education. As such it would eliminate the need to penalize general purchases (sales tax) and against one’s income. The latter has been sold as progressive. The problem with income is that it is elastic which means that it can be hidden (usually by those with the means to do it) and the most wealthy rarely pay much even after innumerable efforts to “plug” loop holes for as many reasons that there are loop holes. Sales taxes generally either hurt poor people or are so erratic (requiring discretionary spending that dissipates during economic downturns).

Land is non-elastic, is the most progressive of any “tax” and since humans do not make land, land value is the most stable and limited revenue sources. This is very important when understanding economic justice. Land, the air, water is not owned by anyone. To be a good steward of land, a rent on it’s use would make it both accessible to all, put it in the public domain and capture community wealth for a stable human-scaled economy.

When a government refuses to prosecute criminal acts, as the Obama administration’s DoJ (at his agreement) than all else is rendered null and void. Exceptions of this sort make hypocracy, greed, and elite power over the common good the rule of the land.

Such a government is really what the Founders seemed to be saying when they indicated overthrowing the status quo. It has become illegitimate.

Government size needs context; and that’s been missing since FDR. It is not what government DOES for people, it is what needs to be in the public or common domain and thus transparent. A non-transparent government is as bad (perhaps worse) than simply privatizing the commons.

Understanding what needs to be IN the commons, what serves the common “good” and thus is prone to monopolization is key. Whatever needs are apt to be monopolized through privatization must be in the public domain in the truest sense of that word public – transparent.

A small set of examples are healthcare, transportation, airwaves, all natural resource use (energy, land, water, etc.), and access. Government is built around this concept of common ownership. Otherwise you can end up with an intolerable oligarchic government the size of the planet or as small as “central control”. Size needs to be put in context.

Pay no attention to the right wing harangues about big government and taxes. Shrink government down to size that it can be drowned in a bathtub? Yeah, right. If govt shrinks, so do a shitload of well-paying jobs and fat govt contracts in Washington and elsewhere that go to Reagan, Bush, Norquist, et al cronies and family members.

sounds like the same problem with voting democrat.

Very true. The problem is that the public still hasn’t come to the conclusion that elections do not fundamentally change the political economy. When the public comes to that conclusion they’ll either seek or become THE alternative. Unfortunately the “Left” hasn’t provided an alternative to the Democrats. They’ve been too busy retarding solidarity among workers.

sounds like the same problem with voting democrat.

Corporatism is tyranny!