www.CostaRicaTicas.com

Hey 3rd world:

Who gives a shit if we "suck by those countries." They have been sucking our dollars for decades. Arrogance? No! It's achievement by this country that many of those poor bastards have left aside due to socialized governments. Not to mention, jealous of our free economy and power.

Get real. would you rather be strong or weak? Just ask Israel who gets bombarded by rockets and has Hamas breaking the so called treaties every time. Damn, I respect their will to survive when most of the "world" chastises them.

When this country surrenders to that politically correct universal moment. and ceases to be dominant.....you as well as all of us will lose our freedom.

Not sure about the "free economy" part.

Perhaps that is a problem you fail to understand. It divides socialistic countries from "free economic" countries. Uh oh.....I'm a capitalist and proud of it.

Capitalism is defined in different ways as is socialism. The United States has long been a partially socialist democracy. It is not as socialist as Costa Rica but it is still semi-socialist.

By socialism I mean the general anthology of theoretical socialist economics which calls for:

1.) Collective and/or state ownership (or administration of) the means of production;
2.) Collective and/or state ownership (or administration of) the distribution of goods and services; and,
3.) Egalitarianism meaning a redistribution of wealth based on “need.” That is a pretty standard definition of socialism.

If we look at that definition and apply it to the reality of the United States we discover we have a semi-socialist society. For example, the Tennessee Valley authority, a government owned utility, provides power to a vast number of homes and businesses. Sacramento Municipal Utility District is a publically owned power company which would be classified more as a special district and is the sixth largest publicly owned utility in the U.S.

Many cities own the local power utility such as the City of Los Angeles which serves a population of nearly 4 million. That aspect fits in part the definition of socialism -- collective and /or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services. Power is a major “means” of production. Without power, production STOPS!

But it doesn’t stop there. Nearly every airport in the country is owned by a governmental entity whether it be LAX, owned and operated by the City of Los Angeles or Kennedy, LaGuardia and Newark, owned and operated by a special governmental entity called the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

The Port Authority also owned the Twin Towers. A lot of rent was collected in those two giants. The Port Authority also owns and operates most of the tunnels and bridges in the metro New York area. The Port Authority of NY-NJ operates the seaport of Newark-Elizabeth, numerous bus terminals, the PAATH train, smaller airports and much, much more.

The busiest seaport in the United States is the combined Los Angeles Port / Long Beach Port. While separated by an imaginary line they are separate entities. The Los Angeles Port is a subdivision of the City of Los Angeles and the Long Beach Port is a subdivision o the City of Long Beach.

These are examples of government controlled enterprises. They fit the definition of socialism -- collective and /or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services.

The governments – federal, state, local and special districts - own and operate nearly all the roads in America. And now the U.S. Government is a major stakeholder in most banks, the automobile industry and thousands of other little nooks and crannies the general public is not aware of.

Let us consider the concept of egalitarianism and the redistribution of wealth. We call that the Federal Income Tax Code, Social Security tax and in most states there is a state income tax, state and local sales taxes, property tax, car tax, utility tax, etcetera. Ever look at your phone bill, they tax the taxes!

Redistribution comes in the form of welfare, Aid to Mothers with Dependent Ch*ldren -- free milk, food, diapers, etc. - federal school breakfast and lunch subsidies, SSDI, “free” emergency medical care at any hospital, and on and on. That fits the definition too – equaling things out through the redistribution of wealth.

Do not misunderstand what I am saying. I am NOT advocating for socialism. That is absolutely NOT the point. To assume such would miss the entire point of what I am trying to illustrate.

The point is that in fact the United States of America is a semi-socialist state based on the definition of socialism and the realities of America’s socio-economic system.

Perhaps we can agree that the U. S. is a mixed economy, with strong elements from both ends of the political spectrum, with a right-leaning bent. Sweden is a mixed economy with a left-leaning bent. We and they aren't all that different. Remember that the extremes of both ends of the political spectrum have only a hairsbreadth distance between them--Germany in the '30's & '40's was extreme capitalism, the Soviet Union, extreme socialism, yet for the average citizen, what was the difference? Mainland China presents an odd case, having gone from socialism to Nazism in 1 generation.

_________________
"A man accustomed to hear only the echo of his own sentiments, soon bars all the common avenues of delight, and has no part in the general gratification of mankind"--Dr. Johnson
"Amen, brother"-ED

I spent two years in Sweden doing graduate work in economics and, yes it is a 'mixed economy' and to a large degree so is ours, however, the US economy has been 'aspirational' because the idea of really making it financially is more widely held then it is in Sweden. I remember meeting a Swedish inventor living in Sweden with a car registered in New York. He had become an American citizen because, although he preferred living in Sweden, he figured he probably had three maybe four inventions left and he had lost most of the rewards of his first eleven inventions to the Swedish tax authorities. One of the best and most overlooked aspects of living in a global world is the restraints that low tax and flat tax countries put on other countries.

_________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.

I agree with the thrust of Brother Taz's post--the Swedish system does not reward the entrepreneur, whether it's inventor or financial engineer nor does it necessarily prevent the kind of debacle we've foisted on the world. What it does do is benefit the great mass of folks who just want to live a life. I doubt 1/6 of their people have no health insurance nor access to regular health care. I'm also aware of the high suicide and alcoholism rates in Sweden but unsure of the connection between that and the eco-political system they've erected--maybe it's just the length of their winters--I'd sure drink more there.

_________________
"A man accustomed to hear only the echo of his own sentiments, soon bars all the common avenues of delight, and has no part in the general gratification of mankind"--Dr. Johnson
"Amen, brother"-ED

Jazzbro you hit on a couple of things in your last post that are true: Sweden offered excellent health care when I lived there (the 60's) and probably still does for most things. The suicide rate in Sweden is not nearly as high as many other countries and I think that one reason is the darkness in the winter time, although I believe most suicides actually occur as do most pregnancies, around Midsommarsafton (longest day of the year and a big holiday). Drinking in Sweden is about as expensive as knee replacement in the US and in fact I came to the conclusion that in too many ways the government in its nanny state paternalism (contradiction in terms there ) and tax codes sucks all the joy out of life. Anything that was considered a frivolous and non productive pastime was ripe for plucking by the Social Democrats. The difference between France (where I lived until recently) and Sweden in that regard is 180 degrees. A bottle of wine and a nice meal out is considered luxury consumption in Sweden. The prevailing government attitude in Sweden is that you should go to work, go home after work, watch television with your Ch*ldren and wife and on weekends go for a walk. I don't think any of us on this board would last long there

_________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.

Does anyone know why the 'i' in Ch*ldren in the above post became an asterick?

_________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.

I agree with you Jazzbo, the US is slightly to the right. You and Taz are really thoughtful dudes.

I developed a "political clock theory" but there are so many holes in the theory that I have never published it. But think of the basics like this: The six o’clock position is an ideal mix of social responsibility and business responsibility. The six o’clock position is really the weakest point in the theory.

From the six o’clock position moving to the left or right, one moves philosophically to the left or right from slightly liberal (left) to slightly conservative (right); liberal or conservative; very liberal or very conservative, "left wing" or "right wing" etc. The verbiage can vary depending on what one calls those on the left or the right.

Nearly the maximum extremes (say 11:45 o'clock) are socialism/communism on the left and fascism on the right respectively.

The factual extreme, 12 o’clock, the opposite of 6 o’clock, the philosophies of the far left and the far right have gone nearly full circle. They grew so far apart that they actually passed the opposite positions and have come to resemble each other.

It is similar to movement of a fulcrum which has a tipping point or a maximum leverage point, at the extremes the philosophies have gone past the tipping or leverage point and began to come closer together in the amount of energy needed to separate them. But they are not the 12 o’clock position which is reserved for pure totalitarianism.

Some have argued that communism and fascism are in fact totalitarian states. I don't agree. (This is another weakness in the theory because the differentiation becomes merely opinion.) I think philosophically fascism and communism are different enough to keep them separate.

Finally, one major differentiator between the U.S. and other nations which I did not address is the Tax Code and the wonders of tax deductions, tax shelters and the perpetual tax avoidance schemes; all legal and all driving entrepreneurs and enterprises.

Just some thoughts.

Certain words are programed to do that to avoid spy bots from zeroing in on the sight and marking it a Ch*ld porn site.

_________________
Pura Vida
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four
essential food groups:
alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat.
Alex Levine

This is a pretty intelligent thread. Thanks guys, If I see you guys in CR. I owe each of you a drink in recompense.

_________________
Providing humanitarian assistance to self employed chicas, one cash grant at a time.

DiegoC the story that I heard many years ago in regard to how the terms ‘right’ and ‘left’ came into being was that one of the French kings would have his advisors on his right or his left depending on their views in giving him advice. The ones closest to him were less ideological than the ones toward the end of the table. At the extremes the means may have been different, but the end result was too often the same.

Years ago I had a Czech friend that was a devout Marxist on his way to working in the London consulate for Czechoslovakia. When we discussed politics he would always draw a spiral with communism at the top and capitalism at the bottom. I would always draw a continuum with each at opposite ends. I gave him a copy of Arthur Koestler’s, “Darkness at Noon” to read and his reaction to it was that it was western propaganda. Then he went back to Czechoslovakia in time for the Prague Spring of 1968. He was a supporter of Dubcek and he and his family were ‘purged’ when the Russians came in and deposed Dubcek and Slobovda. He smuggled out a 14 page single spaced letter to me telling me that he had until the end of the week to leave the country, but had decided to stay and making some pretty wild claims in regard to what the Russians had subjected Dubcek and Slobovda to. Years later those claims proved to be true. At the end of that letter he told me he now understood “Darkness at Noon”. After not hearing from him for several months I wrote to him and his wife Irena. Irena only spoke Czech and all I got back from here was his death certificate. Life is one long continuing learning process. A lot of it is painful. That was.

A flat tax would be great for productivity, but the tax code is a way to pass out favors so I doubt it will ever happen.

_________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.

A flat tax to raise the same amount of revenue taxes currently do ( "revenue-neutral") would have to be by most estimations at 25% of income with no credits, deductions or any other ways to avoid-- no 401(k)-paid-into credit,no mortgage interest deduction, no credit for state income taxes paid-- no nothing. In other words, from dollar 1 to dollar last, 25% of gross income earned and unearned. Do your taxes on this basis and see if you want a flat tax. Plus our income tax system is roughly progressive--the more you make the higher % you pay based on marginal rates. A flat tax is by definition regressive. It's only fair that the more you benefit from our system, the higher % you should pay--the ultra rich especially will still have way enough to buy all their estates and toys.
That said, I would certainly agree that the U.S. Tax Code needs a top-to-bottom overhaul to rid it of the iniqiuties and incongruities that overwhelmingly favor those that can buy influence and the best tax lawyers. That also goes for state tax codes, by the way. Want an example? In NJ if you cut at minimum $500 worth of firewood a year and sell it to anyone, say, a relative, your whole property and manse gets assessed at farmland rates--much lower than ordinary property tax rates.

_________________
"A man accustomed to hear only the echo of his own sentiments, soon bars all the common avenues of delight, and has no part in the general gratification of mankind"--Dr. Johnson
"Amen, brother"-ED

This thread is already deviating far from the original topic. But I gelt I had to clarify JB's latest comments. I agree with his sentiments but there are a couple of inaccuracies.

A "flat" INCOME tax would NOT by definition be regressive. It would actually be NEUTRAL in that regard. The only way where it might be considered regressive would be if those with more income were somehow better able to shield or hide some of their income from being used in the total that the tax gets applied to.

In its purest form, ALL the loopholes and special exemptions would be removed from the tax code for an income tax to be completely flat and if such a tax were ever implemented perhaps MOST of them would. However, it would never be as simple as that.

For one thing, you'd still need to define exactly WHAT income was. Does bartering count? What happens to "deferred" income? Does only cash actually received count and/or how do you account for complex credit exchanges, derivatives and foreign transactions (e.g. foreign income on off-shore rental property)? Some rules will always have to be in place and who do you think writes those rules or most influences those who write those rules? Would it be you or me with our measly $20-200 campaign donations or the big fat cats who know all sorts of ways to go over the limits and thus pull the strings?

OTOH, to the degree there would be no more loopholes, a truly simple flat tax on ALL income would also probably spur a larger underground economy to avoid the tax. Rich people may in some ways be better positioned to hide their income in that way but maybe not. Cash exchanges for criminal activities at all levels already exists and the number of under-the-table transactions for any type of economic exchange would be likely to increase (e.g. look how property taxes are avoided in CR). So it would be hard to say if which economic group would suffer more from a flat INCOME tax (apart from it no longer being progressive).

Besides, would you ever really even WANT a tax code that is completely flat and devoid of ALL exemptions? Some "loopholes" are not just in there to benefit the ultra rich. The tax code has long been used to discourage some behaviors and encourage other societally desirable ones. For example, cigarette sales taxes and special taxes on casino income are not just huge revenue sources for the government but also a means to discourage behaviors that society has deemed undesirable (and in the case of smoking carries hidden medical costs that we all end up paying for). Other areas such as revenues from investment in alternative fuels are subject to reduced taxes because we want to encourage such investments.

Apart from all that, I really think JB is confusing arguments for the flat INCOME tax with a new national SALES tax that has also been proposed by some Republicans to REPLACE the income tax system. THAT is where I've seen the 25% figure (on top of any existing state and local sales taxes) as being one conservative estimate of what would be required for it to be REVENUE-neutral (other estimates for what would be needed to revenue neutral are MUCH higher). Putting aside the exact rate that would be required but which seems quite alarming, on the surface ONE rate that we would ALL pay on things we buy might SEEM the FAIREST. It would also have the POSSIBLY desirable benefit of discouraging excess consumption and encouraging saving and not penalizing anyone for earning more money. HOWEVER, a "flat" national SALES tax WOULD be INCREDIBLY regressive because the less money you make the higher percentage of your income that you HAVE to spend on necessities like mortgages or rent, basic foodstuffs, heat and transportation.

This misguided approach to a much needed tax overhaul was championed during the recent presidential campaign by the conservative "populist" Mike Huckabee but it also received favorable consideration by John McCain and the other Republican candidates. On the surface (again ignoring the incredibly high rate it would take to make it revenue neutral) it has a very simplistic appeal. One rate for all and no more loopholes. But the disingenuous conservative (and usually very wealthy) intellectuals that champion this solution know that it would really mean a huge tax increase on the working poor and a huge tax cut for the wealthy.

I completely agree with JB that the US tax code needs a top to bottom overhaul to rid it of the iniqiuties and incongruities that overwhelmingly favor those that can buy influence and the best tax lawyers. Or even just to rid it of its needless complexity. I also completely DISagree with others who think it is somehow unfair for one group (those who make more) to have to pay a higher percentage of their income in tax. JB is absolutely right that it is only fair that the wealthy pay a much higher rate since they disproportionally benefit from the strength of our economy. Like the saying goes, "It takes money to make money." Once you've made your first million it becomes much much easier to make your second and third and so forth.

Republican "trickle down" "supply side" "voodoo economics" was supposed to benefit us all by creating wealth at the top that would be used to create investment that would create more jobs and income at the bottom. However, it became more profitable for those at the top to invest their new-found wealth in projects overseas where wages were much less, thus exporting all those jobs and creating even more hardship at the bottom. Trickle down became trickle out. The Obama plan is to try "trickle up" for a change. Create jobs and higher incomes at the bottom and people will be able to afford to buy things again and thus create more income for those at the top as well.

There has been some talk about to what degree the US economy is a purely "capitalist" system (in contrast to those god-less marxist western europeans). However, does anyone here really want completely unfettered capitalism? Just as our own tax code is replete with special rules designed in part to direct capital investment and internalize economic externalities, the US economy is also replete with all sorts of other regulations that stifle or direct (depending on your viewpoint) capital expenditures and investment - EPA (environmental) regulations, OSHA (labor) rules, FDA and FTC guidelines. In the case of our financial regulations (SEC, FDIC) and housing and mortgage regulators (FNMA, HUD, FHA) we could have used MORE regulation or at least better coordinated regulation. Conservatives like to complain about too much regulation in the US while portraying other countries as not having enough free-market capitalism. But consider this: The mortgage meltdown that prompted this worldwide crisis STARTED in the US, not in Europe. Perhaps it is time we became a little less smug about how we do things here in the US.

I leave you with this one last morsel of thought. most people in the US (and in Europe for that matter) make most of OUR income from wages and salaries for our LABORS. Only the truly very wealthy make most of THEIR income on the returns from their accumulated CAPITAL. Which form of income do you think yields the highest returns for the least effort?