Posts Tagged ‘communism’

My friend Jim brings up an excellent point about the redistribution of wealth and communism in his reply to my post about Flat Tax being communism. First, I’ll cover his question of why governments levy taxes. Then I’ll get back onto the topic of the flat tax and communism.

Jim is suggesting that income tax is communism but property tax is possibly justifiable if the purpose of government is the protect and to serve. There are a few problems with this, the most important being that the federal government should have absolutely nothing to do with property taxes. Second, the majority of Americans (and this hold true for most of the world) don’t own real property. Now, perhaps Jim is saying that you should pay taxes on all property you own so that you are paying your fair burden of the police and fire services in your area. Again, does this then mean that people who do not own a house are not deserving of police protection? They may be productive members of society that generate income, purchase cars, gasoline, clothing, rent an apartment from a property owner. They too are deserving of protection under the law.

Now, let’s get back to the purpose of government. There are several levels of government, but the purpose of all governments (at least in America) is the protection of life, liberty, and property. Jim is probably thinking to himself that I just proved his point about the property tax. However, life and liberty still come before property. The protection of these three equalities of all Americans takes place in several different ways via several different government agencies: Military, Police, Fire Departments, Department of Homeland Security, Commerce Department, Transportation Authority, FDA, EPA, FBI, CIA, etc.

All American’s are deserving of the services of all of the above, and all Americans should pay into those services. Now, there may be programs that an individual doesn’t support, but I’m not going to tackle that topic in this blog. Instead, I’m going to ask the next logical questions: Who stands to lose the most if our country in invaded, attacked, or bombed? Who stands to lose the most if there is a fire, earthquake, or other natural disaster? Who stands to lose the most if there is a severe disruption in the availability of natural resources, energy, or foreign services and labor? Not the guy making minimum wage, and not the guy paying 15% taxes (unless you implement a flat tax – communism).

The people who stand to lose the most in any of the above events are the business owners, investors, and wealthy Americans who utilize a great deal more of the protective and political power of or governments. Those who make more money stand to lose more money if something disastrous happens in this country. Therefore, they should pay a greater portion of the taxes. Some (like Jim) might say that wreaks of communism as it is a clear redistribution of wealth. Well, while there are certain programs that do redistribute wealth, most of them do not. Also, one need only look at history to know that a growing and increasingly upset lower-class is the demise of any ruling party.

Take any of the above departments and you will find a disproportionate amount of services being provided to those with greater wealth and income. Sure, there is some money redistributed to lower-income citizens, but again… History.

So this brings us back to the flat tax, which is ultimately the greatest form and supporter of capitalism. Yes, you read that right. A progressive taxation system is capitalism at its finest. How many of our Founding Fathers were in what we’d call the lower class? Was Washington? I think not. Jefferson? HA! Hamilton? Perhaps the closest. Franklin? You’ve got to be kidding me!

How many patent, copyright, and trademark lawsuits are there for the little guy? Barely any, but the giants are in the courtroom all the time. The wealthy utilize our legal system far more than the poor. The law, our government is supported and swayed by the wealthy far more than the the poor. Our governments have been created for the protection of all, but those who are wealthy have far more at stake and are easily responsible for a greater tax burden. In fact, it would be foolish to think otherwise because it would put at risk so much of what business owners and investors have works so hard to gain.

What do communism and a flat tax have in common? I’m not joking when I say that they are of the same yoke. A flat tax is an even tax levied upon all people, no matter their income (or lack thereof), at the same rate. It is often tossed around as an 15-18% Federal tax. While existing prior to Steve Forbes, it was widely popularized by Forbes and other politicians in the 90s.

The goal of communism is to create a classless society, common ownership of property and business, and elimination of labor wages. Classes are quite literally defined by a graduated tax system. People in the lowest income bracket pay the lowest taxes, while those in the highest income bracket pay the highest taxes. The flat tax will even things out, right? Well, so would flat income, right? It’s pretty much the same concept, but I doubt any flat tax supporters are going to support flat income.

The argument that people claim is that a graduated tax system robs from those who make higher income to pay for the social services provided to the lower incomes. Ostensibly, this is a valid argument as it is largely true. The top 52% pay more than 80% of the taxes each year. And lower-income people are the greater recipients of social programs. However, this blog is not about whether the role of government is to protect the wealth of those with the most money (albeit an easy argument for me to win). This blog is about how a flat tax is as communist as a flat income rate.

Now, those arguing for the flat tax don’t see it that way, and I certainly don’t expect to change their minds with this blog. However, they are inadvertently supporting communism ideals and might not understand the ramifications of such support. They will continue to argue to the teeth the same argument that they have been arguing all along. However, flat tax is communism and has very serious social, political, and economic consequences (the least of which is a nearly instant abolition of thousands of jobs in America). It is a classless taxation system, and therefore, by definition, communism.

I was fascinated this morning when I checked my RSS feed of happenings in the Conejo Vally area. Somehow, the folks at the Ronald Reagan library have managed to allow our communist Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, to lecture at the late president’s library in Simi Valley on Thursday. I would pay to have someone ask Paulson if he thought there was a bit of irony (or maybe tragedy) in the fact that our president who fought communism more than any other president had a communist Treasury Secretary lecturing at his library.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people complain about our “greedy” capitalist society. Quite often they are referring to Walmart, the oil industry, and companies who “ship jobs” overseas. There are others, but one of these poses a serious question for capitalism:

Walmart (and hundreds of other retailers) purchase the majority of their products from China. China is a communist country. Are selling and purchasing communist goods acts of capitalism?

Certainly, a cornerstone of capitalism is the free market, but what is it when that “free market” that a capitalist nation purchases from is a communist country? Some might argue that it qualifies as a mixed market economy, but that is a moot point for various reasons and is irrelevant to the question.

People who complain about the “greed” of capitalism will argue that profit driven capitalism is what drives corporations to purchase cheap products from communist countries like China. However, I argue that it is (1) our fear of inflation that drives companies to find cheaper markets like China and that (2) searching for these cheaper products in a communist country is not capitalism.

It’s not like we don’t know China is a communist country. It’s not like we don’t know that the Chinese government filters all money that we send to Chinese banks when our corporations buy products from their factories. We also know that we could, if we wanted to, manufacture these same products in America or another non-communist country. And we also know that our government has given China, a communist nation, favored nation status. With government intervention in support of a communist nation, how can anyone consider the actions of Walmart and other retailers who purchase from a communist country capitalist greed?

I’m honestly wondering what the hell is going on with our politicians! Perhaps we citizens of America are not sending enough letters and emails. Or maybe we think communism is a good thing. Since when did the federal government buying equity stakes into troubled industries become OK?

Sure, we’ll save a few thousand jobs in the immediate future and cripple the entire country for decades to come. I’m not going to be one of those people who talk about how “The End is Near“, but this communism stuff is really starting to boil my red-blooded American capitalist… well, blood. And if I hear one more person talk about this being socialism, I’ll exercise my Second Amendment rights on you!

Socialism and Communism are not the same thing. In fact, what our Congress and White House are practicing is the opposite of what most socialist believe. Most socialists would say things like, “Damn those billionaire running their banks, squeezing us little folks out of our money. We need a government handout. Where’s my bailout?” That’s not what Pelosi and company are saying.

They are saying, “Those poor defenseless billionaires running their banks and automobile companies are loosing so much money because those evil consumers are not consuming enough to keep them rolling along the way we want the world to work. Those poor businesses need a handout at the expense of the taxpayer.”

Meanwhile, the capitalist will say, “What a bunch of idiots! They pissed away our money and they want us to bail them out despite their antiquated technology and crappy service! We are compassionate, and will give you another chance. Here’s a tax break to go update your crap engines that haven’t improved our dependence on fossil fuels despite the fact we knew it was a problem 30+ years ago. And here’s a tax break for you idiot banks who keep your call centers in the United States instead of outsourcing it to India where we end up with crap service and no answers to any of our problems. If you ef up again, go lobby the communists Pelosi and George W. Bush. Otherwise, invest in a cardboard box.”

Communism has gotten hold of lawmakers in New York! This isn’t McCarthy style scare tactics folks, this is the real deal. One the surface, people might be thinking that the whole Amazon Tax thing is no big deal. Amazon might win, probably, perhaps, hopefully, right?

Think again!

New York is attacking the constitution of the United States. Furthermore, they are expecting our businesses to foot the bill for the constitutional challenge. Our businesses are going to have to pay to prove that our constitution protects us from the economic greed of lawmakers like those in New York. Yes, our businesses are footing the bill. I say New York should have to repay Amazon for ALL legal expenses if Amazon wins the lawsuit against New York. That should keep idiot lawmakers from abusing the power that we gave them!