[Thorfinn]

I think this is naive. You pay 32 cents (actually more like 99, but anyway) for a can of tomato sauce because that's what the market will bear. It will cost (more or less) that much regardless of whether the corporation pays taxes or not. On the tax issue, it's likely you do not understand the corporate tax structure, which is IMO lower than it should be, but at the very least inarguably should exist. If you're thinking "double taxation" you have heard a soundbyte and have not developed an understanding of the tax system.

You are correct that the price is what the market would bear. But if there were really a profit margin of 87%, more companies would start canning tomato sauce, increasing the supply, and decreasing the price.

As for corporate taxes, I pay them. I know that without them, I could and would afford two more employees. If we accept the notion that capitalists will not leave money sitting on the table, decreasing the corporate tax would increase the incentive to hire more people and make more money.

Those $2.00 you mention serve 2 major purposes: (1) social security and (2) unemployment. THe fact the ditchdigger pays this money "into the system" justifies his drawing of unemployment for up to a year if he gets laid off and has to find another job. It also justifies his drawing of social security. Especially important for a ditchdigger, who likely has no 401k plan.

Ah, but it does not. The Social Security system is a pay-as-you-go system. The US Supreme Court has ruled at least twice that the government is under no requirement to pay out Social Security benefits, and that they could, if they chose, discontinue payments entirely and leave the tax in place. (The Davis decision, IIRC.) As the boomers retire, there is no way the Social Security system will remain solvent, anyway.

BTW, 25% paid in over your entire working life, then drawing out at 50% for the on average less than four years until you die is a horrible rate of return on money. It is worse than stuffing the money into a mattress. If you factor in just the 6.25% that most people think they pay in, you end up with about a 5% return on investment. If you factor in the amount the employer pays in, and thus never shows up anywhere on your paycheck, you are losing money big time.

Furthermore, why should anyone be able to force me or anyone else to take unemployment insurance? Why shouldn't I get to decide for myself the level of security I want? Why should anyone be able to force me to pay into a Ponzi pension plan of sorts? Why shouldn't I be able to decide for myself?

Oh, and if you didn't have the taxes in the first place, why would you need to have a tax shelter like a 401(k)?

This is just silly. Quit taking the National Review Online to heart so much, because it has been proven to kill brain cells at the same rate as hippy crack.

More ad hominem? BTW, I don't believe I have ever visited NRO, assuming it to be the online version of National Review magazine. The naivete of Neo-conservatives just annoys me.

The employers, not the government, chose to expose employees to toxins and other death-causing incidences so much the workers were forced to form unions and the government was forced to implement OSHA.

NO! The employees chose to take on a job that was unsafe. If not for the fact that the gov't has sucked off so much of the business profits, and did not restrict entry into the market with things like licensure, there would be a bidding war for employees, and businesses would find it in their interests to be offer a safe workplace since employees will certainly figure their safety as a part of the total compensation package.

The simple fact is that people value their safety differently. Heck, some people voluntarily agree to strap on a uniform, get shipped halfway around the world, and get shot at, for not much over minimum wage, less if you figure they are really on-duty 24/7.

On a more reflective note, I will point out that the corporate form of business promotes abuse of the worker.

Oh, heck, you are not going to get me to support the corporate model. Some wealthy businessmen petitioned the government to give them protection from liability for their actions, and the government gave it to them. If not for the corporate shield, people would be in a much better position to have their harms redressed. In other words, corporations are only able to do that with/through the complicity of Congress.

Truthfully, in my ideal world, anyone could seek compensation for their damages, and no one, not even the government, could take away their right of restitution.

[ 03-27-2003, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]