1.) I want to touch on something, something of a fallacious nature. The former President’s attempts at cutting the capital gains tax did not do us good, but actually hurt us. This is roundly recognized as harmful. And as we can see, austerity as a philosophical issue is dead in the water thanks to the bungling of the economists who proposed it.
In regards to the proposition of the Fair Tax – I have personally advocated for a while the use of the Flat or Fair Tax system with built in progressive safeguards for such things as food and basic necessities. I believe here we could find some form of agreement because we can both turn to fact, rather than outmoded economic date often used to support Bush-era tax cuts.
We must equally separate risk from latent reward. By that, I mean we should have a tax system that is neutral on risk, or money invested, but opposed to rewards not earned either through labor or risk. While we may allow that a billionaire still invests money, what risk is there at that level? This is why I would rather see a tax on investment transactions rather than on rewards.
2.) What you call a false premise is not, it is just not your premise. If there is limited good, then to have more good, one must take good from someone else. One cannot generate more land, power, or real wealth, only the false security of money. Look at this way. Power is limited, which is why the Founders moved it from one man, the monarchy, to the hands of a few. Power was divided to prevent the assumption of one government branch over another. Land and real wealth is the same way. Yes, we generate more money, but is this wealth? Hardly.
3.) Great, we agree somewhat the role Government play in business is to encourage competition which will itself encourage choice. I want to focus on that.
What happens when there is no competition and thus no choice? What then is the Government’s role in ensuring that competition can be reborn?