I had the pleasure of meeting with the Occupy Boise folks at their encampment where I received a guided tour. From there literature and literature prepared by Occupy Washington DC, I have synthesized their concerns into two main categories.
1. Political corruption
2. Disparity in wealth distribution
Their solution is to increase tax rates on the wealthier parts of society, decrease military spending, create more government jobs*, and increase the size and scope of social programs.
I appreciate their concerns on these two important issues: however, their proposed solutions have two major flaws.
First, political corruption is a function of power + money. The Occupy Movement is suggesting that taxes need to be raised and more money send to Washington DC. If power + money = corruption, how can more power + more money = justice?
Second, disparity in wealth is a serious issue; a problem created by the free market system. Unfortunately, the Occupy Movement is making the classic mistake in wealth distribution. They suggest that the material wealth be equally distributed by government. Their focus is upon the wealth. However, if one analyzes where wealth comes from and how it is created, one understands that wealth is a function of productive work done in the private sector.
The solution to wealth inequality is not the distribution of material goods by government policy. A peaceful, compassionate, long-term solution is to equally distribute the ability to work. Our goal, as a society, should be to help people to become productive so that they can create their own wealth.
America has tried the redistribute the wealth approach for several decades and the income divide continues to grow under these policies. According to Albert Einstein, insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. I would hope that we try a different approach rather than higher taxes and more power to the government.
*“a fundamental reason for job stagnation is relying on the private sector to create jobs and refusing to engage in direction government job creation in the private sector” (Taken from Occupy Washington DC Nov, 2011)
Rep. Steven Thayn
http://chumly.com/n/fd7c9b
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Great Day
Visited with Speaker Denney about education policy. He is a fine man.
Presented to the Health and Welfare Committee on ways to reduce medical costs.
Listened to a presentation on "Obstacles to Higher Educations" which are: cost, preparation, access.
The "8 in 6" plan that I will introduce next week addresses each of these issues.
Presented to the Health and Welfare Committee on ways to reduce medical costs.
Listened to a presentation on "Obstacles to Higher Educations" which are: cost, preparation, access.
The "8 in 6" plan that I will introduce next week addresses each of these issues.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Idaho and North Dakota Income Tax Rates Compared
North Dakota’s unemployment rate is under 4 percent while Idaho’s is over 9.5 percent. I have shown the difference in the individual tax rate.
Individual Income Tax rates in Idaho and North Dakota According to Salary Wizard
North Dakota 0 - $32,550 2.1%
$32,551 - $78,850 3.92%
$78,851 - $106,550 4.34%
$106,551 - $357,700 5.04%
Over $357,701 5.54%
Idaho 0 - $1,237 1.6%
$1,238 - $2,474 3.6%
$2,475 - $3,710 4.1%
$3,711 - $4,987 5.1%
$4,988 - $6,184 6.1%
$6,185 - $9,276 7.1%
$9,277 - $24,736 7.4%
Over $24,737 7.8%
Idaho’s top rate is 1.26% higher than North Dakota. The real difference is that everyone in Idaho that makes over $4,988 pays a higher tax rate than those making over $357,701 in North Dakota. Maybe the Idaho legislature should consider reducing the overall rate to 5.5% and having fewer tax brackets similar to the ones in North Dakota.
Individual Income Tax rates in Idaho and North Dakota According to Salary Wizard
North Dakota 0 - $32,550 2.1%
$32,551 - $78,850 3.92%
$78,851 - $106,550 4.34%
$106,551 - $357,700 5.04%
Over $357,701 5.54%
Idaho 0 - $1,237 1.6%
$1,238 - $2,474 3.6%
$2,475 - $3,710 4.1%
$3,711 - $4,987 5.1%
$4,988 - $6,184 6.1%
$6,185 - $9,276 7.1%
$9,277 - $24,736 7.4%
Over $24,737 7.8%
Idaho’s top rate is 1.26% higher than North Dakota. The real difference is that everyone in Idaho that makes over $4,988 pays a higher tax rate than those making over $357,701 in North Dakota. Maybe the Idaho legislature should consider reducing the overall rate to 5.5% and having fewer tax brackets similar to the ones in North Dakota.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Three Problems
My name is Steven Thayn. I serve in the Idaho House of Representatives. I am honored to live in Idaho among Americans that possess noble aspirations and an unconquerable, can-do spirit.
America has three basic problems that manifest themselves in high taxes, federal deficits, unemployment, inflation, and trade deficits -- all symptoms of economic illness. We will not achieve a healthy economy until these three problems are addressed and solved.
The first problem is economic. America has too many expenses and too little income. Government expenses consume more wealth than the private sector is able to generate.
The second problem is voter confusion over who should care for the needy. While caring for the needy is a natural desire; government is not an efficient delivery system. Programs to help the needy consume 70 percent of the federal budget and growing! Tax reduction and economic growth are linked to entitlement reform.
The third problem, it has become culturally acceptable for people to live off of the wealth of others without an expectation of contributing to their own sustenance. This has driven up social spending, caused taxes to rise, increased social problems, and created a dependent, non-productive class of citizens.
These three problems must be addressed simultaneously. Government spending must be reduced so that more wealth can remain in the private sector which will allow the private sector to grow and create jobs. Voters must support a transition from state charity to private charity so that costs can be reduced and quality improved by supporting politicians who raise this important issue. Finally, it can no longer be culturally acceptable to live off the labor of others without an expectation of paying back by helping others.
America has three basic problems that manifest themselves in high taxes, federal deficits, unemployment, inflation, and trade deficits -- all symptoms of economic illness. We will not achieve a healthy economy until these three problems are addressed and solved.
The first problem is economic. America has too many expenses and too little income. Government expenses consume more wealth than the private sector is able to generate.
The second problem is voter confusion over who should care for the needy. While caring for the needy is a natural desire; government is not an efficient delivery system. Programs to help the needy consume 70 percent of the federal budget and growing! Tax reduction and economic growth are linked to entitlement reform.
The third problem, it has become culturally acceptable for people to live off of the wealth of others without an expectation of contributing to their own sustenance. This has driven up social spending, caused taxes to rise, increased social problems, and created a dependent, non-productive class of citizens.
These three problems must be addressed simultaneously. Government spending must be reduced so that more wealth can remain in the private sector which will allow the private sector to grow and create jobs. Voters must support a transition from state charity to private charity so that costs can be reduced and quality improved by supporting politicians who raise this important issue. Finally, it can no longer be culturally acceptable to live off the labor of others without an expectation of paying back by helping others.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Liberal Policies Hinge on Redistribution of the Wealth and Deficit Spending
Liberal Policies Hinge on Two Big Ideas
The economy of the United States will continue to struggle until two liberal policies are rejected and replaced with workable principles. All liberal polices hinge on one of the following concepts:
• Redistribution of the wealth is necessary and/or morally justified
• The economy can be stimulated through increasing the money supply (deficit spending)
If these policies can be shown to lack substance and/or are simply false, then liberalism is false and lack substance.
Is forced redistribution of the wealth through taxes practical or morally justified? According to traditional American political thought, the government obtains its power from the consent of the people. In other words, the government cannot do anything that the people cannot do themselves. You can’t delegate to government the power to steal when stealing is not a natural right belonging to every person.
An example would be to ask a simple question. Can person ‘A’ go into his neighbor’s house and take his food, money, or possessions without the owner’s permission. The answer is no. This would be theft. Theft is rejected as a moral good. However, can person ‘A’ ask government to take his neighbor’s food, money, or possessions without the owner’s permission and transfer it to ‘A’? The answer should be the same, no. Liberals answer differently. They say that this is a moral function of government.
Neighbor ‘A’ does not have the power to redistribute wealth and ‘A’ cannot give power that he does not have to government to redistribute wealth. Yet, redistribution of the wealth is exactly the basis of the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party has built a case that redistribution of the wealth is morally justified.
We hesitate to challenge this notion because it has become such a dominant part of American culture. Public education, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, federal student loans, earned income tax credit, etc. etc. and to some extent Social Security are all based upon redistribution of the wealth. We don’t want to address the issue because it would require significant changes.
The problem is that redistribution of the wealth increases the size of government, reduces the number of those that produce material goods, increases the number of people that consume material goods, and eventually leads to widespread poverty and suffering. It seems to me that we have a choice. We need to hit the reset button. We can make reasonable changes now or ignore the basic problem with redistribution of the wealth and allow the economy to collapse which will result in widespread misery and suffering.
To me the choice is obvious; we need to make basic changes in the way social services are provided. The sooner we act; the less hardship will be created.
Liberals also believe that the economy can be stimulated by increasing the money supply. This is simply false. Economies are stimulated through work and production. Money is simply a tool of exchange. Money is not the economy. Increasing the money supply actually harms the private sector through decreasing private capital and decreasing the size of the productive private sector. Monetary policy is a kind way of saying"Grow Government.”
http://chum.ly/n/7bbaa8
The economy of the United States will continue to struggle until two liberal policies are rejected and replaced with workable principles. All liberal polices hinge on one of the following concepts:
• Redistribution of the wealth is necessary and/or morally justified
• The economy can be stimulated through increasing the money supply (deficit spending)
If these policies can be shown to lack substance and/or are simply false, then liberalism is false and lack substance.
Is forced redistribution of the wealth through taxes practical or morally justified? According to traditional American political thought, the government obtains its power from the consent of the people. In other words, the government cannot do anything that the people cannot do themselves. You can’t delegate to government the power to steal when stealing is not a natural right belonging to every person.
An example would be to ask a simple question. Can person ‘A’ go into his neighbor’s house and take his food, money, or possessions without the owner’s permission. The answer is no. This would be theft. Theft is rejected as a moral good. However, can person ‘A’ ask government to take his neighbor’s food, money, or possessions without the owner’s permission and transfer it to ‘A’? The answer should be the same, no. Liberals answer differently. They say that this is a moral function of government.
Neighbor ‘A’ does not have the power to redistribute wealth and ‘A’ cannot give power that he does not have to government to redistribute wealth. Yet, redistribution of the wealth is exactly the basis of the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party has built a case that redistribution of the wealth is morally justified.
We hesitate to challenge this notion because it has become such a dominant part of American culture. Public education, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, federal student loans, earned income tax credit, etc. etc. and to some extent Social Security are all based upon redistribution of the wealth. We don’t want to address the issue because it would require significant changes.
The problem is that redistribution of the wealth increases the size of government, reduces the number of those that produce material goods, increases the number of people that consume material goods, and eventually leads to widespread poverty and suffering. It seems to me that we have a choice. We need to hit the reset button. We can make reasonable changes now or ignore the basic problem with redistribution of the wealth and allow the economy to collapse which will result in widespread misery and suffering.
To me the choice is obvious; we need to make basic changes in the way social services are provided. The sooner we act; the less hardship will be created.
Liberals also believe that the economy can be stimulated by increasing the money supply. This is simply false. Economies are stimulated through work and production. Money is simply a tool of exchange. Money is not the economy. Increasing the money supply actually harms the private sector through decreasing private capital and decreasing the size of the productive private sector. Monetary policy is a kind way of saying"Grow Government.”
http://chum.ly/n/7bbaa8
Essay on the nature of Money from the MIses Institute
The Free Market: The Fallacy of the Money Supply: mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=444
This 1500 word article explains the nature of money and why liberal economic policy cannot work.
http://chum.ly/n/7bb939
This 1500 word article explains the nature of money and why liberal economic policy cannot work.
http://chum.ly/n/7bb939
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Post from steventhayn at CHUMLY
The Liberal Narrative Exposed
The Liberal Narrative Exposed:: The economy can only be stimulated by an increase in production. There is no other way. Liberals believe that increasing the money supply can stimulate the economy. The truth is that monetary policy (increasing the money supply) cannot stimulate the economy any more than a drug addict can be cured by taking another hit of heroin.
Liberals base this belief on FDR’s policies during the Great Depression. They believe FDR ended the Great Depression by increasing the size of government. The problem with this belief is that it is not true. FDR created the longest depression in US history and it only ended after his polices were rejected by Congress in 1946. WWII simply masked the effects of liberal polices by trading huge increases in debt for war time production.
"Government statisticians present economic growth in terms of monetary expenditure data, such as gross domestic product (GDP) and industrial production. These indicators are designed in line with Keynesian thinking that spending equates to income — hence, more spending leads to a higher national income and therefore to a higher economic growth.” September 01, 2009 by Frank Shostak
Economic growth should be measured in private sector material output. If increasing the money supply can stimulate the economy, then we need to print boatloads of money and stimulate it. However, stimulus packages like the ARRA don’t work because they only stimulate consumption but do little to stimulate production.
The ARRA invested $100s of millions of dollars into medical care for the needy, salaries for government workers, and food for the poor. All of this money is gone with nothing to show for it. If the amount of money that was spent on ARRA projects had been invested in factories and production, we would now have ongoing production, jobs, and tax revenues being generated by these factories. What we have is debt with no production.
If the $787 billion had been spent on creating jobs by spending $250,000 per job, there would have been 3,148,000 jobs manufacturing jobs created. This would have lead to another 3or 4 support jobs or another 12,000,000 jobs or a total of 15,000,000 new jobs.
The current unemployment rate according to The Bureau of Labor Statistics in February 2011 is 8.9 percent or 13.7 million total unemployed.
The money was simply misspent. We could have totally eliminated unemployment. Now, we have debt and unemployment, the worst of both worlds.
http://chum.ly/n/7aa708
The Liberal Narrative Exposed:: The economy can only be stimulated by an increase in production. There is no other way. Liberals believe that increasing the money supply can stimulate the economy. The truth is that monetary policy (increasing the money supply) cannot stimulate the economy any more than a drug addict can be cured by taking another hit of heroin.
Liberals base this belief on FDR’s policies during the Great Depression. They believe FDR ended the Great Depression by increasing the size of government. The problem with this belief is that it is not true. FDR created the longest depression in US history and it only ended after his polices were rejected by Congress in 1946. WWII simply masked the effects of liberal polices by trading huge increases in debt for war time production.
"Government statisticians present economic growth in terms of monetary expenditure data, such as gross domestic product (GDP) and industrial production. These indicators are designed in line with Keynesian thinking that spending equates to income — hence, more spending leads to a higher national income and therefore to a higher economic growth.” September 01, 2009 by Frank Shostak
Economic growth should be measured in private sector material output. If increasing the money supply can stimulate the economy, then we need to print boatloads of money and stimulate it. However, stimulus packages like the ARRA don’t work because they only stimulate consumption but do little to stimulate production.
The ARRA invested $100s of millions of dollars into medical care for the needy, salaries for government workers, and food for the poor. All of this money is gone with nothing to show for it. If the amount of money that was spent on ARRA projects had been invested in factories and production, we would now have ongoing production, jobs, and tax revenues being generated by these factories. What we have is debt with no production.
If the $787 billion had been spent on creating jobs by spending $250,000 per job, there would have been 3,148,000 jobs manufacturing jobs created. This would have lead to another 3or 4 support jobs or another 12,000,000 jobs or a total of 15,000,000 new jobs.
The current unemployment rate according to The Bureau of Labor Statistics in February 2011 is 8.9 percent or 13.7 million total unemployed.
The money was simply misspent. We could have totally eliminated unemployment. Now, we have debt and unemployment, the worst of both worlds.
http://chum.ly/n/7aa708
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)