Having a free market is indeed about less government interference in the market. That is a very good thing, but it does require that the government actually interfere less. That is not what happened prior to the 1930s. The common myth about the 20s is that it was completely unregulated free markets, when there was a lot of influence from the Federal Reserve (a quasi-governmental agency) on monetary policy. Thomas E. Woods, Jr's book "Meltdown," released in January of this year, explains a lot of the current recession, a bit of basic economics, and the Depression itself. Or, Robert P. Murphy's book, "Politically Incorrect Guide to the New Deal and the Great Depression" is a great read, too... and easy to read.

The truth is, we have the appearance of a free market, but a central bank and a federal legislation that provides perverse incentives for banks and corporations to make highly risky decisions that a free market would otherwise not allow them to make. When you don't have the promise of on-demand printed money, federal backing of loans (same thing, really), you don't lend to risky borrowers.

That's the short of it, at least.

Maybe I'm missing what is meant by "Free Markets". I take that to mean free from regulation and control by the Government, which I think you also stated above. As in repeal of the Glass-Stegall act during Clintons administration to "free up" the markets. It was being slowly dismantled for many years, but once Phil Graham and whoever else got it removed, it was a beginning to a wide open market which was to no surprised abused (you may disagree with that term) by many, which put us in our current recession. From what I have read, the depression of the 30s was the result of the same loosening of regulations and the creative investments and financing that followed.
You said that "Contrary to popular myth, the free market was not in operation. A free market doesn't provide such absurd incentives for people to be that risky. The source of the problem lies squarely on the central bank and the federal government's price-setting and interventionist policies into the market." Are you saying that the less Government interference the better? because I thought that was what we just had since Glass-Stegall was repealed.

The children are already paying to much for the current health care system. Sometimes they pay the highest price of all for diseases that could have been prevented if they had been treated proactively.

Death!

When you look at it from a dollars point of view, obviously you're getting that result. But I'm not looking at it that way. I'm looking at it from a standpoint of, "If we're gonna tax people, how do we treat people equally?" If I were telling people how I was to tax them, a set percentage seems fairest to me.

I don't believe that this has to do with working harder and earning more. Flat tax doesn't assume that at all. It assumes all are equally taxable at an equal rate of taxation.

A flat tax seems like a fair idea. Until you think about it. A tax of 20% on someone who makes $40,000 a year is far more impactful than the same tax on someone who makes $1,000,000 a year.

I learned this as I learned about the structures of raises at the university I worked for. We would all get say a 3% raise (give or take depending on merit and the legislature) but those whose income was higher of course get a bigger raise as a result, even though it is the same percentage. Of course, you might argue, "well, they have been there longer and had more time for their income to build up ". Which would be true, of course, if all equally qualified professors got paid the same as their colleagues in different departments, which isn't the case. Some positions make more simply because it is harder to coax people to leave the highpaying corporate world for higher education. Their wage has nothing to do with experience or ability.

It is also an issue when a new hire with less experience and qualifications is paid more than someone at the school for years in the same kind of position because they need to be able to attract applicants to the position. This is called salary compression. The raises aren't enough to keep up with the new hire's salary, and one ends up making far less (as in thousands of dollars) than the new hire with less experience.

Just as the practice of awarding raises incorrectly assumes equity in salary, a flat tax assumes that the more money one makes, the harder that person has worked to earn that money. Which simply is not true.

First of all, do you even read what I respond to? I've never said a flat tax means exact amounts for any person. I'm talking about a flat percentage rate. That means, inherently, that the rich do pay more, but only because they are paying exactly the same percentage of their income as everybody else.

On principle, why do you reject this "system"? Isn't everybody equal? Shouldn't government treat people equally?

You can google the flat tax and find out which countries implement one. Or here is one article on it.

You didn't answer my question. I don't think I would want to live in a flat rate country. Can you name me another industrialized nation that has such a system?

Let's go one step further. Why tax anyone on income. Just set up a tax per person. Old, rich, poor, juviniles, Let's be fair, uh? Let's set it like $3k per person. If you are married and have 10 kids that'l be $36k. If single, $3k. That would be fair, wouldn't it? Why should anyone get a break? Why do I have to pay for other kid's education?

YOu see what I'm getting at? Good luck with your system.

Do you people live your business and political lives out of one pocket of your soul and your religion out of the other pocket? Have you ever thought that that elderly man in the commercial has been paying taxes his whole life to pay for his medicare benefits? Now that he is old and needs an operation, the generation that benefited from his labor during WWII as a teenager and building up the country after the war, until a few years ago, is unwilling to put any cash up for him. Putting aside the care we owe him as Christ, when we give him water, feed and clothe him, don't forget the Law that Moses brought to "Honor your father and mother". Just because you do good in Church, doesn't give you license to steal, cheat, gamble and work people to the bone in the name of business and politics the rest of the week. Justice is God's law in the world, and, God forbid, when plutocrats get too comfortable making laws to protect themselves just because they can, violent revolution breaks out. That fear brought progressive legislation in the 20's and 30's, at the same time Christianity saw its last big surge of social justice activism.

I agree completely. I have been starting to believe this more and more over the last few years. The more the government gets involved the less we need the church and need to be responsible to our neighbor. The more I pay in taxes makes me less likely to tithe that money. The more I HAVE to do something makes me less likely to WANT to do something.

Let me rephrase that last part. You correctly criticize Wall Street. However, what incentives were in place in the market that caused everyone to get greedy? Contrary to popular myth, the free market was not in operation. A free market doesn't provide such absurd incentives for people to be that risky. The source of the problem lies squarely on the central bank and the federal government's price-setting and interventionist policies into the market.

A recession is good for the market because it eliminates wasteful investment. False prosperity leads to a necessary correction... and that's what we're seeing. Had GWB let the economy "suffer" after 9/11/01, and not ask the Fed to inflate the money supply yet again, we may not have seen such horrible speculation and debt accumulation at the expense of "main street."

Your complaints are very valid. You're just pointing it at the wrong source.

"National wealth" is not a pie, where somebody divvies up the slices and some get more and others get none. That is not how the free market works. However, in our current system, where political candidates are bought by corporate interests, that is what happens. But that is not a free market. That is corporatism, and it is wrong, as you are justly complaining about.

Privatization is an ethical and moral principle because it treats people as stewards ("owners" would be the secular term for it) of the property they have.

"Free market is a proven failure."
What proof? Your comment about Wall Street today is not proof that the market has failed, but that it has succeeded. When a body vomits unwanted "assets" from within, that is not considered a "body failure." Likewise, when the government, central bank, and other toxic assets are introduced into the system, which it has been for the past decade, and even further back, that is not a failure, either.

No kidding... imagine that, more people in the country able to keep more of their hard-earned wages.

xfree - A flat tax seems equitable, reasonable and simple to administer, but you just don't get it. Anything less than a 99% marginal tax rate for the rich (of course that's anyone who makes more than you, me and Kansas) is a tax break for the rich. It's ok to oppress those who have more than us. What's the big deal with "Thou shalt not covet" and "Thou shalt not steal?" After all that's Old Testament stuff that's outdated. Let's go after their houses, wives and donkeys too.

Let me put it more simply - The more they pay, the less we pay - come on anybody can see that.

"Do you vote with your pocketbook?"

I almost did last year. Outside the polls ACORN offered me a dollar and a pack of cigarettes for my vote, but I took the moral high ground and turned them down. (Sorry, but I couldn't resist that setup)

Seriously, I try to research the candidates and vote for those who support issues that will in my opinion best serve our country in the long run. In most cases that means smaller government. I've made my point. Nuff said.

Why are you making this about class? Why not treat everyone equally, no special treats?

Let's say you make 50g a yr. Are you willing to pay more taxes so the rich can get a tax break?

I would venture by your response and other flat tax raters that they are probably fairly wealthy and want to be taxed less.

Do you vote with your pocketbook?

The caring for the "least of these brothers of mine" (NIV) in Matthew 25:40 has to do with meeting the needs of people when you see their needs and you have the ability to help them.

"All the nations" is used in verse 32.

The author of the text book that was used in the graduate course, "New Testament Theology" (which I took), actually had the nations being judged on how they treated those who were Jesus' brethren."

Jesus' brothers are anyone who is in need.

My late mother made a comment when George W. Bush was still the President and she compared him to being worse than an unbeliever since he didn't care for his own people first. She made that statement because people were claiming that G.W. Bush was a Christian.

Continuing the above discussion, I could add that the Parable of the Talents has a master "giving" money to his slaves (literally) according to their ability of service. The money in their possession is not actually their property; it is still the property of their owner.

Our government leaders who make laws are in charge of money that is not theirs either.

In spite of what it claims to be the Family Research Council is a Political Action Committee that claims to be "Christian."

Matthew 25 has two Jesus telling two parables stating what end times will be like. One is the Parable of the 10 Virgins, verses 1-13 and the other is the Parable of the 10 Talents. verses 14-30.

But, beginning with verse 31 of the same chapter, Jesus isn't exactly telling a parable. Some think that is a parable about "sheep and goats." But, Jesus never refers to the people in this section as animals. He merely mentions that the King (meaning himself) divides the people lke a shepherd divides the sheep and the goats at the end of the day.