Economy/Taxes

[alhazred]

okay so this is being used like my other poll just to get the polictical feeling

who here is for what


SHIT

okay just say option 9 for a none of the above

[lafayette]

The government should take all of our money and then decide what we deserve to get back....wait a sec ....:sly:

* oh and your poll sucks, none of the above

[Arkh]

This poll lack some options.
Like why should I pay for something I'll never use ? Why does it have to be so fuckin' expensive ?

[Mr.LichTwitch]

They should tax the rich and then tell us what to eat. Then they can send us our rations, paid in full by the taxes of the rich people :sly:

[Drohn Moharri]

none of the above..

[Arintyll]

Too many taxes already. Gut the bloated state and federal governments down to a lean trim fighting weight, stop trying to buy other countries friendship with aid packages and take all that cash saved to fix crumbling infrastructure with open competative bids, no overrun clause.

After thats done, use the cash saved to pay down the deficit.

When the country is back in the black. Cut the taxes to cover costs plus a surplus for development and future infrastructure.

[Weeking]

Went with having other people pay for my health care, which doesn't specify it is through the government or that it also applies to other people. (There's no none of the above and you can't submit without choosing one or more).

[alhazred]

Too many taxes already. Gut the bloated state and federal governments down to a lean trim fighting weight, stop trying to buy other countries friendship with aid packages and take all that cash saved to fix crumbling infrastructure with open competative bids, no overrun clause.

After thats done, use the cash saved to pay down the deficit.

When the country is back in the black. Cut the taxes to cover costs plus a surplus for development and future infrastructure.

you get points for style may i count you as a none of the above

[alhazred]

Went with having other people pay for my health care, which doesn't specify it is through the government or that it also applies to other people. (There's no none of the above and you can't submit without choosing one or more).

if you want none of the above let me know as i forgot to include the option

[Deja vu]

None of the above

[Arintyll]

you get points for style may i count you as a none of the above

Woot style points! And the cool kids said I'd amount to nothing.

I'll take none of the above for over 9000 Alex.

[Largion]

If everyone get health care by taxes then it can go any way of the 2 options you gave.
Paying for another mans health care
Haveing others pay for your health care
If I never get hurt/ill I will have payed someone elses or if i get some illness someone will have helped pay my health care.
This is the way it work in Sweden and everyone have the right to get health care here.

[Kietharr]

I picked every option because it seemed like the cool thing to do.

[alfaroverall]

The first three IMO are skewed, as you don't state what the outcome of them are (no one would favor higher taxes for no public benefit).

Personally I favor an "almost libertarian" government, and so would say none of the above ideally, but depending on what the country was going to get in return, I might or might not be willing to support higher taxes on various things/people.

Honestly though, I have no idea why you decided to post this here. Pretty much everyone here, with a select handful of exceptions such as greenman, is either libertarian or a very conservative (fiscal, not usually social) Republican.

[Entreri]

If someone else is paying for my health care, through government taxes at least, then I think the government should tell me what to eat since that will have a major effect on how much health care I need. Say I was some fat lazy bastard, I wouldn't want to be paying for someone like that who has higher health care costs at their own fault. They probably won't live as long either, so they won't even have time to pay taxes to pay for their own. Maybe not tell us what to eat, but have a fitness test that you have to pass for a lower tax rate.

Higher taxes on the rich, and on investment income depending on the type of investment. The people that got rich on their own already pay less taxes percentage wise then your average person. In theory, they pay higher, however, the rich also make the laws so they make sure there is plenty of loopholes for them. For instance, Warren Buffet, the richest man in the world, reported that he only paid 19% of his income in taxes for 2007, he made over 10 billion. He is also an advocate for higher taxes for the rich.

Capital gains tax is at 15% right now I think, for long term anyway. I already pay 28% capital gains because all mine are short term so I don't care what they do to the long term one.

Also, the government has to reimburse some people for their investments. Like farmers, if there crops fail a few years in a row they would be screwed. The entire agriculture industry would be screwed.

[Lethn]

lol

[Matriel]

None of the above.

[Tomaj]

Too many taxes already. Gut the bloated state and federal governments down to a lean trim fighting weight, stop trying to buy other countries friendship with aid packages and take all that cash saved to fix crumbling infrastructure with open competative bids, no overrun clause.

After thats done, use the cash saved to pay down the deficit.

When the country is back in the black. Cut the taxes to cover costs plus a surplus for development and future infrastructure.

oh but we cant possibly hurt the feelings of another country. besides we should try to help every one we can by over extending our own countrys budget. note the sarcasm. if america would just grow some balls do what it had to for its self them possibly other countrys that would be fine but no one wins when our economy does down the tubes. spend on ourselves and the country back into working shape then worry about the outside world.

[Arintyll]

oh but we cant possibly hurt the feelings of another country. besides we should try to help every one we can by over extending our own countrys budget. note the sarcasm. if america would just grow some balls do what it had to for its self them possibly other countrys that would be fine but no one wins when our economy does down the tubes. spend on ourselves and the country back into working shape then worry about the outside world.

LOL, Yeah the congresscritters like to trapse around throwing buckets of money at the world right after they tell their buddies where they are throwing it so they can scoop it up. ANY congresscritter who votes right now for spending on anything not related to repairing infrastructure or making sure our guys and gals in uniform get paid for having to slog it out under inept leadership, should be hung on the whitehouse lawn on TV.

/sarcasm on
Can't forget that it seams Israel is more important that fixing things here anyway.... after all thats where teothawki is gonna happen cause some book told me so.
/sarcasm off

[Incanam]

Higher taxes on the rich, I'm all for that if it's for public benefit.

Helath care, I'm for within reason. Ie if someone has the ability to ge themselves good health and doesnt, no health care for you, but for other situations that are uncontrollable healthcare is fine. I don't see a problem with it though I know most of you will disagree.

Edit: I am also for lower spending...ie the wasted trillion on Iraq.

[Killuminati]

I like all those options! That would be my dream utopia.

[Kuri]

Anarachy.

[alfaroverall]

Anarachy.
An insult to anarchists everywhere.

[palo god]

I choose none of the above, because all those options suck.

[Mippoose]

Where's the one for higher taxes on poor people?

Or should I make a career out of filling out 10 applications a month so I can go on unemployment indefinately?

No, I'm not poor.

Anarachy.

Am I bad if I vote for Fascism and genocide?

[Khumash-Gor]

eww that poll sucks

[Arkir]

I voted none of the above. I just don't think the government is spending people's money right. Get rid of welfare. Why should we pay for other people because they don't feel like working? And no to all other things where we are spending money on other people besides ourselves.

The government then has loads of money. What can they do with it...? Buy stuff for our military, increase minimum wage and stuff like that.



Also, poor is a mental illness.

[Spinewire]

I have no problem with public health care, everything else can fuck off tho, including you and you probing polls.

[losinglife]

wtf hahahahah anyone that selected any of those is a dick

[zakariaz]

Wow youre polls really suck:D

Seriously they are biased have stupid options and make no sense

[Pcheez]

I dont pay taxes.

Taxation is stupid.

Just inflate the price of everything by 20% BUT JUST CALL IT INFLATION and not TAXES.

See, i dont pay TAXES, at all, im happy.

Plus all the NON-TAX money goes to improving the infrastructure and building new megadomes for me to ski in during summer and building residential islands, instead of giving bums handouts and medical supplies to further drain the country.

[Vanno]

Eh, I don't particularly mind the idea of basic universal healthcare, as it can actually be a net cost savings, but I am not exactly sold on it either. The rest is mostly crap.

Though, I have been invloved in this blog so much recently, I might be turning Keynesian trying to argue against it. (http://economistsview.typepad.com/)

[Tharkon Fargor]

Higher taxes on the rich, Paying money to reinburse People whos investments, paying for another mans health care, Haveing others pay for your health care.

Taxes on Gas is stupid. The idea of taxes on gas was to promote less use of automobiles when gas was as expensive as water. As it isn't that anymore the taxes should be lowered. Also high taxes on investment is stupid because that would discourage growth.

To give someone back something at least if their investment fails I think is right...But it depends on a bunch of things.

[Pcheez]

Higher taxes on the rich, Paying money to reinburse People whos investments, paying for another mans health care, Haveing others pay for your health care.

Taxes on Gas is stupid. The idea of taxes on gas was to promote less use of automobiles when gas was as expensive as water. As it isn't that anymore the taxes should be lowered. Also high taxes on investment is stupid because that would discourage growth.

To give someone back something at least if their investment fails I think is right...But it depends on a bunch of things.

Its not the fault of the rich they are superior to others .

Equal tax on all.

[Tharkon Fargor]

If the government didn't have laws protecting them (and the rest of us) then you'd see how superior they are to the masses when the masses would storm the factories of any employer who would mistreat them and then continue work as normal with a new leader.

[losinglife]

To give someone back something at least if their investment fails I think is right...But it depends on a bunch of things.

fuck you, why should i pay you money if you make shitty investments?

[Tharkon Fargor]

Because I'll pay you to if you make a shity investment.


And why? Well I don't mean an investment in terms of stocks really.
I mean more if you start a company and then it fails after some years or something then just like your workers will get money for being fired due to bankrupcy so should you I think.

Fair is fair. CEO or worker shouldn't matter.

[losinglife]

that would just mean everyone would start up shitty companies knowing that they will get there money back so it would be pointless to actually come up with good buisness models......... and stuff :D

[Tharkon Fargor]

Meh no. Why would people be so stupid and so lazy? Like start a company that doesn't do anything and that automaticly will fail. What will they live with during the time the company is alive?
And if it's a so called "hollow" company then they might be investigated by the state for fraud and stuff and get pwned and have to pay more money and sit some time in prison.
And they wouldn't be getting their entire investment back ofcourse.

[Erroneous]

Why would people be so stupid and so lazy?

Um have you actually met any real people, I mean outside of the internet?

[Tharkon Fargor]

Well we have that system in Sweden and it works so I guess you've just met selfish and lazy bastards outside in real life.

[alfaroverall]

Tharkon: that's really, really socialist. Systems like that really start to get close to communism. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it's a rather radical system that reaches very deep into the "left" side of the fence. I think that's worth noting for you, since it is probably all the government you know (my apologies if it is not).

I hope you can see how that effectively abolishes the free market by removing the ability and even part of the incentive to eliminate your competitors?

[Matriel]

I dont pay taxes.

Taxation is stupid.

Just inflate the price of everything by 20% BUT JUST CALL IT INFLATION and not TAXES.

See, i dont pay TAXES, at all, im happy.

Plus all the NON-TAX money goes to improving the infrastructure and building new megadomes for me to ski in during summer and building residential islands, instead of giving bums handouts and medical supplies to further drain the country.

Wow, the UAE really doesn't have any taxes. Fuck, I'm jealous.

Also, rich people envy is hilarious. We must tax them for being smarts. :ohno:

[Ryo]

okay so this is being used like my other poll just to get the polictical feeling

who here is for what


SHIT

okay just say option 9 for a none of the above

i choose alle of them
be-
cau-
se

i

c-
a-
n

and !!OPTION 9!! :lmao:

[Tharkon Fargor]

Tharkon: that's really, really socialist. Systems like that really start to get close to communism. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it's a rather radical system that reaches very deep into the "left" side of the fence. I think that's worth noting for you, since it is probably all the government you know (my apologies if it is not).

I hope you can see how that effectively abolishes the free market by removing the ability and even part of the incentive to eliminate your competitors?


Well our system has its own name called "the Swdish modell"
Sweden is one of the countries rated as the most desirable to invest in.
The system incourages private investment and growth but at the same time attempts to give everyone a security that they need to get up on their feet if they fail (and everyone can fail).

Here I guess the focus is to develope a good product and sell that product and make a good profit. The focus isn't to destroy your competitors and that's why aggressive marketing and things like this are looked down on and not very liked. I like it, I wouldn't like a completely cold-hearted free-market system.

[Tharkon Fargor]

Wow, the UAE really doesn't have any taxes. Fuck, I'm jealous.

Also, rich people envy is hilarious. We must tax them for being smarts. :ohno:


Dude common...Always this argument.
So what chance does a smart but very poor person in rural India have to make it compared to the big corporate boss that pays him only 50 dollars a month or something to work in the big Nike factory?

Due to the need to feed his family (parents and sisters/brothers) he never finished school despite being good in it.
So why does he deserve this future just so that someone can buy a second jacht? Without taxes he wouldn't even been able to go to school even if he forsakened his family because without taxes the schools wouldn't have been funded. And without taxes he probably wouldn't even have the health to work in the factory that he works in and at least contributes to society.

On top of this there's so many rich people that live on their parents fortunes.
Doing almost no work while having their stockbrokers and managers and what not doing all their investment for them as their parents have set it up.

[Aragoni]

I think Ron Paul had a great and unique way of looking on taxes. Taxes = Slavery. :)

[Matriel]

Dude common...Always this argument.
So what chance does a smart but very poor person in rural India have to make it compared to the big corporate boss that pays him only 50 dollars a month or something to work in the big Nike factory?

Unless the corporate boss has a gun to his head forcing him to work for sub-standard wages then you have no fucking argument.

Due to the need to feed his family (parents and sisters/brothers) he never finished school despite being good in it.
So why does he deserve this future just so that someone can buy a second jacht? Without taxes he wouldn't even been able to go to school even if he forsakened his family because without taxes the schools wouldn't have been funded. And without taxes he probably wouldn't even have the health to work in the factory that he works in and at least contributes to society.

My grandmother never finished school for the same reason in the great depression, but that didn't stop her from being successful later in life with my grandfather. Boo fucking hoo.

The US government makes more than half of it's funds without income taxes. That we need taxes to get by is a fucking farce.

On top of this there's so many rich people that live on their parents fortunes.
Doing almost no work while having their stockbrokers and managers and what not doing all their investment for them as their parents have set it up.

Majority of millionaires in this country are self-made. QQ more about big bad rich people loser.

[Tharkon Fargor]

Maybe "you and yours" don't need taxes to get by...maybe others do?
Don't be so selfish and cold.

The depression is an interesting example because it was fixed through centralized state governance. Also the depression was the effect of the free market world your grandmother lived in without any safety nets or control.

Perhaps your grandmother wouldn't have needed to live those quite horrible years during the depression if things were organised better?

[Matriel]

Maybe "you and yours" don't need taxes to get by...maybe others do?
Don't be so selfish and cold.

Lol selfish and cold. Says the guy that thinks it's okay to use violence to take people's property to give it inefficiently to other people they don't even know.

[Aragoni]

Maybe "you and yours" don't need taxes to get by...maybe others do?
Don't be so selfish and cold.

You don't have to be selfish to be against taxes. Do it through donations instead of using the government.

[Tharkon Fargor]

You don't have to be selfish to be against taxes. Do it through donations instead of using the government.

I'm not even getting into that. If you don't have a problem with the core idea of taxes: Helping those with needs then you probably wouldn't give nearly as much through donations that you give through taxes.

If you belive that your freedom from taxes is more worth than someones need of healthcare, education, food and shelter then you have your priorities set wrong.

[Tharkon Fargor]

Lol selfish and cold. Says the guy that thinks it's okay to use violence to take people's property to give it inefficiently to other people they don't even know.

Indeed and proud of it, though I wouldn't say it's ineffecient. The Nordic welfare states have had the highest HDI-ranking since many decades.

Who's the worse person?:

The one with 50 apple trees in his garden refusing to share them and even sell them or the starving child who steals an apple from him?

[Tdog]

It is simple. Flat tax across the board of lets say 20% on all income period.

This would create a ton more tax dollars and would be fair to all levels of income.

Health care - Lower the cost and leave it private. I DO NOT WANT OUR GOVERMENT INVOLVED IN MY HEALTH CARE. What makes you think they will not screw it up just like everything else they touch.

If you are not an American company and you want to sell anything in the USA, you must pay a tax on all goods shipping into the Country.

This would bring jobs back to America and also allow American Companys to offer cheaper goods to American's then outsiders could.

If you are an American company but you ship goods into the country from outside the country, you must pay a tax on all goods shipping into the Country.

Done, just fixed the US Economy in 5 minutes.

[Tharkon Fargor]

It is simple. Flat tax across the board of lets say 20% on all income period.

This would create a ton more tax dollars and would be fair to all levels of income.

Health care - Lower the cost and leave it private. I DO NOT WANT OUR GOVERMENT INVOLVED IN MY HEALTH CARE. What makes you think they will not screw it up just like everything else they touch.

Done, just fixed the Economy in 5 minutes.


Well if your government screws up everything it touches then you need to change your government or system of governance before you do anything ellse.

Oh and maybe stop being proud of your president for a moment to!

[Aragoni]

I'm not even getting into that. If you don't have a problem with the core idea of taxes: Helping those with needs then you probably wouldn't give nearly as much through donations that you give through taxes.

I'm sorry but huh? Why wouldn't I give as much money through donations as I would through taxes? I love helping the poor. The thing is though that I don't want to be thrown into prison if I have to prioritize something else then paying the poor people's needs.

If you belive that your freedom from taxes is more worth than someones need of healthcare, education, food and shelter then you have your priorities set wrong.

Not really since I would still donate the same amount of money.

[alfaroverall]

Well our system has its own name called "the Swdish modell"
Sweden is one of the countries rated as the most desirable to invest in.
The system incourages private investment and growth but at the same time attempts to give everyone a security that they need to get up on their feet if they fail (and everyone can fail).

Here I guess the focus is to develope a good product and sell that product and make a good profit. The focus isn't to destroy your competitors and that's why aggressive marketing and things like this are looked down on and not very liked. I like it, I wouldn't like a completely cold-hearted free-market system.
Again, I didn't say it was bad, I said it was socialist as hell and getting rather close to communism. I'm just offering you another perspective on the way your government apparently runs, and telling you how it's nowhere near the middle of the political spectrum. That's all. The middle isn't better necessarily.

[Tdog]

Well if your government screws up everything it touches then you need to change your government or system of governance before you do anything ellse.

Oh and maybe stop being proud of your president for a moment to!

Who said I was proud of my President or my Goverment?
I am proud to be an American but that has nothing to do with my Goverment.

Our goverment system is not the issue, its the people that make up that goverment system that has failed the American people

[Tharkon Fargor]

@ Aragoni
Well that's the thing. You need to be thrown in jail if you refuse to help the community you live in to be collectively stabile, healthy and working.

There's countries with almost no taxes that are very rich.
For example the United Arab Emirates. There was an article about that country in National Geographics a year or so ago. It clearly showed how much people donate to the poor when they aren't forced.

You see the workers, builders and streecleaners were living in ghetto's and shacks like you did in the middleages with 10 people in a small metal shacks, often without electricity.

Please move there then and improve that country so that everyone gladly and freely donate money and help their poor workers!

Who said I was proud of my President or my Goverment?
I am proud to be an American but that has nothing to do with my Goverment.

Our goverment system is not the issue, its the people that make up that goverment system that has failed the American people

Oki, sorry for generalising. I've heard Americans say "I'm proud of my president even though he's done so many mistakes" and things like this.
I guess you aren't one of them.

But either way, no matter what path you want your country to take you should change the people in government that destroy everything they touch first.

[Aragoni]

Sweden is one of the countries rated as the most desirable to invest in.

Source?

[Lethn]

ahhaahhahhhhh where fuck did you get that from? You do realize that the main reason we can't get anyone new or reliable in Governments is because of the retarded requirements that basically stop anyone with half a brain from getting in right? Or for that matter anyone forming a new political party?

[Tharkon Fargor]

http://www.isa.se/templates/News____2947.aspx

[Tiberias]

Fail poll is fail.

Where is the None of the Above option?

[Aragoni]

@ Aragoni
Well that's the thing. You need to be thrown in jail if you refuse to help the community you live in to be collectively stabile, healthy and working.

I've heard something along the lines of this before.... I think it was called "Slavery". A system where people had to work for other people's benefits and if they refused, they were punished.

There's countries with almost no taxes that are very rich.
For example the United Arab Emirates. There was an article about that country in National Geographics a year or so ago. It clearly showed how much people donate to the poor when they aren't forced.

And how much did they donate? Americans donate loaaaads of money each year (I'll let Matriel show you the actual numbers and the source since he showed it to me but I forgot to save the link :D ).

You see the workers, builders and streecleaners were living in ghetto's and shacks like you did in the middleages with 10 people in a small metal shacks, often without electricity.

And those times changed and alot of that had to do with the rise of Unions. Unions which wasn't owned by the government and such. They managed to increase people's wages and thus they got a better standard of living.

Please move there then and improve that country so that everyone gladly and freely donate money and help their poor workers!

Move to which country?

[Matriel]

Indeed and proud of it, though I wouldn't say it's ineffecient. The Nordic welfare states have had the highest HDI-ranking since many decades.

I find it funny that the US scores as high as it does with a system that's supposed to not prop up failures. HDI is an average of poor people. I live better than any of my actual peers in Europe.

Who's the worse person?:

The one with 50 apple trees in his garden refusing to share them and even sell them or the starving child who steals an apple from him?

Wow, so now people should be compelled by force to share? The thieving piece of shit kid is worse. If the guy wants to have sex with every single apple that he owns, then that's his choice. Someone else with apple trees will sell apples for people to eat.

Nice attempt at making it all emotional though. Maybe someone without a brain will feel sympathy for your shitty arguments and agree. But while we're creating ridiculous scenarios, let's say that the guy with the apple trees cans all the apples and saves them to give to a charity that supports children with cancer. Oh man, almost as ridiculous as your bullshit.

[Aragoni]

http://www.isa.se/templates/News____2947.aspx

I'm sorry but that source isn't saying that Sweden is the most desirable country to invest in.

Edit: Lol. My reading comprehension failed when I read your post.

[Tharkon Fargor]

Again, I didn't say it was bad, I said it was socialist as hell and getting rather close to communism. I'm just offering you another perspective on the way your government apparently runs, and telling you how it's nowhere near the middle of the political spectrum. That's all. The middle isn't better necessarily.

You Americans have been blasted with a red scare that you don't even know what socialism and communism is.
It's not very near to socialism but one could say some aspects are close to communism. And yes those two aren't the same.

True communism advocates self-governance of the people and self-governance of the workers. As workers indeed have alot of power in Sweden and as many of the bigger corporations such as "COOP FORUM" and "Arla" (second largest supermarket chain and largest dairy producer) are worker owned or farmer owned we're a little closer to communism than many other countries.

We're quite far away from socialism though as we do encourage private investment and an individualistic mark on everything anyone does.
In that way we're not a very collective society but in the way many of the resources are used to help the collective as a whole we again are.


But socialism...Not really, beyond what is in fact normal for all industrial nations except the US: Universal healthcare, free or cheap education and things like this which we belive are needed to give every person a fair chance to make it in life.

Move to which country?

The UAE or Monacco or Dubai or Singapore.

Nice attempt at making it all emotional though. Maybe someone without a brain will feel sympathy for your shitty arguments and agree. But while we're creating ridiculous scenarios, let's say that the guy with the apple trees cans all the apples and saves them to give to a charity that supports children with cancer. Oh man, almost as ridiculous as your bullshit.

Nice attempt at making it all emotional eh?
Perhaps you should study history and learn how it was to be a worker in the late 18th century when taxes were extremely low.
Let us never forget those times and how much the rich people helped the poor people in the glutter.

And sure...it would be nice if he cans all the apples and gives them to charity. But what if he doesn't and some starving child dies?
Then he's indirectly murdered someone.
What taxes do is force the person to give at least part of his apples to those that need it the most so that they can have enough time or energy to continue their studies or their work and later contribute to society themselves.

Wouldn't it been nice if everyone of their free will helped the poor people?
Yes, but that's an imaginary scenarion not the one with starvation and suffering.

This has already been proven by the industrial revolution and the real revolutions that followed and forced the elite to share with the produce that the workers created in the first place.

It's also proven today by how workers are treated and payed in the luxurious arab oil states.

[Carl Ragadamn]

It is simple. Flat tax across the board of lets say 20% on all income period.

Consumption taxes are more fair.

Also the flat tax is a terrible idea, because I would have to pay taxes. Whats the point of remaining poor if I get taxed. I would really hate to have to start paying myself better.

[Carl Ragadamn]

You Americans have been blasted with a red scare that you don't even know what socialism and communism is.
It's not very near to socialism but one could say some aspects are close to communism. And yes those two aren't the same.

True communism advocates self-governance of the people and self-governance of the workers. As workers indeed have alot of power in Sweden and as many of the bigger corporations such as "COOP FORUM" and "Arla" (second largest supermarket chain and largest diary producer) are worker owned or farmer owned we're a little closer to communism than many other countries.

We're quite far away from socialism though as we do encourage private investment and an individualistic mark on everything anyone does.
In that way we're not a very collective society but in the way many of the resources are used to help the collective as a whole we again are.


But socialism...Not really, beyond what is in fact normal for all industrial nations except the US: Universal healthcare, free or cheap education and things like this which we belive are needed to give every person a fair chance to make it in life.

To bad for your point, that the ability of a government to dominate the people is so high with communism.

Also, Euros should not preach universal healthcare to Americans. It wont work here due to the size of the country, and disparate needs of the population. It would be like the EU being in charge of all healthcare in Europe, which we can agree would not be run efficiently.

[Matriel]

To bad for your point, that the ability of a government to dominate the people is so high with communism.

Also, Euros should not preach universal healthcare to Americans. It wont work here due to the size of the country, and disparate needs of the population. It would be like the EU being in charge of all healthcare in Europe, which we can agree would not be run efficiently.

Nuh uh. Countries with 4 million people the size of bathtubs are the perfect comparison to the US. Don't be a close minded jerk!

[alfaroverall]

You Americans have been blasted with a red scare that you don't even know what socialism and communism is.
Oh fucking bullshit. The red scare was decades ago. If you actually associate current Americans with fucking McCarthy then you need to come over here and actually meet some people. It's not the same.
It's not very near to socialism but one could say some aspects are close to communism.
It is socialism of sorts by definition, in that socialism is a state in between capitalism and communism in which the government (or "people" if you buy into the propaganda) is regulating distribution of wealth but is not making it perfectly uniform. Making it so people's investments can't fail is essentially redistribution of wealth. And I know there are other socialist and socialist-esque policies in Sweden.
And yes those two aren't the same.
Of course not.

True communism advocates self-governance of the people and self-governance of the workers.
Which is solid propaganda. Even Marx probably knew that was never going to happen.

We're quite far away from socialism though as we do encourage private investment and an individualistic mark on everything anyone does.
In that way we're not a very collective society but in the way many of the resources are used to help the collective as a whole we again are.
Redistribution of wealth, insurance on people's investments. Sounds like socialism to me.

But socialism...Not really, beyond what is in fact normal for all industrial nations except the US: Universal healthcare, free or cheap education and things like this which we belive are needed to give every person a fair chance to make it in life.
Do a little research, that's not the norm just yet.

[Kebek]

Where's the higher taxes for companies option?

[Tdog]

Consumption taxes are more fair.

Also the flat tax is a terrible idea, because I would have to pay taxes. Whats the point of remaining poor if I get taxed. I would really hate to have to start paying myself better.

What? You think a flat tax is a terriable idea because you would have to pay taxes? WTF is that.

No Income taxes are better then Comsumption taxes. Income tax is taken from everyone that makes money. Comsumption tax is taken only when someone buys something.

The goverment makes more from Income taxes.

[Aragoni]

The UAE or Monacco or Dubai or Singapore.

Let the workers of those countries unite and handle themselves through unions.

Also, Euros should not preach universal healthcare to Americans. It wont work here due to the size of the country, and disparate needs of the population. It would be like the EU being in charge of all healthcare in Europe, which we can agree would not be run efficiently.

I fully agree with you Carl. :)

[Tdog]

Let the workers of those countries unite and handle themselves through unions.



I fully agree with you Carl. :)

I agree with most of your points but I do not agree about unions... Unions are one of the reason the "Big" three are doing so poorly now. Unions are just as greedy as the corporations they are trying to protect thier members from.

[Carl Ragadamn]

What? You think a flat tax is a terriable idea because you would have to pay taxes? WTF is that.
I work a job that pays very little, and have a company I am starting that I pay myself nothing from. If i were to have to pay taxes in the sub 20k bracket, I would have to pay myself from my company. This would ruin my development of the company, and force me to have to borrow money to finish development.

No Income taxes are better then Comsumption taxes. Income tax is taken from everyone that makes money. Comsumption tax is taken only when someone buys something.

The goverment makes more from Income taxes.

Consumption taxes would be more fair, because only the spend crazy people would be punished. Also there would be far more investment money running around.

[Aragoni]

I agree with most of your points but I do not agree about unions... Unions are one of the reason the "Big" three are doing so poorly now. Unions are just as greedy as the corporations they are trying to protect thier members from.

"Big" Three?
I know unions are greedy fuckers but they are the only ones that can, in a really free market, look after the Workers interests. We cannot let the companies dictate everything.

[Carl Ragadamn]

Let the workers of those countries unite and handle themselves through unions.


Unions are a great idea for about 10 years, then they become self-important and slowly choke a company to death (see GM).

[Tharkon Fargor]

Consumption taxes would be more fair, because only the spend crazy people would be punished. Also there would be far more investment money running around.

No. That's contra productive.
You see consumption is what spins the capitalist engine.
If we discourage people from buying wares then we are directly slowing the engine until growth is reduced so much that it goes into reverse.

[Carl Ragadamn]

"Big" Three?
I know unions are greedy fuckers but they are the only ones that can, in a really free market, look after the Workers interests. We cannot let the companies dictate everything.

the big 3 american auto manufacturers.

The problem is they stop caring about the workers and instead focus on just getting "more".

[Carl Ragadamn]

No. That's contra productive.
You see consumption is what spins the capitalist engine.
If we discourage people from buying wares then we are directly slowing the engine until growth is reduced so much that it goes into reverse.

People would still spend, just not like crazy consumer robots.

[alfaroverall]

Also there would be far more investment money running around.
Admittedly that's not likely. If you raised the sales tax and abolished income tax, people would be less likely to make investments and would also make smaller investments. Unless you did not tax investment purchases, which would likely require you to put very large taxes on common items.

I favor consumption taxes as well, but this is one of its flaws.

[Tharkon Fargor]

Let the workers of those countries unite and handle themselves through unions.

Hah! You see my point was precisely that the majority of the rich do not help the poor as much as is needed without taxes. And if you're saying the workers should tend for themselves then your previous point that you vollountarily would donate the same amount of money as you do through taxes in Sweden then you were just bullshiting me or bullshiting yourself.

Which is solid propaganda. Even Marx probably knew that was never going to happen

If you think it's solid propaganda then we're not even communist but something ellse so your argument fails again.

[Aragoni]

Unions are a great idea for about 10 years, then they become self-important and slowly choke a company to death (see GM).

And if you remove every obstacle for the companies so that they can do whatever they like then they will slowly choke the workers to death (See industrial revolution)

the big 3 american auto manufacturers.

The problem is they stop caring about the workers and instead focus on just getting "more".

Then it's the workers job to create new unions then.
It's a free market afterall.

[Tdog]

"Big" Three?
I know unions are greedy fuckers but they are the only ones that can, in a really free market, look after the Workers interests. We cannot let the companies dictate everything.

Ford GM Chrysler = Big Three

That is what we call them in America, sorry forgot we are on an international forum. :p

The unions have drove the big three into the ground because they are not looking out for their members but instead they are trying to line their pockets. Now dont get me wrong, The unions are not the only reason why the Big three are doing so poorly but it is one of the main reasons.

(Lets not forget the Unions were created by Mobsters in the first place)

I live in Michigan, just outside Detroit, dont tell me I dont know what I am talking about... I know Unions better then most people due to living in Michigan.

[Tharkon Fargor]

People would still spend, just not like crazy consumer robots.

Constant investment and spending is what should be encouraged in a capitalist system. We just shouldn't be as shallow as we are today and buy useless crap that doesn't really help us nor our society.
But to put up hindrances for consumption is wrong and contraproductive.

If we belive that some people have to much money to consume things while others barely have any then progressive incometax is the way to go.

[Carl Ragadamn]

Admittedly that's not likely. If you raised the sales tax and abolished income tax, people would be less likely to make investments and would also make smaller investments. Unless you did not tax investment purchases, which would likely require you to put very large taxes on common items.

I favor consumption taxes as well, but this is one of its flaws.

I was speaking more of money invested in companies, since there would be 0 capitol gains tax. If the side effect is to limit the speculative real estate market, I would not cry. While it would make large purchases like say buying a freight ship, more expensive, it would be offset with the government not dipping into peoples pockets in a hundred different ways.

[alfaroverall]

If you think it's solid propaganda then we're not even communist but something ellse so your argument fails again.
What? My point was basically not relevant to the discussion. I was just saying that the "self-governance" ideology in communism is pretty much pure propaganda and never expected to happen, and that even the most diehard ideological communists (such as Lenin and Marx himself; Stalin for example is not one of these) would probably agree with that.

I also never claimed Sweden was communist. I was saying it is quite socialist and is actually starting to get closer to communism without ever getting anywhere near it...yet.

[Tharkon Fargor]

What? My point was basically not relevant to the discussion. I was just saying that the "self-governance" ideology in communism is pretty much pure propaganda and never expected to happen, and that even the most diehard ideological communists (such as Lenin and Marx himself; Stalin for example is not one of these) would probably agree with that.

That point may hold.
But you said in your previous post that Sweden was getting communist.
Now if the self-governance of workers is just bullshit propaganda and if we have that in Sweden then we're obviously not close to even your own personal view of communism.

:D I gotcha this time.

[Aragoni]

Hah! You see my point was precisely that the majority of the rich do not help the poor as much as is needed without taxes.

I beg to differ. Rich people would support poor people. See Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as an example. They send money (donate) to the third world.

And if you're saying the workers should tend for themselves then your previous point that you vollountarily would donate the same amount of money as you do through taxes in Sweden then you were just bullshiting me or bullshiting yourself.

And workers can't tend for themselves and receive donations at the same time? They shouldn't have the right to steal from other people's wallets (through the government or otherwise).

[alfaroverall]

That point may hold.
But you said in your previous post that Sweden was getting communist.
Now if the self-governance of workers is just bullshit propaganda and if we have that in Sweden then we're obviously not close to even your own personal view of communism.

:D I gotcha this time.
My ideas of self-governance of workers don't seem to synchronize with yours. Please explain what you mean when you say that Sweden has self-governance of workers so that I can actually phrase my argument in a way that you can fully understand.

Not an insult, an attack, or even an argument; we just don't seem to be on the same page (/bad pun), so I'm looking for some clarification.

[Carl Ragadamn]

Constant investment and spending is what should be encouraged in a capitalist system. We just shouldn't be as shallow as we are today and buy useless crap that doesn't really help us nor our society.
But to put up hindrances for consumption is wrong and contraproductive.

If we belive that some people have to much money to consume things while others barely have any then progressive incometax is the way to go.

In a consumption tax system, only non essential items are taxed. So people who are struggling would only pay taxes when they exceed the necessities of life. Sure the people at the top might hesitate before buying a new Mercedes, but then they would remember that they dont have the government taking 50% of their income every year.

[Tharkon Fargor]

And workers can't tend for themselves and receive donations at the same time? They shouldn't have the right to steal from other people's wallets (through the government or otherwise).

Obviously not as they are not and have not recivied it in historic and present nations were taxes are extremely low.
See those places attract very greedy people not because they belive in freedom from government and doing good by their own free will but because they want more money for themselves.

In places like this the workers obviously do not recive any substantial donations that could even compare to a normal nations taxes, let alone Swedens. So the examples we have in todays world of tax-paradises clearly show us that a donation-based system would not work as well as a tax-based.

[Tharkon Fargor]

In a consumption tax system, only non essential items are taxed. So people who are struggling would only pay taxes when they exceed the necessities of life. Sure the people at the top might hesitate before buying a new Mercedes, but then they would remember that they dont have the government taking 50% of their income every year.

There's no logic in your argument.
You might aswell have a small tax that only affects quite rich->very rich people while the rest don't even pay a tax to flatten it out a bit and still continue encouraging consumption.

Also having a society in where people are struggling and unable to afford anything than necessities is bad for capitalism. It's the little man that pays for capitalism, that keeps it spinning. Disencouraging the little man from buying goods is bad for the system and to be honest it's bad for the little man.

Also it would create a new layer of beurocracy that has to be payed by the tax-payers. These would need to review every item every year to conclude what is a necessity and what is not. (as standards of living hopefully rise, so should the amount of goods that are considered "basic").

[Tharkon Fargor]

My ideas of self-governance of workers don't seem to synchronize with yours. Please explain what you mean when you say that Sweden has self-governance of workers so that I can actually phrase my argument in a way that you can fully understand.

Not an insult, an attack, or even an argument; we just don't seem to be on the same page (/bad pun), so I'm looking for some clarification.

Simply that alot of companies are owned by workers.

Arla is owned by farmers, Coop by workers as such, there's a couple of other like like a bank that is owned by its members called "JaK" with a few hundred thousand members and things like this.

Also there is no "minimum" wage in Sweden by the state.
it is decided by the main unions together with the employers.
As such the workers directly decide the minimum wage with the employers and the employers must follow that minimum wage for each profession.

This just to name a few things.

[Carl Ragadamn]

There's no logic in your argument.
You might aswell have a small tax that only affects quite rich->very rich people while the rest don't even pay a tax to flatten it out a bit and still continue encouraging consumption.

Also having a society in where people are struggling and unable to afford anything than necessities is bad for capitalism. It's the little man that pays for capitalism, that keeps it spinning. Disencouraging the little man from buying goods is bad for the system and to be honest it's bad for the little man.

Also it would create a new layer of beurocracy that has to be payed by the tax-payers. These would need to review every item every year to conclude what is a necessity and what is not. (as standards of living hopefully rise, so should the amount of goods that are considered "basic").

Taxing only the rich has no equality to it. If we are talking about equal taxation for all people (the only fair way to do it) then consumption tax is the best choice.

The people would not be discouraged, just would consider whether or not they really need that new tv.

You avoid the bureaucracy by establishing what the cost of taxes paid on necessary items is in each area, and cut them a monthly check to rebate the taxes paid.

[Killuminati]

fuck you, why should i pay you money if you make shitty investments?

lmao

Maybe "you and yours" don't need taxes to get by...maybe others do?
Don't be so selfish and cold.

The depression is an interesting example because it was fixed through centralized state governance. Also the depression was the effect of the free market world your grandmother lived in without any safety nets or control.



Get a clue before you talk out of your bum.

[Tdog]

Taxing only the rich has no equality to it. If we are talking about equal taxation for all people (the only fair way to do it) then consumption tax is the best choice.

The people would not be discouraged, just would consider whether or not they really need that new tv.

You avoid the bureaucracy by establishing what the cost of taxes paid on necessary items is in each area, and cut them a monthly check to rebate the taxes paid.

No the best choice is not a consumption tax, a comsuption tax would not be good for a capitalistic economy because people would avoid the big ticket items.

The best choice is a flat income tax across the board, rich, poor, middle class all pay the same rate on thier income... This makes it so the rich pay more, the middle class pays less and the poor stay the same compared to today in which the rich pay less, the middle class pays most and the poor stay the same.

[Axelator]

This poll is complete shit, heres how you should of done it.

-I favour direct taxation
-I favour indirect taxation
-I believe in the welfare state
-I dislike the welfare state
-I favour the government limiting freedoms to benefit the majority
-I favour minimum government interference

There. That would have been a much better poll.

[Killuminati]

This poll is complete shit, heres how you should of done it.

-I favour direct taxation
-I favour indirect taxation
-I believe in the welfare state
-I dislike the welfare state
-I favour the government limiting freedoms to benefit the majority
-I favour minimum government interference

There. That would have been a much better poll.

Thanks, captain obvious.

[Axelator]

No the best choice is not a consumption tax, a comsuption tax would not be good for a capitalistic economy because people would avoid the big ticket items.

The best choice is a flat income tax across the board, rich, poor, middle class all pay the same rate on thier income... This makes it so the rich pay more, the middle class pays less and the poor stay the same compared to today in which the rich pay less, the middle class pays most and the poor stay the same.


That system normally screews over the poor sending them wheeling into a povery they cannot get out of not matter how hard they work. Indirect taxes on spending are the way to go imo, then have a small progessive tax on wages so the more you earn the more you are taxed with the maximum band taxing about 20%.

[Axelator]

Thanks, captain obvious.

If it was that obvious why didn't you do it?

[Tiberias]

Also the depression was the effect of the free market world your grandmother lived in without any safety nets or control.

What?!?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act

Real "FREE" trade there.

[Killuminati]

What?!?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act

Real "FREE" trade there.

Uh, sorry we only talk about our feelings here. Not tariffs which cripple our economy.

[Tiberias]

Uh, sorry we only talk about our feelings here. Not tariffs which cripple our economy.

But a starving kid was denied an apple by that tariff!

Edit: I actually remember discussing this a long time ago with Airius in a thread and he was trying to say that the pre-FDR free market capitalism resulted in poor dead people literally clogging the gutters in the street the class-rapings were so horrible. HAHAA.

[GFH_Spike]

Option 9, none of the above.

[alfaroverall]

Simply that alot of companies are owned by workers.

Arla is owned by farmers, Coop by workers as such, there's a couple of other like like a bank that is owned by its members called "JaK" with a few hundred thousand members and things like this.

Also there is no "minimum" wage in Sweden by the state.
it is decided by the main unions together with the employers.
As such the workers directly decide the minimum wage with the employers and the employers must follow that minimum wage for each profession.

This just to name a few things.
That's completely different from my perspective of self-governance by workers, which explains why we were out of sync. My definition of self-governance by workers is where the working class makes all the decisions for the society (that, or else a "classless society" in which everyone makes the decisions together, i.e. pure communism, which is an impossibility as I said earlier). I don't think Sweden has that.

[Matriel]

Admittedly that's not likely. If you raised the sales tax and abolished income tax, people would be less likely to make investments and would also make smaller investments. Unless you did not tax investment purchases, which would likely require you to put very large taxes on common items.

I favor consumption taxes as well, but this is one of its flaws.

What do you base this argument on? I'd be investing a shitton with all the money I'd get to keep every month that I'm not flushing down the toilet known as Washington DC.

[Spineless_DoO]

All of the choices are against the law here at home. Aside from the gas taxes. So if these are my only options I choose revolution. Everyone that makes over 200k a year on our soil is deported to mexico and all the welth is given to pay off the money now owed. Oh and abolish the Fed!

[Erroneous]

Yea we're done dealing with the worthlessness of the poll options, now we are trying to convince a socialist that no matter how noble a cause they are pursuing they don't have the right to make claims on my property (taxes). And that doing so can stifle economic development and general well-being.

Here's the sort of indoctrination typical in European economics textbooks that we are dealing against: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4095. Although it is true Americans are probably too doctrinaire about free markets.

[Tharkon Fargor]

If you would go back really long then we could say that nobody has the right to own property. As property is the production of the resources of our earth that we all own together then all property is collectively owned and should be distributed equally among all.

But I'm not an "absolutist" as you libertarians who clearly (as said by Matriel) belive that it's more wrong of a starving child to steal some food than the owner of the food not giving him some. Simply because nobody has the right to "take property" from someone with force.

[BeSt]

Where is my "none of the above"? All your polls lack an option for me.
The government, like parents, is a neccessary evil. Never forget the evil.

[Erroneous]

If you would go back really long then we could say that nobody has the right to own property. As property is the production of the resources of our earth that we all own together then all property is collectively owned and should be distributed equally among all.

But I'm not an "absolutist" as you libertarians who clearly (as said by Matriel) belive that it's more wrong of a starving child to steal some food than the owner of the food not giving him some. Simply because nobody has the right to "take property" from someone with force.

All of our current prosperity is built from the idea of personal property. You wouldn't have the opportunity to be typing on a computer if there was no private property. In fact everyone on the earth would probably still be involved in self-sustaining agriculture or very simple and laborious trades accomodated through barter. The population average life expectancy of all people would be a small fraction of its current value.

I can't really provide sources to back this up, but the fact that you can't see this is the fundamental difference between our viewpoints. In today's prosperous world it is a matter of degree, but there are numerous factors which push the bias too far toward an overactive government.

[alfaroverall]

What do you base this argument on? I'd be investing a shitton with all the money I'd get to keep every month that I'm not flushing down the toilet known as Washington DC.\
Consumption taxes logically put the most pressure on one's largest purchases. (Obviously; a 20% tax on your $5000 stock purchase is a lot more expensive than a 20% tax on your new PS3). This means that such purchases cost more, and as such people are less likely to do them. Basically, with an income tax the weight is distributed evenly throughout your expenditures; with a consumption tax, especially one on non-essential items only, it hits your most expensive purchases much harder, and investments just happen to be among these.

This is all of course assuming that the revenue needed would remain constant and that only its source would change, which is of course inaccurate, since the addition of a consumption tax would allow the IRS to cease to exist, allowing us to stop paying those employees. But of course, that would also be detrimental to the economy, creating job loss for both the IRS employees and also tax lawyers, tax agencies, etc.

Though abolishing the IRS and allowing us to stop paying all those employees would likely decrease necessary taxes.

[Bones]

None of the above, I want the Gov't to fuck off and mind its own business. Afterall, according to our now toilet paper constitution the fed has no authority other than the 10 square mile D.C. area anyway.

[Tharkon Fargor]

Prosperous eh? In the world where 300 of the richest people own more wealth than 30 + of the poorest countries?
In the lovely world where a child dies of starvation every second?

That world?
Where wealth and prosperity has been created for the very few through the explotation of the many?
Through slavery? Through serfdom? Through 12 hour workdays 6 days a week during the industrial revolution? Through the suffering of the working class and the lies of the religious and intellectual elite?


btw @ alfaroverall


No we're not there yet. But we're moving in that direction and away from a system where a few men (be it those in the "party" or those in the corporations) have all the power. So by your own definition of communism we are moving away from it.

[Matriel]

\
Consumption taxes logically put the most pressure on one's largest purchases. (Obviously; a 20% tax on your $5000 stock purchase is a lot more expensive than a 20% tax on your new PS3). This means that such purchases cost more, and as such people are less likely to do them. Basically, with an income tax the weight is distributed evenly throughout your expenditures; with a consumption tax, especially one on non-essential items only, it hits your most expensive purchases much harder, and investments just happen to be among these.

Assuming essential goods are still untaxed or have the rebate, you're basically getting to keep a large portion of your salary that you weren't before. If they are taxed without rebate, I personally would still have much more net income. Even if a chunk of that income is lost in sales taxes, you still have more income to throw at investments than I do right now. I'd definitely meet my retirement by 49 goal then.

This is all of course assuming that the revenue needed would remain constant and that only its source would change, which is of course inaccurate, since the addition of a consumption tax would allow the IRS to cease to exist, allowing us to stop paying those employees. But of course, that would also be detrimental to the economy, creating job loss for both the IRS employees and also tax lawyers, tax agencies, etc.

Though abolishing the IRS and allowing us to stop paying all those employees would likely decrease necessary taxes.

My heart would truly weep for the IRS employees lack of employment.

[Tiberias]

Prosperous eh? In the world where 300 of the richest people own more wealth than 30 + of the poorest countries?
In the lovely world where a child dies of starvation every second?

That world?
Where wealth and prosperity has been created for the very few through the explotation of the many?
Through slavery? Through serfdom? Through 12 hour workdays 6 days a week during the industrial revolution? Through the suffering of the working class and the lies of the religious and intellectual elite?


btw @ alfaroverall


No we're not there yet. But we're moving in that direction and away from a system where a few men (be it those in the "party" or those in the corporations) have all the power. So by your own definition of communism we are moving away from it.

How many kids a second would die if not supported by the largess of the wealthy countries food and money donations to them?

You're arguments are nothing but emotional tripe.

[alfaroverall]

Assuming essential goods are still untaxed or have the rebate, you're basically getting to keep a large portion of your salary that you weren't before. If they are taxed without rebate, I personally would still have much more net income. Even if a chunk of that income is lost in sales taxes, you still have more income to throw at investments than I do right now. I'd definitely meet my retirement by 49 goal then.
My point is, assuming "necessary" tax revenue to be relatively constant, it's gotta come from somewhere. And big purchases like investments are a major potential source of revenue.

By the way: "child dies of starvation every second" is BS. According to http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=476831 (not the most reputable source but it has a nice citation) the worldwide deaths total (from the infants to the elderly) is between 50 and 60 million (accounting for possible changes since this post was made 3 years ago). Do some quick division and that amounts to between 1.59 and 1.90 deaths per second. That over half of the worldwide deaths per second could actually be children dying of starvation is inconceivable.

I realize I'm kind of nitpicking, but it's notable.

[Matriel]

My point is, assuming "necessary" tax revenue to be relatively constant, it's gotta come from somewhere. And big purchases like investments are a major potential source of revenue.


Yes, but look at it this way.

Say you lose 1k a month to taxes. So, no matter what, you have 1k less every month.

We move to consumption taxes.

You now have 1k more a month. Let's say that essentials are taxed under this consumption model. You're still buying the same amount of groceries and shit, but you have to add more taxes to it. Let's say that increase is 400.

That leaves 600 dollars a month. Let's say investments are taxed at 100% because whoever set the system up is a retard. You're still left with 300 a month for investments that you never had before. If you started early with 300 a month investing, you'd have a couple million by age 60 with modest returns.

[Killuminati]

If you would go back really long then we could say that nobody has the right to own property. As property is the production of the resources of our earth that we all own together then all property is collectively owned and should be distributed equally among all.

But I'm not an "absolutist" as you libertarians who clearly (as said by Matriel) belive that it's more wrong of a starving child to steal some food than the owner of the food not giving him some. Simply because nobody has the right to "take property" from someone with force.

I think even those who aren't slaves to any ideology would argue that stealing is wrong in any circumstance.

[losinglife]

What do you base this argument on? I'd be investing a shitton with all the money I'd get to keep every month that I'm not flushing down the toilet known as Washington DC.

basically... i dont see why people cant understand how much better it would be.

[losinglife]

Yes, but look at it this way.

Say you lose 1k a month to taxes. So, no matter what, you have 1k less every month.

We move to consumption taxes.

You now have 1k more a month. Let's say that essentials are taxed under this consumption model. You're still buying the same amount of groceries and shit, but you have to add more taxes to it. Let's say that increase is 400.

That leaves 600 dollars a month. Let's say investments are taxed at 100% because whoever set the system up is a retard. You're still left with 300 a month for investments that you never had before. If you started early with 300 a month investing, you'd have a couple million by age 60 with modest returns.


Not to mention even if you didnt invest that 300, its still an extra 300 to put towards bills that one might need to pay off, or towards something like housing ect.

[Krylas]

lmao



Get a clue before you talk out of your bum.

Here's a tip: Next time, try using facts and reasoning to assemble an argument if you want to disprove his point, instead of just shouting "YOU'RE WRONG!" and hiding behind you're nationalistic wall that filter's out all point's of view that contradict what you're Right-Wing father beat into you with his cobra-skin belt, so that you're virgin ears may remain ignorant and protected.

[Tiberias]

Here'a a tip, STFU...

Here's a tip: Next time, try using facts and reasoning to assemble an argument if you want to disprove his point, instead of just shouting "YOU'RE WRONG!" and hiding behind you're nationalistic wall that filter's out all point's of view that contradict what you're Right-Wing father beat into you with his cobra-skin belt, so that you're virgin ears may remain ignorant and protected.

What?!?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act

Real "FREE" trade there.

And wtf does being nationalist and right-wing have to do with correcting somebody's retarded claim that pre-FDR was "free market"? The assholes that caused or deepened the depression were right-wing, but hardly free market and they were Americans. So being a nationalist right-wing cobra-belt beaten ignoramus would go literally against everything he said... fucktard.

[alfaroverall]

Yes, but look at it this way.

Say you lose 1k a month to taxes. So, no matter what, you have 1k less every month.

We move to consumption taxes.

You now have 1k more a month. Let's say that essentials are taxed under this consumption model. You're still buying the same amount of groceries and shit, but you have to add more taxes to it. Let's say that increase is 400.

That leaves 600 dollars a month. Let's say investments are taxed at 100% because whoever set the system up is a retard. You're still left with 300 a month for investments that you never had before. If you started early with 300 a month investing, you'd have a couple million by age 60 with modest returns.
See though, your numbers don't assure that the revenue is actually acquired, since you're looking at the individual level. Put differently, where does the 300 that you've stopped paying each month to taxes come from? The rich? Wall Street? In this way replacing income taxes with consumption taxes, though much fairer and more efficient (with the IRS out of the picture) really comes down to a shift in the tax brackets.

The people that this does benefit where no graduated income tax (I think that's the term) system could is the middle class, because they get the opportunity to invest a little extra money each month (which then adds up to much larger amounts of money, like you said). The lower class would benefit a little bit under a "no essentials" system, in that they'd save their income tax; under an "essentials too" system, they might actually lose money. In either case, they wouldn't have enough money to start investing anyway. The wealthy would, for better or for worse, get hit pretty hard by this. So essentially, you're:
Possibly helping the lower class depending on how the system is structured, possibly hurting them
Helping the middle class big time
Hurting the upper class moderately

Is that what you want? Higher taxes on the wealthy, lower taxes on the middle class, and a change in some form (depending on the structure) for the lower class? Because that's really all this comes down to. I support it too, because it's fairer (in that it gives you more flexibility over your money) and more efficient (because thousands of people don't have to provide a worthless service and get paid by taxes for it), but I still realize that the same net effect could be simulated pretty damn closely with changes in the income tax system that we have now.

[Matriel]

See though, your numbers don't assure that the revenue is actually acquired, since you're looking at the individual level. Put differently, where does the 300 that you've stopped paying each month to taxes come from? The rich? Wall Street? In this way replacing income taxes with consumption taxes, though much fairer and more efficient (with the IRS out of the picture) really comes down to a shift in the tax brackets.

Are you talking about government revenue or my individual revenue? The latter being assured and the first I could give a fuck about.

The people that this does benefit where no graduated income tax (I think that's the term) system could is the middle class, because they get the opportunity to invest a little extra money each month (which then adds up to much larger amounts of money, like you said). The lower class would benefit a little bit under a "no essentials" system, in that they'd save their income tax; under an "essentials too" system, they might actually lose money. In either case, they wouldn't have enough money to start investing anyway. The wealthy would, for better or for worse, get hit pretty hard by this.

Good, the poor already have it too good in this country.

[Tdog]

Yes, but look at it this way.

Say you lose 1k a month to taxes. So, no matter what, you have 1k less every month.

We move to consumption taxes.

You now have 1k more a month. Let's say that essentials are taxed under this consumption model. You're still buying the same amount of groceries and shit, but you have to add more taxes to it. Let's say that increase is 400.

That leaves 600 dollars a month. Let's say investments are taxed at 100% because whoever set the system up is a retard. You're still left with 300 a month for investments that you never had before. If you started early with 300 a month investing, you'd have a couple million by age 60 with modest returns.

See this is all well and good but how do you fund the projects that the goverment is currently working on? IE our roads and other important projects. I am not talking about funding the wars or our military, I am talking about infrastructure projects.

You would not generate enough income to fund those infrastructure projects with a consumption model, you would have to rely on donations from the population and you would lose all that "extra" income you gained by not getting taxed.

[alfaroverall]

Are you talking about government revenue or my individual revenue? The latter being assured and the first I could give a fuck about.
I was talking about government revenue, which is going to have to remain relatively constant no matter what the taxation system is. (The only thing that would necessarily change is that the IRS would no longer need to get paid). You might not care, but the government is going to get (in your example) that $300 from someone.
See this is all well and good but how do you fund the projects that the goverment is currently working on? IE our roads and other important projects. I am not talking about funding the wars or our military, I am talking about infrastructure projects.

You would not generate enough income to fund those infrastructure projects with a consumption model, you would have to rely on donations from the population and you would lose all that "extra" income you gained by not getting taxed.
Well no, which is what I was trying to get at with him. You would have to generate approximately the same amount of revenue under either system. This would mean that the amount that might be gained by the average Joe would have to be paid by someone, which is really (when push comes to shove) not much different from lowering the tax rate on one group and raising it on another.

Just putting this out there as well: as I recall most of the actual important infrastructure projects (things that aren't like the Bridge to Nowhere) are run at the state level, not the federal level. I think the only federal roads are the interstate highways, which are already constructed. Maintenance of them is needed, but is inexpensive when compared with the cost of actually building roads at the state level. I don't know of any other major federal infrastructure projects off the top of my head, care to mention a few?

[Matriel]

See this is all well and good but how do you fund the projects that the goverment is currently working on? IE our roads and other important projects. I am not talking about funding the wars or our military, I am talking about infrastructure projects.

You would not generate enough income to fund those infrastructure projects with a consumption model, you would have to rely on donations from the population and you would lose all that "extra" income you gained by not getting taxed.

Roads are already funded by consumption taxes on gasoline, vehicle fees, and shit like that, not from income taxation.

And yes you would generate enough income. Depending upon the percentage set on sales tax, the government could theoretically generate more income, but the tax level would be crushingly high.

The government also only receives about half of its income from income taxation. Go look at the Federal budget. The problem isn't money, the problem is spending. Spending in this country at the Federal level is fucked.

I was talking about government revenue, which is going to have to remain relatively constant no matter what the taxation system is. (The only thing that would necessarily change is that the IRS would no longer need to get paid). You might not care, but the government is going to get (in your example) that $300 from someone.

Only if you believe that spending has to remain constant. That's okay though, reality is going to burst that little bubble in a few years when the Baby Boomers skullfuck the entire system.

And the government would still receive heaps of revenue. It's not like I'm seeing any shortages of cars at the mall buying shit.

[alfaroverall]

Only if you believe that spending has to remain constant. That's okay though, reality is going to burst that little bubble in a few years when the Baby Boomers skullfuck the entire system.

And the government would still receive heaps of revenue. It's not like I'm seeing any shortages of cars at the mall buying shit.
No, I don't personally agree that spending has to remain constant. I too believe that the spending in this country is way too high at the federal level. But the introduction of a consumption tax system wouldn't change the spending, so if you were to introduce a consumption tax system tomorrow, the revenue that would be taken in would have to at least roughly equivalent to what's being taken in today.

And of course they would receive heaps of revenue. All I'm saying is that there wouldn't suddenly be a decrease in taxation. The money that you would save would have to get paid by someone, assuming spending to be pretty much constant (which it will be, since the government doesn't want to stop and think about what it's doing). So it would be fairer and more efficient, but it wouldn't really be better for any given individual, since some people would pay more and others would pay less (which, again, can be done in an income tax system as well).

[Killuminati]

Here's a tip: Next time, try using facts and reasoning to assemble an argument if you want to disprove his point, instead of just shouting "YOU'RE WRONG!" and hiding behind you're nationalistic wall that filter's out all point's of view that contradict what you're Right-Wing father beat into you with his cobra-skin belt, so that you're virgin ears may remain ignorant and protected.

I don't want to argue with people like you who use feelings as arguments. If he actually gave reasons as to why the free market caused the great depression then I might have wasted my time. Until then continue with your partisan bickering like a vagina liberal that you are.

[Matriel]

No, I don't personally agree that spending has to remain constant. I too believe that the spending in this country is way too high at the federal level. But the introduction of a consumption tax system wouldn't change the spending, so if you were to introduce a consumption tax system tomorrow, the revenue that would be taken in would have to at least roughly equivalent to what's being taken in today.

And of course they would receive heaps of revenue. All I'm saying is that there wouldn't suddenly be a decrease in taxation. The money that you would save would have to get paid by someone, assuming spending to be pretty much constant (which it will be, since the government doesn't want to stop and think about what it's doing). So it would be fairer and more efficient, but it wouldn't really be better for any given individual, since some people would pay more and others would pay less (which, again, can be done in an income tax system as well).

There would be a decrease in taxation though. You aren't actually taxed unless you buy something. If I sit in my house beating off to the same porno dvd I pay no taxes and that's amazing!

I would hope that a loss in revenue would cause spending to drop, but evidently deficit spending is cool. :(

[Killuminati]

There would be a decrease in taxation though. You aren't actually taxed unless you buy something. If I sit in my house beating off to the same porno dvd I pay no taxes and that's amazing!

I would hope that a loss in revenue would cause spending to drop, but evidently deficit spending is cool. :(

You buy porno dvds? What kind of jew are you?

[Honorius]

You buy porno dvds? What kind of jew are you?

He bought one and uses it over and over, showing is frugalness.

[Killuminati]

He bought one and uses it over and over, showing is frugalness.

Ahh

[Axelator]

IF you introduce indirect taxation (or a consumption tax as you like to call it) as a main means of creating tax revenue and cut direct taxes to wages it could either raise the ammount of tax revenue the government receives or decrease it depending on how much they decide to tax people, it would also depend on how price elastic demmand in in the U.S. Then theres the fact that people would have higher wages due to direct tax cuts, which should lead to increased consumer spending, however the higher prices would lower consumer spending so they may cancel each other out or tip it one way or the other.

Of couse in the U.S. consumer spending can not really afford to increase much more as this will lead to inflation (because as well all know consumer spending is a component of AD and when AD increases in an economy where AS is barely increasing inflation occurs).

Persoanlly I favour indirect taxes as it gives the individual an element of choice in wether or not they want to contribute to the tax revenue. However fiscal spending will probably stay the same as the government will simply borrow money to make up the gap if their tax revenue decreases.

[Axelator]

In economics theres always too many factors to think about no normal human can make a 100% statement about what will happen if you are tot inker with the economy in a certain way, all we can do is make educated guesses, which is why its best to leave the economy alone and let the free market take care of itself and allocate resources the most efficiantly except in exceptional circumsatnces (such as total war where rescources need to be allocated specifically to win)

[Krylas]

I don't want to argue with people like you who use feelings as arguments. If he actually gave reasons as to why the free market caused the great depression then I might have wasted my time. Until then continue with your partisan bickering like a vagina liberal that you are.

And I don't feel like arguing with people like you who could care less about the wellbeing of people other than yourself and you're family, but we still do, don't we? Besides, what should he have done? He didn't need to prove his point, there was no counter argument provided by you to debate against it.
Perhaps he didn't provide an entire article on the great depression because he knew that you wouldn't read it anyway. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression)

It's hilarious how Conservatives always try to bring in value's an morals into arguments, but when the other side does as well they act like it doesn't belong there. Considering how politics all come down to personal morals and opinions, I'd say they have a place.

And I'm not a fucking liberal, I'm farther left than that.

[Tiberias]

And I don't feel like arguing with people like you who could care less about the wellbeing of people other than yourself and you're family, but we still do, don't we? Besides, what should he have done? He didn't need to prove his point, there was no counter argument provided by you to debate against it.
Perhaps he didn't provide an entire article on the great depression because he knew that you wouldn't read it anyway. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression)

It's hilarious how Conservatives always try to bring in value's an morals into arguments, but when the other side does as well they act like it doesn't belong there. Considering how politics all come down to personal morals and opinions, I'd say they have a place.

And I'm not a fucking liberal, I'm farther left than that.

What values and morals have been brought up? Just complaints about you guys arguing purely from emotion. It's a joke really.

[Axelator]

ok w/e everyoen just ignore what the guy who studies economics said and keep talking shit, who needs knowledge?

[Tiberias]

Is Malhavok in here?

[Tharkon Fargor]

What values and morals have been brought up? Just complaints about you guys arguing purely from emotion. It's a joke really.

This guy and people like him such as Matriel lack emotions, empathy and morals. God (both muslim and christian) says that greed is evil and that one should help the poor.
Greed is defined as the desire to accumulate excess wealth.


Earlier they said that it's more wrong to steal from he who has accumulated excess wealth than to let a starving child die and that shows how much they care about others than themselves.


Real christian and humanist conservatism that still exists in Europe is being whiped out in the United States and replaced by "neo-conservatism" or in other worlds a new system of values. This in turn is being imposed on the people of the United States much harder and faster than what even the most radical liberals would ever imagine imposing their ideas upon the general US population.

Many of these neo-conservative ideas are in direct opposition to the old conservative values of America. True, America has and will always be different to Europe and yes you just like everyone ellse had lower taxes in the past. But this goes so far beyond economy and taxes.
Americans no longer see their community and their fellow men and women as the most important thing to help and build.

Without the "good neighbourhood spirit" that existed in the past the United States would have crumbled. That system in which doctors treated poor patients for free or in which communities built churches and schools together with their bare hands.

These sort of values which in Europe manifest themselves as "Social-Conservative or Christian-Democratic" are being replaced for a system of values in where only the individuals ammount of wealth and success matters.

It's all about "making a carrier" for yourself nowdays... that's what more and more young people strive for. Not to create a better community or a better world. Not even to create a happy and good life for oneself. Just to have the best car, the biggest gold chain, the flattest TV. In addopting this we have not only forsaken our values and traditions but also ourselves. We have forgotten who we as humans truly are. A species that depends on each other and the well being of the tribe. The "Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" is no longer enough. Now people strive to get their backs scratched preferably scratching as few backs themselves as possible.

The sin "greed" together with other sins such as vanity has become the meaning of life for many especially in the United States.


So that's my view on traditions and values and true conservatism or christian humanism and what is left of it.

[Matriel]

So, your argument that people shouldn't be greedy is that god says so? I stopped reading after the first paragraph because my limit for stupidity has been reached today. I just find that really fucking funny.

[Tharkon Fargor]

If you have no desire to read my replies then I have no real desire to answer your questions neither, sarcastic or not.

[Matriel]

If you have no desire to read my replies then I have no real desire to answer your questions neither, sarcastic or not.

Haha read the whole thing. Not only did you completely misjudge America, you did base your argument off of Christian ideals. LOL.

[Axelator]

So, your argument that people shouldn't be greedy is that god says so? I stopped reading after the first paragraph because my limit for stupidity has been reached today. I just find that really fucking funny.

Do you beleive any support net should be availble for those out of work or unable to work?

[Spineless_DoO]

Do you beleive any support net should be availble for those out of work or unable to work?

We already have spiffy unemployment in the US. Its handled mostly at a state level. Some states who dont have the government resources to handle it allow for federal oversight but most if not nearly all do it on there own. Its a fair system that requires you the person recieving the benifits to put into the system before you can take out of it. It also has very clear and defined rules to keep people from leaching off of it.

Welfare is 100% bullshit. It creates massive super low income communities of the most lazy pos people you will ever find. Its against the law bottom line for a good reason but yet still takes place. We pay for whores to spread there legs and breed like roaches.

The dissability system here in NJ is primo. They use many methods to create jobs for the dissabled, housing, logs of charity programs and just all around very detailed help. Its perfect. Its far above and beyond most states because this state as fucked up as it is took control of the system itself.

As long as these "nets" are done localy by the state or sub governments they are legal and usualy much more affective. As history has always showed, all types of central government will fail along with just about any large regulatory structure.

[Tharkon Fargor]

Perhaps. But then income taxes should be on national level and then equally distributed to the states/regions and then the states/regions can take care of those needing help.

[Killuminati]

And I don't feel like arguing with people like you who could care less about the wellbeing of people other than yourself and you're family, but we still do, don't we? Besides, what should he have done? He didn't need to prove his point, there was no counter argument provided by you to debate against it.
Perhaps he didn't provide an entire article on the great depression because he knew that you wouldn't read it anyway. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Great_Depression)

It's hilarious how Conservatives always try to bring in value's an morals into arguments, but when the other side does as well they act like it doesn't belong there. Considering how politics all come down to personal morals and opinions, I'd say they have a place.

And I'm not a fucking liberal, I'm farther left than that.

Wait so wikipedia is all you got? Well...I guess you could save me the trouble of educating you by reading the Austrian explanation in the link.

[Axelator]

We already have spiffy unemployment in the US. Its handled mostly at a state level. Some states who dont have the government resources to handle it allow for federal oversight but most if not nearly all do it on there own. Its a fair system that requires you the person recieving the benifits to put into the system before you can take out of it. It also has very clear and defined rules to keep people from leaching off of it.

Welfare is 100% bullshit. It creates massive super low income communities of the most lazy pos people you will ever find. Its against the law bottom line for a good reason but yet still takes place. We pay for whores to spread there legs and breed like roaches.

The dissability system here in NJ is primo. They use many methods to create jobs for the dissabled, housing, logs of charity programs and just all around very detailed help. Its perfect. Its far above and beyond most states because this state as fucked up as it is took control of the system itself.

As long as these "nets" are done localy by the state or sub governments they are legal and usualy much more affective. As history has always showed, all types of central government will fail along with just about any large regulatory structure.

I think as we are a society we need the welfare state to provide certain things, in terms of benefits I beleive those who are unemployed should receive the minimum they need to survive, for this they would have to perform community service and begin retraining so they can get a job and are not stuck poor for ever, there needs to be universal health care and education, these are public goods and have many positive externalities.

Personally I think those who are born disabled should not receive benefits it's not up to the state to compensate you for the cards fate dealt you.

I agree with you on the closer the governers are to the people they are governing the more in touch they can be and they can provide a more efficient service, but within a country there needs to be nation wide standards imo. Like the law must be the same in all the governed areas and so must tax etc.

[Surly]

I tried to submit a vote without checking any options :(

[Matriel]

Do you beleive any support net should be availble for those out of work or unable to work?

No. Ideally both of those would be handled by charity.

In a compromisng world, the 2nd one would be okay if done at a local/state level where it could remain efficient and catch fraud. Unemployment Insurance is a pat on the back for lack of planning. Although as it stands now, I would recommned anyone qualifying for it to use it since they are forced to pay into it.

[Spineless_DoO]

I think as we are a society we need the welfare state to provide certain things, in terms of benefits I beleive those who are unemployed should receive the minimum they need to survive, for this they would have to perform community service and begin retraining so they can get a job and are not stuck poor for ever, there needs to be universal health care and education, these are public goods and have many positive externalities.

Personally I think those who are born disabled should not receive benefits it's not up to the state to compensate you for the cards fate dealt you.

I agree with you on the closer the governers are to the people they are governing the more in touch they can be and they can provide a more efficient service, but within a country there needs to be nation wide standards imo. Like the law must be the same in all the governed areas and so must tax etc.

I would love to see more people put to work in order to recieve benifits. The one example of this recently was the NYC area. Rudy had people working for less then the state minimum. It was a dissaster of a great magnitude. Those of us who live in the area knew Rudy was on a campain to rid the NYC area of all the lower class. He managed to replace them with aliens. Those few who are able to get into the system for help got forced into horrible jobs. Granted they gave back to the community. The problem was these jobs did not even meet the standards of the state or federal gov. In todays world men like him would abuse the system. In a place like NYC its easy to pull off because of the high population of elitists and those working for them being loyal on a local level. Its a dangerous scenario all around but I agree that it should take place but other states will have to set a better example. I dont however think my state of NJ or any other part of the country have a right to interfear. That is up to the voters of that area. A bit harsh yes but I believe it is needed.

When it comes to those dissabled we have more then enough charity in the NJ/NY area to take care of them. I agree, its not anyones fault and nobody should be forced into stealthy slavory to pay for fate. The problem, and many in the health and human services would probably agree is that the large runaway centralised way things operate these days is driving up costs for everything. Real insurance is almost a fairy tale. So many other non deserving, legaly and moraly non deserving entitlements exist that charity no longer cuts it. So in turn instead of leading by example, giving out of kindness, that tight community bond of old has eroded. Removing the incom tax in accordance with the constitution imo would fix most of it but thats another topic all together.

I dont think anyone here can argue that local governing bodies better represent the people who elect them. I guess that is a no brainer. The problem I see comes in when you centralise anything realy. One of the reasons I see the constitution as THE best document ever written in all of history. Being nothing more then a road map to allow people to govern themselfs minimaly and localy to allow for a higher amount of personal freedom its realy not law. Its kind of common sense imo but thats for everyone to decide for themself. The common law we all share here is the constitution. I believe its the only common law we should share to allow for better representation of the people in each state. Its what makes America so different from other countries. While we share a great deal of simularities with the rest of the world we are just as much different. I will admit we are starting to become more simular then different as of late though.

[Spineless_DoO]

No. Ideally both of those would be handled by charity.

In a compromisng world, the 2nd one would be okay if done at a local/state level where it could remain efficient and catch fraud. Unemployment Insurance is a pat on the back for lack of planning. Although as it stands now, I would recommned anyone qualifying for it to use it since they are forced to pay into it.

Does anyone know what differences from state to state when conserning taxes after collecting unemployment. I could never find any usefull information. I hear all kinds of stories about people who collected and then got assbanged come tax time because of it. I think its ironic considering how long and much you pay into a system like that. I wonder if it actualy is more of a hinderance then a benifit in some states.

[Matriel]

Does anyone know what differences from state to state when conserning taxes after collecting unemployment. I could never find any usefull information. I hear all kinds of stories about people who collected and then got assbanged come tax time because of it. I think its ironic considering how long and much you pay into a system like that. I wonder if it actualy is more of a hinderance then a benifit in some states.

In Kentucky you can have taxes withheld from UI compensation to keep from being assfucked come tax time. Don't know about any other states. The guy that was almost my father