With the overcomplicated tax codes that we see today there are many average Joes who do make mistakes on their taxes (me included). And with so many people complaining that their boss pays less than them with all the tax credits and loopholes, And with business owners complaining about why do they have to pay so much when half the country doesn't pay a dime. I have developed an idea and it's simple. Instead of all the math that you have to do in order to figure out what you owe (take the square root of this and multiply here and add there and you get this exemption and this is tax at this rate and the other).
Now to understand where I'm coming from, you must understand that the government was designed to be blind. It's only supposed to ensure that you get the same opportunity as another person. It's not supposed to care whether who is more needy and who is fatter. Tax the rich is like saying let's give the blood god the blood from the fat guy because the fat guy has blood he doesn't need. Since we're on a Warhammer site, take the Tyranid Hive Guard he's blind, all he know is he is supposed to protect the Hive and he doesn't care who he is protect it from.
How do we make it fair?
If everyone does their share then everyone doesn't have to do a lot, but if only a few do the work of everyone then those few have to do the work of everyone, teamwork 101
First we say that those who right the budget have to submit it 1 year in advance or no taxes will be collected. The last census put the population of the united states at 311 million, of that number 21% (65.3 million) of the population was age 15 and under also 16% (50 million) of the population was age 60 and over. So if we have 196 million left of the taxable population. and now we simply do spending over population.
Lets say the government wanted to spend $1.4 trillion dollars need year, the dividend would be $7142.86 for each person between the ages of 15 and 60. And that my friends is when the effect of government spending is staring you in the face.
Now let's look at that if the government were to reduce spending
How ever if the government were to reduce that spending to $700 billion dollars (which is our national defense budget alone, right now) the dividend would be also cut in half to $3571.43 which is manageable for even those making $16,000 a year.
The difference is that at with spending at 1.4 trillion your taxation rate will be 44.6% and the rate at 700 billion is 22.3%
Only everybody takes their true fair share of the load and spending is brought under control is it truly fair and simple to have taxation.
broodstar wrote:Hey look cut the government in half and everyone does their fair share and hey look the country works. who would have thought!
Especially when our economy tanks, our food suddenly has a tonne of lead, we can't afford to either upkeep the nuclear arsenal OR dismantle it, we can't enforce spectrum rules since the FCC vanished, the post office is suddenly gone, all our old people can't afford anything anymore (and then die), all forms of economic regulation become impossible (everyone got fired and we have no economy now anyway), all forms of regulation in education vanish, social security checks stop getting mailed, A significant number of all state services vanish (states receive federal funding!), and unemployment checks become a thing of the past!
I mean, it's ok, we have to pay less taxes. What is the total destruction of the economy compared to having an easier time with the tax code?
Do you mean to tell me that you can not survive without the government. You can not choose what you watch without the Federal Communication Commission telling you what programming is safe? You still use the Post Office? Why when the private sector can do it faster and cheaper? You need Social Security? That's what retirement savings is for! If there are no economic regulation then you can go out and start working for yourself. There is something called the freemarket and if you allow it to work, it works. The economy won't be destroyed it will revert back to the way it is supposed to be.
And I'll tell you if you can't live without the government in your life, congratulations you are a sheep.
broodstar wrote:Hey look cut the government in half and everyone does their fair share and hey look the country works. Who would have thought!
Why do your fair share when you can make other people do it for you?
broodstar wrote:
Now to understand where I'm coming from, you must understand that the government was designed to be blind.
If you believe that, then I have a bridge to sell you.
I'm also interested in how we're going to define "fair". Saying everyone does their "fair share" is no more specific than saying "It should be fair." and does not advance the conversation, as its simply naive idealism.
broodstar wrote:
The difference is that at with spending at 1.4 trillion your taxation rate will be 44.6% and the rate at 700 billion is 22.3%
How are you calculating a 44.6% tax rate without any statistics on income? Are you assuming an income of 16,000 USD? Because if that's the case, and you're proposing that the flat tax you're applying is in gross dollars, rather than a percentage of income, then your tax is heavily regressive (and taxes many people that are not currently taxed at all). Now, if you're assuming a percentage, then it actually develops far more revenue than you're claiming.
broodstar wrote:
The economy won't be destroyed it will revert back to the way it is supposed to be.
There's a way that the economy is supposed to be?
I had no idea that divine providence governed matters of commerce.
broodstar wrote:
And I'll tell you if you can't live without the government in your life, congratulations you are a sheep.
As opposed to being a free thinking individual who appears to place total faith in an abstract concept.
The freemarket does exist.
Let's take GM, for a while they were making gak cars that no one wants to buy, and they went broke, now here is where it changes,
Under the freemarket if you produce gak and no one buys it you go broke and you disappear your not bailed out at the cost of everyone else. Gm should be gone for making those stupid hybrid cars nobody wanted to buy. And replaced with the next car Company.
So it's abstract to believe that the market will regulate itself based on the action of the consumer and not by the bureaucrat?
$3571.43 which is manageable for even those making $16,000 a year.
Have you ever tried living on 16K a year? Lets assume your taxes of $3,500 go into effect? My apartment, by itself, is $700 a month, costing a total of $8,400. So we're down to 4.1K. Gas bill? $35 a month. So there's another $420 gone. Down to 3.7K. Electric bill, $95. If I didn't own a computer, TV, etc. that would probably go down to $70. Only another $840 a year. Down to 2.9K. Water bill, $200 per 3 months, there's another $800. Down to 2.1K. Gas to go to-from work? Lets say you only need to fill up once a month (unlikely), $50 a month... another $600 right there. Down to 1.5K. That leaves me with $31.25 a week to eat. Or $4.50 a day. So, I'll never be able to afford new clothes, car repairs, any form of entertainment, kids, you name it.
EDIT: Now, if you were to say, suggest a flat tax rate of 10% of your income... that's not a ridiculous idea.
$3571.43 which is manageable for even those making $16,000 a year.
Have you ever tried living on 16K a year? Lets assume your taxes of $3,500 go into effect? My apartment, by itself, is $700 a month, costing a total of $8,400. So we're down to 4.1K. Gas bill? $35 a month. So there's another $420 gone. Down to 3.7K. Electric bill, $95. If I didn't own a computer, TV, etc. that would probably go down to $70. Only another $840 a year. Down to 2.9K. Water bill, $200 per 3 months, there's another $800. Down to 2.1K. Gas to go to-from work? Lets say you only need to fill up once a month (unlikely), $50 a month... another $600 right there. Down to 1.5K. That leaves me with $31.25 a week to eat. Or $4.50 a day. So, I'll never be able to afford new clothes, car repairs, any form of entertainment, kids, you name it.
EDIT: Now, if you were to say, suggest a flat tax rate of 10% of your income... that's not a ridiculous idea.
I don't agree or disagree with your point, but I think some of those numbers are a bit off, if the premise is that you're making $16K a year($700 for monthly rent is quite high, for instance).
broodstar wrote:Hey look cut the government in half and everyone does their fair share and hey look the country works. Who would have thought!
Why do your fair share when you can make other people do it for you?
broodstar wrote:
Now to understand where I'm coming from, you must understand that the government was designed to be blind.
If you believe that, then I have a bridge to sell you.
I'm also interested in how we're going to define "fair". Saying everyone does their "fair share" is no more specific than saying "It should be fair." and does not advance the conversation, as its simply naive idealism.
broodstar wrote:
The difference is that at with spending at 1.4 trillion your taxation rate will be 44.6% and the rate at 700 billion is 22.3%
How are you calculating a 44.6% tax rate without any statistics on income? Are you assuming an income of 16,000 USD? Because if that's the case, and you're proposing that the flat tax you're applying is in gross dollars, rather than a percentage of income, then your tax is heavily regressive (and taxes many people that are not currently taxed at all). Now, if you're assuming a percentage, then it actually develops far more revenue than you're claiming.
1.And that my friend is class warfare.
2.Read "The Letters of Confederation" It's the letters the founding father wrote to each other when they where discussing how the country should be setup, you actually see what they were thinking about when they wrote and signed the constitution. (And this country is far away from the way it was setup.)
3.Everybody having equal portions.
4.yes, In flat gross dollars. The percentage represents the burden on each person financially.
$3571.43 which is manageable for even those making $16,000 a year.
Have you ever tried living on 16K a year? Lets assume your taxes of $3,500 go into effect? My apartment, by itself, is $700 a month, costing a total of $8,400. So we're down to 4.1K. Gas bill? $35 a month. So there's another $420 gone. Down to 3.7K. Electric bill, $95. If I didn't own a computer, TV, etc. that would probably go down to $70. Only another $840 a year. Down to 2.9K. Water bill, $200 per 3 months, there's another $800. Down to 2.1K. Gas to go to-from work? Lets say you only need to fill up once a month (unlikely), $50 a month... another $600 right there. Down to 1.5K. That leaves me with $31.25 a week to eat. Or $4.50 a day. So, I'll never be able to afford new clothes, car repairs, any form of entertainment, kids, you name it.
EDIT: Now, if you were to say, suggest a flat tax rate of 10% of your income... that's not a ridiculous idea.
I don't agree or disagree with your point, but I think some of those numbers are a bit off, if the premise is that you're making $16K a year($700 for monthly rent is quite high, for instance).
All depends on where you live. Where I am (middle of nowhere, Illinois) the cheapest apartments available are $511 a month. And those are Section-8, 1 bedroom apartments. You know what's not going to get very much funding if you eliminate half the government budget? Low-income housing!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:
1.And that my friend is class warfare.
And your idea is class warfare against the poor. Someone making 16K a year is paying close to 25% of their income in taxes with your proposal. Someone making 350K a year is paying 1%. You are placing a larget burden on the poor than you are the rich. Class warfare! I can use buzzwords too!
$3571.43 which is manageable for even those making $16,000 a year.
Have you ever tried living on 16K a year? Lets assume your taxes of $3,500 go into effect? My apartment, by itself, is $700 a month, costing a total of $8,400. So we're down to 4.1K. Gas bill? $35 a month. So there's another $420 gone. Down to 3.7K. Electric bill, $95. If I didn't own a computer, TV, etc. that would probably go down to $70. Only another $840 a year. Down to 2.9K. Water bill, $200 per 3 months, there's another $800. Down to 2.1K. Gas to go to-from work? Lets say you only need to fill up once a month (unlikely), $50 a month... another $600 right there. Down to 1.5K. That leaves me with $31.25 a week to eat. Or $4.50 a day. So, I'll never be able to afford new clothes, car repairs, any form of entertainment, kids, you name it.
EDIT: Now, if you were to say, suggest a flat tax rate of 10% of your income... that's not a ridiculous idea.
I've done it. My Ex was one that got laid off (of which I was sympathetic) but November turn to December and on and on long store short I supported her for 2 years (which was in retrospect was really stupid). So there I was going to work everyday and living off of 1 income with my 500 a month apartment, 25 dollar a month water, 100 dollar a month lights, 30 dollar gas during the winter, I walked to work and only used the car when needed, I survived on roman noodle 22 cents a day, TV and internet was off.
But I lived within my means.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shrike325 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:
1.And that my friend is class warfare.
And your idea is class warfare against the poor. Someone making 16K a year is paying close to 25% of their income in taxes with your proposal. Someone making 350K a year is paying 1%. You are placing a larget burden on the poor than you are the rich. Class warfare! I can use buzzwords too!
Nothing motivates more than being broke, I know I've been there, And I did it without even foodstamps! And if you actually add up your income tax you, sales tax, your gas tax, you communications tax, etc, etc you'll find your already being taxed at 50% of your income, it's just not right in front of your face, so people tend to not notice it.
$3571.43 which is manageable for even those making $16,000 a year.
Have you ever tried living on 16K a year? Lets assume your taxes of $3,500 go into effect? My apartment, by itself, is $700 a month, costing a total of $8,400. So we're down to 4.1K. Gas bill? $35 a month. So there's another $420 gone. Down to 3.7K. Electric bill, $95. If I didn't own a computer, TV, etc. that would probably go down to $70. Only another $840 a year. Down to 2.9K. Water bill, $200 per 3 months, there's another $800. Down to 2.1K. Gas to go to-from work? Lets say you only need to fill up once a month (unlikely), $50 a month... another $600 right there. Down to 1.5K. That leaves me with $31.25 a week to eat. Or $4.50 a day. So, I'll never be able to afford new clothes, car repairs, any form of entertainment, kids, you name it.
EDIT: Now, if you were to say, suggest a flat tax rate of 10% of your income... that's not a ridiculous idea.
I've done it. My Ex was one that got laid off (of which I was sympathetic) but November turn to December and on and on long store short I supported her for 2 years (which was in retrospect was really stupid). So there I was going to work everyday and living off of 1 income with my 500 a month apartment, 25 dollar a month water, 100 dollar a month lights, 30 dollar gas during the winter, I walked to work and only used the car when needed, I survived on roman noodle 22 cents a day, TV and internet was off.
But I lived within my means.
.
And how much were you making? And how much were you being taxed? And if there was a flat, 3.5K tax applied to you, could you have afforded 22 cent ramen? I, too, have lived like that, and I don't wish it upon anyone.
I believe I could have. I made 16.2k a year, the income tax is about 15%. I believe I could handle it, because I believe that with the taxes gone the price of good would go down too (when you tax a corporation it doesn't pay the taxes, it passes them on to the consumer. When you tax a corporation you're taxing yourself) the communications tax is 20% so your 50 dollar phone bills would go down 10 dollars. Add up things like that and it gets to be pretty damn big.
1) A flat tax refers to a flat rate of tax. What you're referring to here is, like, a tax bill or something. It doesn't really have a name because it's so crazy no-one ever tried to argue for it ever before.
2) 'Let's have a smaller government because then it'd be cheaper for all of us' isn't really much of an answer to anything.
3) Arguments that the government should return to what the Founding Fathers were thinking of when they set up the Federal Government are very naive. The government needed to support an economy built around small, semi-commercial agriculture is completely different to the government needed to support a modern, high tech, fully commercial economy.
broodstar wrote:Do you mean to tell me that you can not survive without the government. You can not choose what you watch without the Federal Communication Commission telling you what programming is safe? You still use the Post Office? Why when the private sector can do it faster and cheaper? You need Social Security? That's what retirement savings is for! If there are no economic regulation then you can go out and start working for yourself. There is something called the freemarket and if you allow it to work, it works. The economy won't be destroyed it will revert back to the way it is supposed to be.
And I'll tell you if you can't live without the government in your life, congratulations you are a sheep.
Ahh, so the economy is supposed to consist of agrarian farming and roving bands of barbarians. Or is it supposed to be some sort of laissez faire bs controlled by titannic international conglomerates? Did you know that any centralized authority with power over a populace (as private business would become if totally freed from any form of oversight) is a government? Do you have any idea what you're talking about at even a bare level?
Yeah, I'm the sheep. Have fun with your ron paul blimps and gold standards. I'm gonna live out here in reality.
1) A flat tax refers to a flat rate of tax. What you're referring to here is, like, a tax bill or something. It doesn't really have a name because it's so crazy no-one ever tried to argue for it ever before.
2) 'Let's have a smaller government because then it'd be cheaper for all of us' isn't really much of an answer to anything.
3) Arguments that the government should return to what the Founding Fathers were thinking of when they set up the Federal Government are very naive. The government needed to support an economy built around small, semi-commercial agriculture is completely different to the government needed to support a modern, high tech, fully commercial economy.
1. Maybe you've just found someone crazy enough to argue whether we should take all the billions small of small bills and collect them in one bill.
2. If you like that Big government get ready, you'll love the big government collapse at the big government default.
3. This one actually caused me to stop and think for a minute. I believe that a larger government than the Founding Fathers is needed but, there is a difference between large government and a big government. Let's take the military for example: The primary role is to defend the country, and we've got states bigger than most countries, but there are people that think that the military should defend the borders, defend other nations borders, protect shipping lanes, nation build, fight the war on terror, fight the war on drugs, police the internet, and the list goes on and on. And politicians have trouble turning down such noble goals. But, I think the military and government should stick to a few lanes of activity.
2. If you like that Big government get ready, you'll love the big government collapse at the big government default.
As opposed to the big government collapse when it institutes an insane and impossible tax plan that would cause it to collapse immediately. So are you for or against collapse..?
3. This one actually caused me to stop and think for a minute. I believe that a larger government than the Founding Fathers is needed but, there is a difference between large government and a big government. Let's take the military for example: The primary role is to defend the country, and we've got states bigger than most countries, but there are people that think that the military should defend the borders, defend other nations borders, protect shipping lanes, nation build, fight the war on terror, fight the war on drugs, police the internet, and the list goes on and on. And politicians have trouble turning down such noble goals. But, I think the military and government should stick to a few lanes of activity.
So your definition of a big government as opposed to a large one is just a militarily active one..? Did you know that the greatest economic expansion in western history followed world war two in the United States? A time during which we were exceptionally active militarily.
broodstar wrote:Do you mean to tell me that you can not survive without the government. You can not choose what you watch without the Federal Communication Commission telling you what programming is safe? You still use the Post Office? Why when the private sector can do it faster and cheaper? You need Social Security? That's what retirement savings is for! If there are no economic regulation then you can go out and start working for yourself. There is something called the freemarket and if you allow it to work, it works. The economy won't be destroyed it will revert back to the way it is supposed to be.
And I'll tell you if you can't live without the government in your life, congratulations you are a sheep.
Ahh, so the economy is supposed to consist of agrarian farming and roving bands of barbarians. Or is it supposed to be some sort of laissez faire bs controlled by titannic international conglomerates? Did you know that any centralized authority with power over a populace (as private business would become if totally freed from any form of oversight) is a government? Do you have any idea what you're talking about at even a bare level?
Yeah, I'm the sheep. Have fun with your ron paul blimps and gold standards. I'm gonna live out here in reality.
Titanic international conglomerates, you mean like BP? or McDonald's? or Zales? or Honda? those titanic international Company? Can I ask you something, how does a business force the customer to buy a produce? it's allowing capitalism to take it's coarse, it's not communism or fascism.
One should always PAY for what one GETS . This is the most basic and fair fact that even every smallest child knows. If you get something you PAY for it and if you don't PAY if you're not NOT GETTING ANYTHING . This is simple, understand even a simpleton can grasp this.
Taxes should come from those that GET the most from them. If you're using public schools, taking food stamps, taking buses you should PAY MORE because you GET MORE .
If you're working hard and standing on your own like a real adult, buying your own food, paying for your kids to have a decent education, hire people to drive your cars (instead of relying on public employees) you should PAY LESS because you are TAKING LESS .
Taking money from people who have it (Because they did the work to earn it) taking it for people who "need" because they aren't working as hard or as well to EARN it is STEALING.
If you want to solve the spending issue, cut 100% of these "Social" programs, which are honestly just an excuse for lefties to buy votes (with YOUR TAX MONEY) from crack whores, illegal immigrants, whiners, and in generally everyone afraid to man-up and really work.
2. If you like that Big government get ready, you'll love the big government collapse at the big government default.
As opposed to the big government collapse when it institutes an insane and impossible tax plan that would cause it to collapse immediately. So are you for or against collapse..?
3. This one actually caused me to stop and think for a minute. I believe that a larger government than the Founding Fathers is needed but, there is a difference between large government and a big government. Let's take the military for example: The primary role is to defend the country, and we've got states bigger than most countries, but there are people that think that the military should defend the borders, defend other nations borders, protect shipping lanes, nation build, fight the war on terror, fight the war on drugs, police the internet, and the list goes on and on. And politicians have trouble turning down such noble goals. But, I think the military and government should stick to a few lanes of activity.
So your definition of a big government as opposed to a large one is just a militarily active one..? Did you know that the greatest economic expansion in western history followed world war two in the United States? A time during which we were exceptionally active militarily.
1. First of all, I'm consolidating and forcing a balance in the budget. Explain how shrinking and balancing the budget and consolidating taxes will lead to a collapse?
2. I'm sorry I must have been sleeping, did I miss WW3? we're not fighting other nations, we're fighting punks with a gun that doesn't even shoot right. That expansion came from the teching during that war being brought home. If we just got out of a major war I would say you are correct, but gak we as a nation haven't been in a position like that since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
1) A flat tax refers to a flat rate of tax. What you're referring to here is, like, a tax bill or something. It doesn't really have a name because it's so crazy no-one ever tried to argue for it ever before.
2) 'Let's have a smaller government because then it'd be cheaper for all of us' isn't really much of an answer to anything.
3) Arguments that the government should return to what the Founding Fathers were thinking of when they set up the Federal Government are very naive. The government needed to support an economy built around small, semi-commercial agriculture is completely different to the government needed to support a modern, high tech, fully commercial economy.
1. Maybe you've just found someone crazy enough to argue whether we should take all the billions small of small bills and collect them in one bill.
Flat taxes are not used because they levy a heftier amount upon those who struggle in the first place. 100 dollars means NOTHING if you're well off. It can mean eating for a week if you're poor. As such flat taxes are regarded as regressive for this reason. The 999 tax rate would not last and would cause major problems. Notice how the people who supported it are rather gone from the debate?
2. If you like that Big government get ready, you'll love the big government collapse at the big government default.
The US government will not collapse. As hefty as the deficit is, it is nothing compared to the resources, labor and capital the US has. If the US needed to it can pay off it's debt in any number of ways. Nobody will like it, but the option is there.
3. This one actually caused me to stop and think for a minute. I believe that a larger government than the Founding Fathers is needed but, there is a difference between large government and a big government. Let's take the military for example: The primary role is to defend the country, and we've got states bigger than most countries, but there are people that think that the military should defend the borders, defend other nations borders, protect shipping lanes, nation build, fight the war on terror, fight the war on drugs, police the internet, and the list goes on and on. And politicians have trouble turning down such noble goals. But, I think the military and government should stick to a few lanes of activity.
A lot of these problems came up as Europeans stopped playing world conquering games. The Middle East and Africa exist on the map as you see it today because of European expansion. The US military's function is not really a budgetary discussion. The amount we spend on making it what it is, however, is a matter of discussion.
There is no difference between large and big. They mean the same. As much as I hate discussing the founding fathers, they in no way anticipated anything that came after their time. The Articles of Confederation could be seen as proof of how short sighted they could be. It was terribly unbinding and loose. The biggest foresight any of them had was that slavery might crop up again as an issue later. They could not anticipate industrialization, the increase of banks, the invention of the stock market, World War 1, the era of gangsters, the crash of the stock market, World War 2, the Cold War, the spread of media, the public education system, the rise of terrorism, women's rights, race rights and any other of the many revolutions, inventions and changes that has happened to the world. The best thing they did was allow the Constitution to change to adapt to what was going on. The founding fathers are not divine savants gifted to us. They were just a bunch of the smartest guys at the time.
The real problems with government spending come from pork barrel spending and pandering. Real market distortions come from subsidies and price ceilings and floors. Regulations are there because businesses have proven themselves in the past to be untrustworthy. The FDA didn't pop up because government just wanted to burden businesses for no reason, they earned the FDA by serving contaminated food. Osha isn't around to give employees a way to strike back at their boss, it's there because work environs can get that hazardous. The EPA isn't just a group of tree hugers, they're actually trying to stop companies from dumping waste all over the place. The fact that Republicans are so resistant to regulating the stockmarket is baffling. They proved they are not worthy of the people's trust and they need laws and organizations to stop them from doing it again. That is why regulations and laws exist. They aren't even a significant portion of the budget and yet people act like they're hemorrhaging money regulating.
Chongara wrote:One should always PAY for what one GETS . This is the most basic and fair fact that even every smallest child knows. If you get something you PAY for it and if you don't PAY if you're not NOT GETTING ANYTHING . This is simple, understand even a simpleton can grasp this.
Taxes should come from those that GET the most from them. If you're using public schools, taking food stamps, taking buses you should PAY MORE because you GET MORE .
If you're working hard and standing on your own like a real adult, buying your own food, paying for your kids to have a decent education, hire people to drive your cars (instead of relying on public employees) you should PAY LESS because you are TAKING LESS .
Taking money from people who have it (Because they did the work to earn it) taking it for people who "need" because they aren't working as hard or as well to EARN it is STEALING.
If you want to solve the spending issue, cut 100% of these "Social" programs, which are honestly just an excuse for lefties to buy votes (with YOUR TAX MONEY) from crack whores, illegal immigrants, whiners, and in generally everyone afraid to man-up and really work.
(sigh) finally someone who halfway understands what I'm getting at.
broodstar wrote:Do you mean to tell me that you can not survive without the government. You can not choose what you watch without the Federal Communication Commission telling you what programming is safe? You still use the Post Office? Why when the private sector can do it faster and cheaper? You need Social Security? That's what retirement savings is for! If there are no economic regulation then you can go out and start working for yourself. There is something called the freemarket and if you allow it to work, it works. The economy won't be destroyed it will revert back to the way it is supposed to be.
And I'll tell you if you can't live without the government in your life, congratulations you are a sheep.
Ahh, so the economy is supposed to consist of agrarian farming and roving bands of barbarians. Or is it supposed to be some sort of laissez faire bs controlled by titannic international conglomerates? Did you know that any centralized authority with power over a populace (as private business would become if totally freed from any form of oversight) is a government? Do you have any idea what you're talking about at even a bare level?
Yeah, I'm the sheep. Have fun with your ron paul blimps and gold standards. I'm gonna live out here in reality.
Titanic international conglomerates, you mean like BP? or McDonald's? or Zales? or Honda? those titanic international Company? Can I ask you something, how does a business force the customer to buy a produce? it's allowing capitalism to take it's coarse, it's not communism or fascism.
The way they did it in the 1800s. They way they do it in Indonesia, china, and Mexico today. You think companies can't buy guns? Just who do you think it is that keeps them from putting a gun to your head and telling you to buy their product? Guess who it is that makes sure that when you want to say "this job sucks, I quit!" you actually get to leave the building without being beaten to death. It sure as hell isn't the free market.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:
Chongara wrote:One should always PAY for what one GETS . This is the most basic and fair fact that even every smallest child knows. If you get something you PAY for it and if you don't PAY if you're not NOT GETTING ANYTHING . This is simple, understand even a simpleton can grasp this.
Taxes should come from those that GET the most from them. If you're using public schools, taking food stamps, taking buses you should PAY MORE because you GET MORE .
If you're working hard and standing on your own like a real adult, buying your own food, paying for your kids to have a decent education, hire people to drive your cars (instead of relying on public employees) you should PAY LESS because you are TAKING LESS .
Taking money from people who have it (Because they did the work to earn it) taking it for people who "need" because they aren't working as hard or as well to EARN it is STEALING.
If you want to solve the spending issue, cut 100% of these "Social" programs, which are honestly just an excuse for lefties to buy votes (with YOUR TAX MONEY) from crack whores, illegal immigrants, whiners, and in generally everyone afraid to man-up and really work.
(sigh) finally someone who halfway understands what I'm getting at.
Ahh, you're siding with Chongara. Truly you two will be happy together .
broodstar wrote:1. Maybe you've just found someone crazy enough to argue whether we should take all the billions small of small bills and collect them in one bill.
I'm pretty sure total government expenditures have been calculated every year since around 1776, give or take. What's completely new is saying everyone should pay an equal portion of that total.
2. If you like that Big government get ready, you'll love the big government collapse at the big government default.
That isn't an argument, that's just repeating the word big three times.
3. This one actually caused me to stop and think for a minute. I believe that a larger government than the Founding Fathers is needed but, there is a difference between large government and a big government. Let's take the military for example: The primary role is to defend the country, and we've got states bigger than most countries, but there are people that think that the military should defend the borders, defend other nations borders, protect shipping lanes, nation build, fight the war on terror, fight the war on drugs, police the internet, and the list goes on and on. And politicians have trouble turning down such noble goals. But, I think the military and government should stick to a few lanes of activity.
Okay, cool, now we can get down to the nuts and bolts of the issue. I agree with you on US military spending, it doesn't need to be anywhere near the level it is presently. And it's bloat has most definitely come from loose government controls. But let's say you cut that by 50%, and save $350 billion. Well then you've only cut, give or take, 10% from the Federal Budget. To make any real impact you've got to look at Health and Social Security. And cuts there will very quickly start taking apart the fabric of the modern economy.
One big thing to remember is down here in Oz we've got about 6% debt, measured against GDP, and we've only really got that because the downturn in economic activity during the GFC we took the opportunity to invest in school infrastructure and broadband. So we can run a basically balanced budget while still giving more to the unemployed, the elderly and the disabled.
At which point it becomes clear that the deficit isn't just the result of too great a welfare network. If that were the case the US would have a much larger surplus than anyone else, because you are so much harsher in your welfare payments. So you have to consider that maybe the problem lies elsewhere.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chongara wrote:One should always PAY for what one GETS . This is the most basic and fair fact that even every smallest child knows. If you get something you PAY for it and if you don't PAY if you're not NOT GETTING ANYTHING . This is simple, understand even a simpleton can grasp this.
Taxes should come from those that GET the most from them. If you're using public schools, taking food stamps, taking buses you should PAY MORE because you GET MORE .
If you're working hard and standing on your own like a real adult, buying your own food, paying for your kids to have a decent education, hire people to drive your cars (instead of relying on public employees) you should PAY LESS because you are TAKING LESS .
But think about that real adult, who buys his own food and pays for his kid's education. He can do those things because he has a job. But the thing is that job isn't granted by God, on the basis of how smart and hardworking that man is. He's got that job because there's a capitalist system in place, a system underpinned by government.
You might not like to think of things that way, but ultimately the only reason that man is able to command an income of $100,000 is because of all the property rights, contract laws and all the rest put in place by government.
So you want to ask about who takes the most from the system, who benefits the most? Look at that rich man.
Chongara wrote:One should always PAY for what one GETS . This is the most basic and fair fact that even every smallest child knows. If you get something you PAY for it and if you don't PAY if you're not NOT GETTING ANYTHING . This is simple, understand even a simpleton can grasp this.
Taxes should come from those that GET the most from them. If you're using public schools, taking food stamps, taking buses you should PAY MORE because you GET MORE .
If you're working hard and standing on your own like a real adult, buying your own food, paying for your kids to have a decent education, hire people to drive your cars (instead of relying on public employees) you should PAY LESS because you are TAKING LESS .
Taking money from people who have it (Because they did the work to earn it) taking it for people who "need" because they aren't working as hard or as well to EARN it is STEALING.
If you want to solve the spending issue, cut 100% of these "Social" programs, which are honestly just an excuse for lefties to buy votes (with YOUR TAX MONEY) from crack whores, illegal immigrants, whiners, and in generally everyone afraid to man-up and really work.
What the hell is your definition of work? Someone cleaning toilets isn't working, but sitting on your ass in an office watching money make money is working? How the hell are the poor supposed to pay for public schools, a house, a kid, food, public transportation and everything else under the sun when they can't afford most of that right now? Heaven forbid well off actually give some back to those whose backs they're standing on. Behind every rich person there are thousands making minimum wage in the companies they run. Pretending that everyone can be rich or well off is stupid and ignorant. At the end of the day, someone is shoveling gak for a buck.
Sure, but whether or not a market free from government is desirable, or possible, is an entirely different matter.
In fact, one can make a very good argument that the market exists because of government, rather than in spite of it. Their relationship is symbiotic, rather than competitive.
broodstar wrote:
Let's take GM, for a while they were making gak cars that no one wants to buy, and they went broke, now here is where it changes,
Under the freemarket if you produce gak and no one buys it you go broke and you disappear your not bailed out at the cost of everyone else. Gm should be gone for making those stupid hybrid cars nobody wanted to buy. And replaced with the next car Company.
Ah, so you're using "should" as indicative of what you wish had happened, that's fair. Though, GM's problems extended well beyond making hybrid cars, they had numerous issues with quality and production costs going back 20-30 years, but that's neither here nor there.
broodstar wrote:
So it's abstract to believe that the market will regulate itself based on the action of the consumer and not by the bureaucrat?
Simply put, the market doesn't regulate itself, it can set prices and determine the allocation of resources, but the rules according to which those resources are allocated depends on the intervention of the state; which is not itself fully independent from the market. Basically, if a bunch of people start dying because someone is selling bad milk, people are generally going to want some kind of intervening, or governing, action; and this action is generally taken what we call the government.
And yes, it is abstract, because you're effectively taking a single abstract principle, the free market's inherent superiority, and seemingly deriving an entire philosophy from that idea; without clear regard for the practical issues of implementing your proposed changes. Either way, the only people that talk about the "free market" in the sense you are, are people with a political end in mind.
Let's take GM, for a while they were making gak cars that no one wants to buy, and they went broke, now here is where it changes,
Under the freemarket if you produce gak and no one buys it you go broke and you disappear your not bailed out at the cost of everyone else. Gm should be gone for making those stupid hybrid cars nobody wanted to buy. And replaced with the next car Company.
So it's abstract to believe that the market will regulate itself based on the action of the consumer and not by the bureaucrat?
GM is kept alive by the American government as it is a national security and super power protocol. We do this with many industries through subsidies or bailing them out. A requirement to be a super power is to be able to be 100% self sufficient. To that end, we keep certain companies afloat. Steel mills, automotive construction lines, rubber plants, any number of things that should gak hit the fan, we don't have to rely on someone else.
Let's take GM, for a while they were making gak cars that no one wants to buy, and they went broke, now here is where it changes,
Under the freemarket if you produce gak and no one buys it you go broke and you disappear your not bailed out at the cost of everyone else. Gm should be gone for making those stupid hybrid cars nobody wanted to buy. And replaced with the next car Company.
So it's abstract to believe that the market will regulate itself based on the action of the consumer and not by the bureaucrat?
GM is kept alive by the American government as it is a national security and super power protocol. We do this with many industries through subsidies or bailing them out. A requirement to be a super power is to be able to be 100% self sufficient. To that end, we keep certain companies afloat. Steel mills, automotive construction lines, rubber plants, any number of things that should gak hit the fan, we don't have to rely on someone else.
The united states isn't even close to self sufficient.
broodstar wrote:
1.And that my friend is class warfare.
Explain to me how anything I said is tantamount to class warfare.
broodstar wrote:
2.Read "The Letters of Confederation" It's the letters the founding father wrote to each other when they where discussing how the country should be setup, you actually see what they were thinking about when they wrote and signed the constitution. (And this country is far away from the way it was setup.)
I'm aware of what they are, and I've likely spent more time reading than you have. I'm shocked, though, absolutely shocked, that a country that was originally composed of 13 states, and is now composed of 50, might have a few more administrative challenges than it did in the past. The Letters are interesting reading, and useful for interpreting the Constitution, but that's about the only weight they actually have. In all other matters they're no more or less authoritative than anything else.
broodstar wrote:
3.Everybody having equal portions.
Ok, but equal portions of what? Equal portions of tax rate? Equal portion of burden? How do we assess whether or not a burden is equal?
Your tax proposal would be pretty awesome for me, financially, as I spend a good deal more than 3600 USD on month on food, rent, parking, internet access, etc. It would effectively make my year ~13 months long, instead of 12, and be effectively meaningless to me on a financial level. I could probably by a house, though, which would be a good extra source of income by rental.
Someone who makes 16k a year, however, is suddenly hit with an extra grand in tax burden, or a 50% increase in tax burden by rate (much higher if you factor in deductions). This burden is obviously much more significant to him, then it is to me.
broodstar wrote:
4.yes, In flat gross dollars. The percentage represents the burden on each person financially.
That's about the worst idea I've ever heard proposed
broodstar wrote:Do you mean to tell me that you can not survive without the government. You can not choose what you watch without the Federal Communication Commission telling you what programming is safe? You still use the Post Office? Why when the private sector can do it faster and cheaper? You need Social Security? That's what retirement savings is for! If there are no economic regulation then you can go out and start working for yourself. There is something called the freemarket and if you allow it to work, it works. The economy won't be destroyed it will revert back to the way it is supposed to be.
And I'll tell you if you can't live without the government in your life, congratulations you are a sheep.
Ahh, so the economy is supposed to consist of agrarian farming and roving bands of barbarians. Or is it supposed to be some sort of laissez faire bs controlled by titannic international conglomerates? Did you know that any centralized authority with power over a populace (as private business would become if totally freed from any form of oversight) is a government? Do you have any idea what you're talking about at even a bare level?
Yeah, I'm the sheep. Have fun with your ron paul blimps and gold standards. I'm gonna live out here in reality.
Titanic international conglomerates, you mean like BP? or McDonald's? or Zales? or Honda? those titanic international Company? Can I ask you something, how does a business force the customer to buy a produce? it's allowing capitalism to take it's coarse, it's not communism or fascism.
The way they did it in the 1800s. They way they do it in Indonesia, china, and Mexico today. You think companies can't buy guns? Just who do you think it is that keeps them from putting a gun to your head and telling you to buy their product? Guess who it is that makes sure that when you want to say "this job sucks, I quit!" you actually get to leave the building without being beaten to death. It sure as hell isn't the free market.
It's not who, it's what? And that would be my gun.
I think your confusing corporation with cartel.
Chongara wrote:One should always PAY for what one GETS . This is the most basic and fair fact that even every smallest child knows. If you get something you PAY for it and if you don't PAY if you're not NOT GETTING ANYTHING . This is simple, understand even a simpleton can grasp this.
I'd much rather just steal it, or extort someone into giving it to me. That way I have what I want, and my money.
Sadly, big government had go and make those things illegal.
Chongara wrote:
Taxes should come from those that GET the most from them. If you're using public schools, taking food stamps, taking buses you should PAY MORE because you GET MORE .
What possible logic is there in taxing someone who is on food stamps more than someone who is not?
And public transport? Where do you live that public transit is free?
broodstar wrote:
It's not who, it's what? And that would be my gun.
I think your confusing corporation with cartel.
Theoretically, its only cost and law that prevent corporations from using force to seize assets. Though, arguably, once they start doing that they're de facto governments. I doubt they would go around forcing people to buy things, though. It would be much easier to simply take their money.
Either way, I'm glad you have a gun, but any possible organization of people has more of them than you do, and certainly more hands with which to use them.
broodstar wrote:(sigh) finally someone who halfway understands what I'm getting at.
There's a lot of people who think something quite close to what you think. Just like a lot of the left fall into the trap of just thinking it's enough to hate the rich and blame them for everything, you and Chongara think it's enough to just hate the poor and blame them for everything.
Actually studying how things work is too much effort for most people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:It's not who, it's what? And that would be my gun. I think your confusing corporation with cartel.
What stops a corporation, or any organised group from acting like a mob out to take whatever they can is the law. The law is, believe it or not, formed and enforced by government.
broodstar wrote:Do you mean to tell me that you can not survive without the government. You can not choose what you watch without the Federal Communication Commission telling you what programming is safe? You still use the Post Office? Why when the private sector can do it faster and cheaper? You need Social Security? That's what retirement savings is for! If there are no economic regulation then you can go out and start working for yourself. There is something called the freemarket and if you allow it to work, it works. The economy won't be destroyed it will revert back to the way it is supposed to be.
And I'll tell you if you can't live without the government in your life, congratulations you are a sheep.
Ahh, so the economy is supposed to consist of agrarian farming and roving bands of barbarians. Or is it supposed to be some sort of laissez faire bs controlled by titannic international conglomerates? Did you know that any centralized authority with power over a populace (as private business would become if totally freed from any form of oversight) is a government? Do you have any idea what you're talking about at even a bare level?
Yeah, I'm the sheep. Have fun with your ron paul blimps and gold standards. I'm gonna live out here in reality.
Titanic international conglomerates, you mean like BP? or McDonald's? or Zales? or Honda? those titanic international Company? Can I ask you something, how does a business force the customer to buy a produce? it's allowing capitalism to take it's coarse, it's not communism or fascism.
The way they did it in the 1800s. They way they do it in Indonesia, china, and Mexico today. You think companies can't buy guns? Just who do you think it is that keeps them from putting a gun to your head and telling you to buy their product? Guess who it is that makes sure that when you want to say "this job sucks, I quit!" you actually get to leave the building without being beaten to death. It sure as hell isn't the free market.
It's not who, it's what? And that would be my gun. I think your confusing corporation with cartel.
I don't think you understand what constitutes a government or how societies actually work. Cartels are nothing if not massive global corporations with a lot of guns functioning on a free market and you're not going to stop them from killing you if they have reason to. Your wee little six shooters not going to do you any good when 11 ak47s are fired into your house because you didn't play ball. Welcome to the free economy, we don't have one because free economies are aren't physically possible.
Let's take GM, for a while they were making gak cars that no one wants to buy, and they went broke, now here is where it changes,
Under the freemarket if you produce gak and no one buys it you go broke and you disappear your not bailed out at the cost of everyone else. Gm should be gone for making those stupid hybrid cars nobody wanted to buy. And replaced with the next car Company.
So it's abstract to believe that the market will regulate itself based on the action of the consumer and not by the bureaucrat?
GM is kept alive by the American government as it is a national security and super power protocol. We do this with many industries through subsidies or bailing them out. A requirement to be a super power is to be able to be 100% self sufficient. To that end, we keep certain companies afloat. Steel mills, automotive construction lines, rubber plants, any number of things that should gak hit the fan, we don't have to rely on someone else.
The united states isn't even close to self sufficient.
Not total economically self sufficient, but in terms of national defense. There is very little that we could not produce for a war effort if confined to our borders and holdings. The US still has vast amounts of natural resources that are untapped.
Surtur wrote:Not total economically self sufficient, but in terms of national defense. There is very little that we could not produce for a war effort if confined to our borders and holdings. The US still has vast amounts of natural resources that are untapped.
But you wouldn't produce anywhere the quantities needed to sustain your present living standards.
Let's take GM, for a while they were making gak cars that no one wants to buy, and they went broke, now here is where it changes,
Under the freemarket if you produce gak and no one buys it you go broke and you disappear your not bailed out at the cost of everyone else. Gm should be gone for making those stupid hybrid cars nobody wanted to buy. And replaced with the next car Company.
So it's abstract to believe that the market will regulate itself based on the action of the consumer and not by the bureaucrat?
GM is kept alive by the American government as it is a national security and super power protocol. We do this with many industries through subsidies or bailing them out. A requirement to be a super power is to be able to be 100% self sufficient. To that end, we keep certain companies afloat. Steel mills, automotive construction lines, rubber plants, any number of things that should gak hit the fan, we don't have to rely on someone else.
The united states isn't even close to self sufficient.
Not total economically self sufficient, but in terms of national defense. There is very little that we could not produce for a war effort if confined to our borders and holdings. The US still has vast amounts of natural resources that are untapped.
An embargo on rare earth metals alone would make it virtually impossible to prosecute any sort of long term war engagement. We're also severely lacking in any sort of electronics manufacturing base and we don't have the trained personnel to have one. It's not something we could really do as a country. The united states has a lot of mineral wealth, but we're really not particularly close to being capable of sustaining ourselves by ourselves. We're not geared that way as an economy anymore and it would take decades of concerted effort to get back to being capable of such.
broodstar wrote:
1.And that my friend is class warfare.
Explain to me how anything I said is tantamount to class warfare.
broodstar wrote:
2.Read "The Letters of Confederation" It's the letters the founding father wrote to each other when they where discussing how the country should be setup, you actually see what they were thinking about when they wrote and signed the constitution. (And this country is far away from the way it was setup.)
I'm aware of what they are, and I've likely spent more time reading than you have. I'm shocked, though, absolutely shocked, that a country that was originally composed of 13 states, and is now composed of 50, might have a few more administrative challenges than it did in the past. The Letters are interesting reading, and useful for interpreting the Constitution, but that's about the only weight they actually have. In all other matters they're no more or less authoritative than anything else.
broodstar wrote:
3.Everybody having equal portions.
Ok, but equal portions of what? Equal portions of tax rate? Equal portion of burden? How do we assess whether or not a burden is equal?
Your tax proposal would be pretty awesome for me, financially, as I spend a good deal more than 3600 USD on month on food, rent, parking, internet access, etc. It would effectively make my year ~13 months long, instead of 12, and be effectively meaningless to me on a financial level. I could probably by a house, though, which would be a good extra source of income by rental.
Someone who makes 16k a year, however, is suddenly hit with an extra grand in tax burden, or a 50% increase in tax burden by rate (much higher if you factor in deductions). This burden is obviously much more significant to him, then it is to me.
broodstar wrote:
4.yes, In flat gross dollars. The percentage represents the burden on each person financially.
That's about the worst idea I've ever heard proposed
1. You said why should you pay when they can pay. as I said in original post, that like saying don't take my blood for the blood god, take twice as much from the fat guy because he's fat he can afford to give up more blood.
2. tushae.
3. Equal payment. I think it's funny how everyone wants equality between the races, between the sexes etc until it comes to taxation. somehow when we start about taxes 1 and 5 are equal yet you ask any mathematician and 1 does not equal 5.
4. Yes, it has lesser impact on you, which is a good thing the original came to me when I was busting my ass trying to get by, and one of my co-worker was on foodstamps and disability and this program and that program and didn't want to work (and why, she didn't need to work her benefits were way more than her actual pay, she was gaming the system.) and why by the time we go through all the taxes am I giving up half my income so you can sit on your ass and make way more than me. And then the customer I had that was didn't let her kid get a Hershey's bar but demanded that I let her buy her beer on foodstamps. so the original concept was a means of lighting a fire under the ass of entitlers to get their ass and make a contribution
5. well I'm sorry you see it that way, but all I can do is make a proposal and defend my position. Which I think I'm doing pretty well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
broodstar wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
broodstar wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
broodstar wrote:Do you mean to tell me that you can not survive without the government. You can not choose what you watch without the Federal Communication Commission telling you what programming is safe? You still use the Post Office? Why when the private sector can do it faster and cheaper? You need Social Security? That's what retirement savings is for! If there are no economic regulation then you can go out and start working for yourself. There is something called the freemarket and if you allow it to work, it works. The economy won't be destroyed it will revert back to the way it is supposed to be.
And I'll tell you if you can't live without the government in your life, congratulations you are a sheep.
Ahh, so the economy is supposed to consist of agrarian farming and roving bands of barbarians. Or is it supposed to be some sort of laissez faire bs controlled by titannic international conglomerates? Did you know that any centralized authority with power over a populace (as private business would become if totally freed from any form of oversight) is a government? Do you have any idea what you're talking about at even a bare level?
Yeah, I'm the sheep. Have fun with your ron paul blimps and gold standards. I'm gonna live out here in reality.
Titanic international conglomerates, you mean like BP? or McDonald's? or Zales? or Honda? those titanic international Company? Can I ask you something, how does a business force the customer to buy a produce? it's allowing capitalism to take it's coarse, it's not communism or fascism.
The way they did it in the 1800s. They way they do it in Indonesia, china, and Mexico today. You think companies can't buy guns? Just who do you think it is that keeps them from putting a gun to your head and telling you to buy their product? Guess who it is that makes sure that when you want to say "this job sucks, I quit!" you actually get to leave the building without being beaten to death. It sure as hell isn't the free market.
It's not who, it's what? And that would be my gun.
I think your confusing corporation with cartel.
I don't think you understand what constitutes a government or how societies actually work. Cartels are nothing if not massive global corporations with a lot of guns functioning on a free market and you're not going to stop them from killing you if they have reason to. Your wee little six shooters not going to do you any good when 11 ak47s are fired into your house because you didn't play ball. Welcome to the free economy, we don't have one because free economies are aren't physically possible.
1. I know how societies work I've seen the darkest parts of society, hell I've been part of the darkest part of society.
2. THEY are not six shooters.
3. The AK47 is absolute gak nothing Russian made is any good.
4. You know how to defeat a cartel army? and even bigger army.
5. Free market is not black market there are social laws.
broodstar wrote:
1. You said why should you pay when they can pay. as I said in original post, that like saying don't take my blood for the blood god, take twice as much from the fat guy because he's fat he can afford to give up more blood.
Ah, I see how you might have interpreted it that way. It was more a personal statement than a comment on policy, I'm well outside the tax brackets that receive government aid.
I'm really only interested in the policy aspect of taxation, regarding how to develop enough revenue to provide the services most people want, and the ones that are conducive to a stable government.
broodstar wrote:
3. Equal payment. I think it's funny how everyone wants equality between the races, between the sexes etc until it comes to taxation. somehow when we start about taxes 1 and 5 are equal yet you ask any mathematician and 1 does not equal 5.
Not many people will them equal, lots of people will them fair, or necessary.
Either way, while we might talk about equality between the races or the sexes, that doesn't imply a general interest in equality. After all, how many talk about equality of income? Communists, sure, but not very many other people.
broodstar wrote:
4. Yes, it has lesser impact on you, which is a good thing the original came to me when I was busting my ass trying to get by, and one of my co-worker was on foodstamps and disability and this program and that program and didn't want to work (and why, she didn't need to work her benefits were way more than her actual pay, she was gaming the system.) and why by the time we go through all the taxes am I giving up half my income so you can sit on your ass and make way more than me.
What job were you doing that involved having a co-worker on food stamps, while you apparently made enough money to pay taxes? Did you simply not want to draw food stamps?
broodstar wrote:
And then the customer I had that was didn't let her kid get a Hershey's bar but demanded that I let her buy her beer on foodstamps. so the original concept was a means of lighting a fire under the ass of entitlers to get their ass and make a contribution
I don't think they're a significant problem, except in the sense that people seem to believe that they are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:
4. You know how to defeat a cartel army? and even bigger army.
Well, a better one, but I'm not sure where you're going to find it if the dispute is premised on "not government".
broodstar wrote:
5. Free market is not black market there are social laws.
No there aren't. There is morality, but it tends to vary, and be highly flexible under duress.
broodstar wrote:1. I know how societies work I've seen the darkest parts of society, hell I've been part of the darkest part of society.
Really? You've been a Somali warlord, feeding disobediant civilians to your pet lion?
2. THEY are not six shooters.
So make it a .50 cal. Hell, have your very own Abrams. You're still one guy, and you're up against very many. And they will keep coming back. Seriously, we have societies and laws because 'I can look after myself' is fantasy.
4. You know how to defeat a cartel army? and even bigger army.
And when you've won? Well then you go about building a system that doesn't require raising an army and fighting a bloody war every time you want some kind of order in town.
And that means writing laws, and forming a government to enforce those laws, and having an elected body to oversee those government officials. And oh look, now you've got a representative democracy. And then, as all representative democracies have done, you'll focus a large number of those laws on encouraging open trade, and investment to expand the economy. And oh look, now you've got a free, capitalist economy.
And then some people will start pretending they're Randian supermen who are entirely self made, and completely ignore that the value they can draw from society is a result of their interaction with society. And other people will think they're being silly.
5. Free market is not black market there are social laws.
And when those social laws are ignored? "People will mostly obey the unenforced expectations of society" is pretty delusional.
I was a convenience store clerk and I could have draw, housing assistance and foodstamps and medicaid, but it's just against my moral and political beliefs. I wanted to stand on my own two feet.
I was a convenience store clerk and I could have draw, housing assistance and foodstamps and medicaid, but it's just against my moral and political beliefs. I wanted to stand on my own two feet.
Ah, you have scruples. People shouldn't have scruples.
I was a convenience store clerk and I could have draw, housing assistance and foodstamps and medicaid, but it's just against my moral and political beliefs. I wanted to stand on my own two feet.
Did you attend public school? Do you walk on pavements laid by local council? If you were attacked, would you rely on police employed by your state or commonwealth to track down and prosecute the perpetrator? Did your place of employment rely on conducting a business only made possible by the enforcement of property laws enforced by all levels of government?
broodstar wrote:1. I know how societies work I've seen the darkest parts of society, hell I've been part of the darkest part of society.
Really? You've been a Somali warlord, feeding disobediant civilians to your pet lion?
2. THEY are not six shooters.
So make it a .50 cal. Hell, have your very own Abrams. You're still one guy, and you're up against very many. And they will keep coming back. Seriously, we have societies and laws because 'I can look after myself' is fantasy.
4. You know how to defeat a cartel army? and even bigger army.
And when you've won? Well then you go about building a system that doesn't require raising an army and fighting a bloody war every time you want some kind of order in town.
And that means writing laws, and forming a government to enforce those laws, and having an elected body to oversee those government officials. And oh look, now you've got a representative democracy. And then, as all representative democracies have done, you'll focus a large number of those laws on encouraging open trade, and investment to expand the economy. And oh look, now you've got a free, capitalist economy.
And then some people will start pretending they're Randian supermen who are entirely self made, and completely ignore that the value they can draw from society is a result of their interaction with society. And other people will think they're being silly.
5. Free market is not black market there are social laws.
And when those social laws are ignored? "People will mostly obey the unenforced expectations of society" is pretty delusional.
1. I've been evolved in gang activity, I've dealt drugs to get by.
2. You know what it that doesn't deserve an answer.
3. OMG, freemarket is not anarchy! The government still exists, there is still an army. freemarket just mean that whenever you try to do something there isn't some bureaucrat breathing down your neck.
4. And when those social laws are ignored, you call the law.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:
broodstar wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
broodstar wrote:like saying don't take my blood for the blood god
Blut und boden, amirght?
Dude, I'm tired I've debated like 8 guys, leave me alone.
When you are done debating those 8 guys you might want to start debating the ones in this thread.
I'm sorry what are you talking about?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
broodstar wrote:@dogma
I was a convenience store clerk and I could have draw, housing assistance and foodstamps and medicaid, but it's just against my moral and political beliefs. I wanted to stand on my own two feet.
Did you attend public school? Do you walk on pavements laid by local council? If you were attacked, would you rely on police employed by your state or commonwealth to track down and prosecute the perpetrator? Did your place of employment rely on conducting a business only made possible by the enforcement of property laws enforced by all levels of government?
broodstar wrote:
3. OMG, freemarket is not anarchy! The government still exists, there is still an army. freemarket just mean that whenever you try to do something there isn't some bureaucrat breathing down your neck.
You can't have one without the other, as raison d'Etat immediately comes into play.
You can have less bureaucratic interference, but not none.
broodstar wrote:
4. And when those social laws are ignored, you call the law.
I was a convenience store clerk and I could have draw, housing assistance and foodstamps and medicaid, but it's just against my moral and political beliefs. I wanted to stand on my own two feet.
Ah, you have scruples. People shouldn't have scruples.
The whole idea of "a free market left alone will regulate itself" is just as viable as the idea of communism.
Communism works great on paper, and if everybody played ball it would be a very viable system. The reason it fails is because of coruption and greed.
The same corruption and greed is the downfall of unregulated capitalism. If you want to believe that humans are good and will keep the interests of society in mind, then more power to you. But I think we have pretty much all of human history to show us that a world without regulation, control, and enforcement will not work.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also: What are these "letters of confederation" people are talking about?
I know of the "Articles of Confederation", and I guess the fact that they were replaced by the Constitution shows how viable they turned out to be.
Are we talking about the Federalist Papers? I think anybody that has read them also needs to read the Anti-Federalist Papers to get a complete idea of what the people founding this country were thinking.
broodstar wrote:3. OMG, freemarket is not anarchy! The government still exists, there is still an army. freemarket just mean that whenever you try to do something there isn't some bureaucrat breathing down your neck.
I can only conclude that you must eat everything fresh, be it meat, fruit or veg, nothing prepackaged and preprocessed, because in a free market you would have to do just that if you wanted any sort of quality. Want to know why? Because the 'big government' you hate so much regulates what goes in that prepackaged and preprocessed food, 50ish + years ago you could never truly know if that tinned tuna you were eating really was tuna and not cat food, you had to take it in good faith that the manufacturer was actually selling you tuna, you may find this surprising, but the introducing of labelling laws in many countries by 'big governments' did 1 thing, that thing was increase the quality of all products (not just food) by alot.
it will regulate itself. because everyone is greed and well let's face it capitalism is about screwing each other. I'll sell you that overpriced piece of crap if you sell me that overpriced piece of crap. And how it regulates itself is the consumer, when they feel they're being ripped off they go to another guy. The business either changes it's way or it goes broke, that simple.
Whenever I think of regulation and bureaucracy, I think of the scene from "Andy Griffith" where Barney Fief is measuring the tire to make sure it is no more than x inches from the curb.
Now the only way they can get you to buy a hybrid is if they're subsidized, ie, buy a $5000 car and get a $5000 tax credit.
broodstar wrote:1. I've been evolved in gang activity, I've dealt drugs to get by.
So you know how society without the rule of law works. And did you stay in that society, or endeavour to get a place in lawful society?
2. You know what it that doesn't deserve an answer.
Well it was a fairly silly point all around, lol I've got me a gun so I don't have to worry about no stinking bandits.
3. OMG, freemarket is not anarchy! The government still exists, there is still an army.
Good, now we've gotten that far, you'll note that some people in that system make more money than others. And now that you've recognised that the 'freemarket' system has army, police, and other measures to enforce the laws that do exist, it should become immediately obvious that some people benefit more from having that system around (ie the ones making more money are benefitting more).
At which point, complaining that the ones benefitting the most from having the system are the ones expected to pay the most to maintain the system becomes very, very silly. At which point we can move on from this thread, and pretend it never happened.
freemarket just mean that whenever you try to do something there isn't some bureaucrat breathing down your neck.
No, it does not. It's actually a gibberish term invented by people who like to pretend capitalism doesn't have government laws underpinning it. Those people play that pretend game in order to lobby to have only the laws they want as part of the system.
Though I've never seen freemarket as just one word before. That's new.
4. And when those social laws are ignored, you call the law.
That's right. So you need a government to enforce your system. At which point you have to stop pretending that an individual is self-made, and in fact bases his income on his interaction with the system.
Dude you're starting to annoy me.
I really don't care. I do care that you're saying very silly things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:it will regulate itself. because everyone is greed and well let's face it capitalism is about screwing each other. I'll sell you that overpriced piece of crap if you sell me that overpriced piece of crap. And how it regulates itself is the consumer, when they feel they're being ripped off they go to another guy. The business either changes it's way or it goes broke, that simple.
You're approaching this from a position of priviledge, that assumes there is another competitor down the road who will sell you the product. So would you support regulation to stop one company being the only electricity supplier in town?
And do you deal with people being duped into signing dodgy contracts? Just expect everyone to read every single 1,000 page contract to make sure they're not accidentally signing themselves into sex slavery everytime they renew their phone contract?
And what about once we get to serious matters, like employment law? Should an employee who is sexually harrassed just be expected to put up with it or quit?
Whenever I think of regulation and bureaucracy, I think of the scene from "Andy Griffith" where Barney Fief is measuring the tire to make sure it is no more than x inches from the curb.
So... fiction.
Now the only way they can get you to buy a hybrid is if they're subsidized, ie, buy a $5000 car and get a $5000 tax credit.
You need to look up the tragedy of the commons, and consider how that relates to externalities, and why society might do well as a group to agree to policies to reduce those externalities.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:Evolutionary speaking, if morals place the good of society above your own good then they are not natural.
There's been arguments made that humans would adapt instincts to act in the best interests of the tribe, as it would give that tribe an evolutionary advantage over others. I mean, that's an argument from evolutionary biology, so it's on the more speculative end of science, but it makes some kind of sense.
broodstar wrote:1. I've been evolved in gang activity, I've dealt drugs to get by.
So you know how society without the rule of law works. And did you stay in that society, or endeavour to get a place in lawful society?
2. You know what it that doesn't deserve an answer.
Well it was a fairly silly point all around, lol I've got me a gun so I don't have to worry about no stinking bandits.
3. OMG, freemarket is not anarchy! The government still exists, there is still an army.
Good, now we've gotten that far, you'll note that some people in that system make more money than others. And now that you've recognised that the 'freemarket' system has army, police, and other measures to enforce the laws that do exist, it should become immediately obvious that some people benefit more from having that system around (ie the ones making more money are benefitting more).
At which point, complaining that the ones benefitting the most from having the system are the ones expected to pay the most to maintain the system becomes very, very silly. At which point we can move on from this thread, and pretend it never happened.
freemarket just mean that whenever you try to do something there isn't some bureaucrat breathing down your neck.
No, it does not. It's actually a gibberish term invented by people who like to pretend capitalism doesn't have government laws underpinning it. Those people play that pretend game in order to lobby to have only the laws they want as part of the system.
Though I've never seen freemarket as just one word before. That's new.
4. And when those social laws are ignored, you call the law.
That's right. So you need a government to enforce your system. At which point you have to stop pretending that an individual is self-made, and in fact bases his income on his interaction with the system.
Dude you're starting to annoy me.
I really don't care. I do care that you're saying very silly things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:it will regulate itself. because everyone is greed and well let's face it capitalism is about screwing each other. I'll sell you that overpriced piece of crap if you sell me that overpriced piece of crap. And how it regulates itself is the consumer, when they feel they're being ripped off they go to another guy. The business either changes it's way or it goes broke, that simple.
You're approaching this from a position of priviledge, that assumes there is another competitor down the road who will sell you the product. So would you support regulation to stop one company being the only electricity supplier in town?
And do you deal with people being duped into signing dodgy contracts? Just expect everyone to read every single 1,000 page contract to make sure they're not accidentally signing themselves into sex slavery everytime they renew their phone contract?
And what about once we get to serious matters, like employment law? Should an employee who is sexually harrassed just be expected to put up with it or quit?
Whenever I think of regulation and bureaucracy, I think of the scene from "Andy Griffith" where Barney Fief is measuring the tire to make sure it is no more than x inches from the curb.
So... fiction.
Now the only way they can get you to buy a hybrid is if they're subsidized, ie, buy a $5000 car and get a $5000 tax credit.
You need to look up the tragedy of the commons, and consider how that relates to externalities, and why society might do well as a group to agree to policies to reduce those externalities.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:Evolutionary speaking, if morals place the good of society above your own good then they are not natural.
There's been arguments made that humans would adapt instincts to act in the best interests of the tribe, as it would give that tribe an evolutionary advantage over others. I mean, that's an argument from evolutionary biology, so it's on the more speculative end of science, but it makes some kind of sense.
OK, it's time to play your little game.
So are you saying that mankind can not possible live without big brother looking over their shoulder?
The government has to be involved in everything you do, so a bureaucrat follows you around telling of a federal regulation that says that he must stay with you every day to enure that you are breathing properly, what would your response to him be?
Can the government do anything better for you, than you can do for yourself?
Have you ever lived in a world without laws?
Have you struggled to make ends meet while others have played the system?
Have you ever considered that in this system you are a pawn, not of those of a higher income, but of a lower income?
And have you ever considered a system where you can live your whole life hunting and living off your land with the only government interaction is the sheriff coming up once a month just to check up on you?
ShumaGorath wrote:An embargo on rare earth metals alone would make it virtually impossible to prosecute any sort of long term war engagement. We're also severely lacking in any sort of electronics manufacturing base and we don't have the trained personnel to have one. It's not something we could really do as a country. The united states has a lot of mineral wealth, but we're really not particularly close to being capable of sustaining ourselves by ourselves. We're not geared that way as an economy anymore and it would take decades of concerted effort to get back to being capable of such.
And a quick Google search will actually net you several American electronics factories. The reason we trade and have lost a lot of manufacturing jobs is because places like China have a comparative advantage towards that industry. What we lack to a greater extent is consumer electronics manufacturing, but we have lots of medical and other vital electronics firms.
Now don't get me wrong, it would still be problematic, but that's not the point. If America went into total war and lost all of it's allies somehow, it can sustain itself
broodstar wrote:3. OMG, freemarket is not anarchy! The government still exists, there is still an army. freemarket just mean that whenever you try to do something there isn't some bureaucrat breathing down your neck.
I can only conclude that you must eat everything fresh, be it meat, fruit or veg, nothing prepackaged and preprocessed, because in a free market you would have to do just that if you wanted any sort of quality.
Want to know why?
Because the 'big government' you hate so much regulates what goes in that prepackaged and preprocessed food, 50ish + years ago you could never truly know if that tinned tuna you were eating really was tuna and not cat food, you had to take it in good faith that the manufacturer was actually selling you tuna, you may find this surprising, but the introducing of labelling laws in many countries by 'big governments' did 1 thing, that thing was increase the quality of all products (not just food) by alot.
Well have you seen McDonald's milkshakes, I know that's not a milkshake, I've seen a real milkshake and I've tasted a real milkshake but that chemical is delicious,
broodstar wrote:
Have you struggled to make ends meet while others have played the system?
Then play the system.
You can't argue that people should adapt to the market, if you won't adapt to the market.
Well, you can, it just doesn't ring quite as true.
broodstar wrote:
Have you ever considered that in this system you are a pawn, not of those of a higher income, but of a lower income?
As someone who tells people of higher income how to manipulate people of lower income, I assure you that, if you're middle class, you should be looking up, not down.
broodstar wrote:
And have you ever considered a system where you can live your whole life hunting and living off your land with the only government interaction is the sheriff coming up once a month just to check up on you?
We had that back in the day (sort of), and apparently enough people preferred the alternative in order to advance us to the present.
Maybe I just don't belong society at this time. They say if a thousand people are crazy maybe it's you. But, it's something I feel in my heart to be true. Maybe I'm just too wild for modern society. Maybe go up to Alaska, hunt and fish be with a sense of honor. Honor I know so many people that don't even know what that word truly means anymore.
broodstar wrote:Maybe I just don't belong society at this time. They say if a thousand people are crazy maybe it's you. But, it's something I feel in my heart to be true. Maybe I'm just too wild for modern society. Maybe go up to Alaska, hunt and fish be with a sense of honor. Honor I know so many people that don't even know what that word truly means anymore.
Or you could grow up, pay your taxes, and contribute to to society. If you're in a position to pay tax, it means you have a job and can support yourself (and your family?).
broodstar wrote:Maybe I just don't belong society at this time. They say if a thousand people are crazy maybe it's you. But, it's something I feel in my heart to be true. Maybe I'm just too wild for modern society. Maybe go up to Alaska, hunt and fish be with a sense of honor. Honor I know so many people that don't even know what that word truly means anymore.
Or you could grow up, pay your taxes, and contribute to to society. If you're in a position to pay tax, it means you have a job and can support yourself (and your family?).
Yeah that will happen, grow up to a life of subjugation ok. We were meant to live for so much more. Hey, let's all go to the same old drudge even while the Obama's go to Italy, because hell it's for the good of society.
broodstar wrote:Maybe I just don't belong society at this time. They say if a thousand people are crazy maybe it's you. But, it's something I feel in my heart to be true. Maybe I'm just too wild for modern society. Maybe go up to Alaska, hunt and fish be with a sense of honor. Honor I know so many people that don't even know what that word truly means anymore.
Or you could grow up, pay your taxes, and contribute to to society. If you're in a position to pay tax, it means you have a job and can support yourself (and your family?).
Yeah that will happen, grow up to a life of subjugation ok. We were meant to live for so much more. Hey, let's all go to the same old drudge even while the Obama's go to Italy, because hell it's for the good of society.
Your military is responsible for you having the freedom to whine about your government. Your roads are maintained to allow you to go to work. If your house catches fire it will be extinguished by people on the public payroll. If your house gets burgled the police will catch the perpetrator (okay that's a bit far-fetched).
By all means feel free to move to a country that has no state at all, I hear Somalia's nice. Oh no wait, it's a gak hole.
broodstar wrote:The military I give all my heart for, I'll give you that but the roads maintained bwahahaha.
If the roads had not been maintained at all civilisation as you know it would not be possible. Badly maintained ! = no maintainace at all. Especially when you consider the sheer size of the USA and how many roads it has, it's not like dense little England.
Well the problem is that we are already being taxed for those repairs. The Interstate Tax which is 52 cent for every gallon of gas. The Interstate Tax was instituted when Eisenhower built the Interstate to pay for it and it's maintenance, the problem is that that money is going into general funds and well, being spent on welfare.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And that is my primary problem with paying my taxes, I find it vary wrong to pay my taxes when it isn't being used properly.
http://www.ourdime.us/102/budgetinfo/how-much-do-we-spend-on-welfare/ USA spends 5.5% of its budget on helping the poor. That, frankly, is pitiful.
The USA's tax burden as a whole is simply too low. There's no way Mitt Romney should be paying so little of his income in tax.
You need more taxation so you can repair those roads.
Joey wrote:http://www.ourdime.us/102/budgetinfo/how-much-do-we-spend-on-welfare/
USA spends 5.5% of its budget on helping the poor. That, frankly, is pitiful.
The USA's tax burden as a whole is simply too low. There's no way Mitt Romney should be paying so little of his income in tax.
You need more taxation so you can repair those roads.
Frankly, you're about it being pitiful but absolutely horribly awfully wrong about all the reasons. 5.5% is too high, not even 5.5% too high 10 or 15% too high! There is no way that those getting the MOST out of government to being with (not even assistance just things like schools and public transport) should get EVEN MORE and pay EVEN LESS. This is THEFT of the most basic kind.
Imagine this. You're a kid and you get GOOD GRADES with your own hard work and your EFFORT is REWARDED when your grandma sends you a check for $100 because you're a GOOD KID who WORKS HARD and EARNS THINGS. Then your insane Uncle Sam (who frankly your parents only let stay at the house, because he's the only one in the family who owns enough to guns to keep your even more bat-gak insane neighbors from coming in trashing your house) KICKS YOU IN THE NUTS and takes FIFTEEN of your YOUR HARD EARNED DOLLARS gives them to your fething lazy older cousin who does nothing but sit around SMOKE POT and JERK IT all day long and was already EXPELLED from school for having sex with another dude in class. Then he tells your cousin "needs" it because he spends whatever money he gets (when he is only being 99% lazy) on drugs and lube.
Joey wrote:http://www.ourdime.us/102/budgetinfo/how-much-do-we-spend-on-welfare/
USA spends 5.5% of its budget on helping the poor. That, frankly, is pitiful.
The USA's tax burden as a whole is simply too low. There's no way Mitt Romney should be paying so little of his income in tax.
You need more taxation so you can repair those roads.
Foreigners should not be telling me the amount of taxes my countrymen should be paying.
Joey wrote:http://www.ourdime.us/102/budgetinfo/how-much-do-we-spend-on-welfare/
USA spends 5.5% of its budget on helping the poor. That, frankly, is pitiful.
The USA's tax burden as a whole is simply too low. There's no way Mitt Romney should be paying so little of his income in tax.
You need more taxation so you can repair those roads.
Frankly, you're about it being pitiful but absolutely horribly awfully wrong about all the reasons. 5.5% is too high, not even 5.5% too high 10 or 15% too high! There is no way that those getting the MOST out of government to being with (not even assistance just things like schools and public transport) should get EVEN MORE and pay EVEN LESS. This is THEFT of the most basic kind.
Imagine this. You're a kid and you get GOOD GRADES with your own hard work and your EFFORT is REWARDED when your grandma sends you a check for $100 because you're a GOOD KID who WORKS HARD and EARNS THINGS. Then your insane Uncle Sam (who frankly your parents only let stay at the house, because he's the only one in the family who owns enough to guns to keep your even more bat-gak insane neighbors from coming in trashing your house) KICKS YOU IN THE NUTS and takes FIFTEEN of your YOUR HARD EARNED DOLLARS gives them to your fething lazy older cousin who does nothing but sit around SMOKE POT and JERK IT all day long and was already EXPELLED from school for having sex with another dude in class. Then he tells your cousin "needs" it because he spends whatever money he gets (when he is only being 99% lazy) on drugs and lube.
You are not The Sun. Putting random words in capital letters does not make a point.
Also in your example the money is not "hard earned" it's been given to you. And I assume gifts are not taxed in the USA so it's moot anyway.
You define being forced to help others as theft. I would define a refusal to help others as barbaric. Anyway most people are pretty happy to pay their taxes, as I said above, I assume you use public roads, you are reliant on the help of the police, the fire service, the military, bridges, the government itself (visiting foreign dignitaries, protecting the higher up politicians).
But no. You're bothered that 5% of what you are taxed is spent on helping the less well off. The best figures I could find say the average American worker pays $4030.36 in tax, 5% of that is 201, or $3.80 a week. $3.80 a week to ensure that your fellow citizens don't starve to death. I honestly don't see how any human being with a conscience could object to that.
Frazzled wrote:
Joey wrote:http://www.ourdime.us/102/budgetinfo/how-much-do-we-spend-on-welfare/
USA spends 5.5% of its budget on helping the poor. That, frankly, is pitiful.
The USA's tax burden as a whole is simply too low. There's no way Mitt Romney should be paying so little of his income in tax.
You need more taxation so you can repair those roads.
Foreigners should not be telling me the amount of taxes my countrymen should be paying.
I missed the bit in the OP that said "Non-US citizens' opinions are not welcome". You are a nation like any others, why shouldn't you compare yourself to other nations?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:I wouldn't go THAT far. How about 25% competent?
No no no, the EU is about 25% competent, and we're doing better than them.
It amuses me to see Americans knock the EU when our economy is already larger than America's and will outpace it more and more during the 21st century.
I missed the bit in the OP that said "Non-US citizens' opinions are not welcome". You are a nation like any others, why shouldn't you compare yourself to other nations?
***Other the part where you’re either ignorant or intentionally lying about basic information? While I think Sebster is just this side of Marx (groucho that is) he argues with somewhat reliable figures. Don't you have a mountain lion's neck to break with your bare hands somewhere?
It amuses me to see Americans knock the EU when our economy is already larger than America's and will outpace it more and more during the 21st century. ****Congrats. That’s like grandpa smacking the baby because the baby hasn’t built a house yet. How old is Europe?
Of course is this before or after Greece implodes taking down Italy, Portugal, and the Euro with it?
Joey wrote:It amuses me to see Americans knock the EU when our economy is already larger than America's and will outpace it more and more during the 21st century.
At the rate the EU is going, they'll be lucky if half their member states don't default.
Oh and yes, a group of nations with a population of 500 million has a slightly bigger economy than one which has 300 million in it. The shocker is that you're just barely competing with the US in terms of total GDP (less than a five percent difference, and the US is actually ahead of Europe in terms of GDP per capita, with the EU having 25% less nominal GDP per capita) despite having twice the population. Good job EU.
Frazzled wrote:I missed the bit in the OP that said "Non-US citizens' opinions are not welcome". You are a nation like any others, why shouldn't you compare yourself to other nations?
***Other the part where you’re either ignorant or intentionally lying about basic information? While I think Sebster is just this side of Marx (groucho that is) he argues with somewhat reliable figures. Don't you have a mountain lion's neck to break with your bare hands somewhere?
What was wrong with the figures I posted? As far as I know it's all publically available information, and you've flat out ignored it. In fact I don't even know what you're arguing. You think America is spending too much on the poor? Or too much on other stuff?
Melissia wrote:
Joey wrote:It amuses me to see Americans knock the EU when our economy is already larger than America's and will outpace it more and more during the 21st century.
At the rate the EU is going, they'll be lucky if half their member states don't default.
Oh and yes, a group of nations with a population of 500 million has a slightly bigger economy than one which has 300 million in it. The shocker is that you're just barely competing with the US in terms of total GDP (less than a five percent difference, and the US is actually ahead of Europe in terms of GDP per capita, with the EU having 25% less nominal GDP per capita) despite having twice the population. Good job EU.
The EU includes Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia..all of which are projected to grow massively in the coming decades, obviously growth in Western Europe will not be as extreme. It's true that even the wealthy parts of Europe have GDP/capita that is lower than the USA's but when you take into account the USA's huge healthcare costs it approaches parity.
Anyway this is not an EU vs USA thread. This is a thread about someone whinging because he has to pay taxes, a fraction of which (1/20th) goes into helping the poor, which he disagrees with.
I've yet to see anyone justify why helping the poor is not a good thing to do. In fact I've never seen ANY right-winger ever justify not helping the poor other than through greed.
But no. You're bothered that 5% of what you are taxed is spent on helping the less well off. The best figures I could find say the average American worker pays $4030.36 in tax, 5% of that is 201, or $3.80 a week. $3.80 a week to ensure that your fellow citizens don't starve to death. I honestly don't see how any human being with a conscience could object to that.
If I want to help those who actually need help (this is a much smaller group than so-called "Experts" would lead you to believe) I'll DONATE to my CHURCH. It's not up to the GOVERNMENT to take it GIVE IT AWAY to anyone too LAZY or STUPID to get a job.
Frazzled wrote:Are we including the UK in the EU here? Because, thats just wrong. Haggis walks alone.
Well, removing the UK from it lowers the nominal GDP per capita even further yes (the UK's gdp per capita is higher than the EU's average), and would lower the EU so that the US would have more GDP tahn the EU by PPP measurements.
Frazzled wrote:I missed the bit in the OP that said "Non-US citizens' opinions are not welcome". You are a nation like any others, why shouldn't you compare yourself to other nations?
***Other the part where you’re either ignorant or intentionally lying about basic information? While I think Sebster is just this side of Marx (groucho that is) he argues with somewhat reliable figures. Don't you have a mountain lion's neck to break with your bare hands somewhere?
What was wrong with the figures I posted? As far as I know it's all publically available information, and you've flat out ignored it. In fact I don't even know what you're arguing. You think America is spending too much on the poor? Or too much on other stuff?
Melissia wrote:
Joey wrote:It amuses me to see Americans knock the EU when our economy is already larger than America's and will outpace it more and more during the 21st century.
At the rate the EU is going, they'll be lucky if half their member states don't default.
Oh and yes, a group of nations with a population of 500 million has a slightly bigger economy than one which has 300 million in it. The shocker is that you're just barely competing with the US in terms of total GDP (less than a five percent difference, and the US is actually ahead of Europe in terms of GDP per capita, with the EU having 25% less nominal GDP per capita) despite having twice the population. Good job EU.
The EU includes Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia..all of which are projected to grow massively in the coming decades, obviously growth in Western Europe will not be as extreme. It's true that even the wealthy parts of Europe have GDP/capita that is lower than the USA's but when you take into account the USA's huge healthcare costs it approaches parity. Anyway this is not an EU vs USA thread. This is a thread about someone whinging because he has to pay taxes, a fraction of which (1/20th) goes into helping the poor, which he disagrees with. I've yet to see anyone justify why helping the poor is not a good thing to do. In fact I've never seen ANY right-winger ever justify not helping the poor other than through greed.
You said 5%. Its wrong. Not only is it wrong, its both esily verifiable and stupidly outlandishly wrong.
Also, noting all the other coutnries supports Melissia's argument. You're basically stating it takes a continent to equal the US. This is not helping to keep us modest..., AMERIKA HURR!
Chongara wrote:If I want to help those who actually need help (this is a much smaller group than so-called "Experts" would lead you to believe) I'll DONATE to my CHURCH. It's not up to the GOVERNMENT to take it GIVE IT AWAY to anyone too LAZY or STUPID to get a job.
Are you taking writing tips from gakky comic book writers or something?
At any rate, donating money to your church doesn't actually indicate that the money will go to people who actually need help.
Joey wrote:Anyway this is not an EU vs USA thread.
But no. You're bothered that 5% of what you are taxed is spent on helping the less well off. The best figures I could find say the average American worker pays $4030.36 in tax, 5% of that is 201, or $3.80 a week. $3.80 a week to ensure that your fellow citizens don't starve to death. I honestly don't see how any human being with a conscience could object to that.
If I want to help those who actually need help (this is a much smaller group than so-called "Experts" would lead you to believe) I'll DONATE to my CHURCH. It's not up to the GOVERNMENT to take it GIVE IT AWAY to anyone too LAZY or STUPID to get a job.
When the number of people looking for work exceeds the number of jobs available, unemployment ensues. This is a concequence of a free market.
If you don't want to help them then you can't be surprised when the rest of the world regards you as uncivilized.
Joey wrote:http://www.ourdime.us/102/budgetinfo/how-much-do-we-spend-on-welfare/
USA spends 5.5% of its budget on helping the poor. That, frankly, is pitiful.
The USA's tax burden as a whole is simply too low. There's no way Mitt Romney should be paying so little of his income in tax.
You need more taxation so you can repair those roads.
Frankly, you're about it being pitiful but absolutely horribly awfully wrong about all the reasons. 5.5% is too high, not even 5.5% too high 10 or 15% too high! There is no way that those getting the MOST out of government to being with (not even assistance just things like schools and public transport) should get EVEN MORE and pay EVEN LESS. This is THEFT of the most basic kind.
Imagine this. You're a kid and you get GOOD GRADES with your own hard work and your EFFORT is REWARDED when your grandma sends you a check for $100 because you're a GOOD KID who WORKS HARD and EARNS THINGS. Then your insane Uncle Sam (who frankly your parents only let stay at the house, because he's the only one in the family who owns enough to guns to keep your even more bat-gak insane neighbors from coming in trashing your house) KICKS YOU IN THE NUTS and takes FIFTEEN of your YOUR HARD EARNED DOLLARS gives them to your fething lazy older cousin who does nothing but sit around SMOKE POT and JERK IT all day long and was already EXPELLED from school for having sex with another dude in class. Then he tells your cousin "needs" it because he spends whatever money he gets (when he is only being 99% lazy) on drugs and lube.
Why are you using up DakkaDakka's daily allotment of capital letters? Do we need to redistribute them?
Joey wrote:Anyway this is not an EU vs USA thread.
Then stop trying to turn it in to one.
Agreed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:
Chongara wrote:
Joey wrote:http://www.ourdime.us/102/budgetinfo/how-much-do-we-spend-on-welfare/ USA spends 5.5% of its budget on helping the poor. That, frankly, is pitiful. The USA's tax burden as a whole is simply too low. There's no way Mitt Romney should be paying so little of his income in tax. You need more taxation so you can repair those roads.
Frankly, you're about it being pitiful but absolutely horribly awfully wrong about all the reasons. 5.5% is too high, not even 5.5% too high 10 or 15% too high! There is no way that those getting the MOST out of government to being with (not even assistance just things like schools and public transport) should get EVEN MORE and pay EVEN LESS. This is THEFT of the most basic kind.
Imagine this. You're a kid and you get GOOD GRADES with your own hard work and your EFFORT is REWARDED when your grandma sends you a check for $100 because you're a GOOD KID who WORKS HARD and EARNS THINGS. Then your insane Uncle Sam (who frankly your parents only let stay at the house, because he's the only one in the family who owns enough to guns to keep your even more bat-gak insane neighbors from coming in trashing your house) KICKS YOU IN THE NUTS and takes FIFTEEN of your YOUR HARD EARNED DOLLARS gives them to your fething lazy older cousin who does nothing but sit around SMOKE POT and JERK IT all day long and was already EXPELLED from school for having sex with another dude in class. Then he tells your cousin "needs" it because he spends whatever money he gets (when he is only being 99% lazy) on drugs and lube.
Why are you using up DakkaDakka's daily allotment of capital letters? Do we need to redistribute them?
is it just me or is it that Chongara used to post lefty posts, but now posts righty trolling posts. I think he's just trolling in general. I could be wrong, but if I am wrong who wants to be right?
But no. You're bothered that 5% of what you are taxed is spent on helping the less well off. The best figures I could find say the average American worker pays $4030.36 in tax, 5% of that is 201, or $3.80 a week. $3.80 a week to ensure that your fellow citizens don't starve to death. I honestly don't see how any human being with a conscience could object to that.
If I want to help those who actually need help (this is a much smaller group than so-called "Experts" would lead you to believe) I'll DONATE to my CHURCH. It's not up to the GOVERNMENT to take it GIVE IT AWAY to anyone too LAZY or STUPID to get a job.
Frazzled wrote:
is it just me or is it that Chongara used to post lefty posts, but now posts righty trolling posts. I think he's just trolling in general. I could be wrong, but if I am wrong who wants to be right?
Melissa also wants to be your neighbor now, so who knows what's going on today.
Frazzled wrote:
is it just me or is it that Chongara used to post lefty posts, but now posts righty trolling posts. I think he's just trolling in general. I could be wrong, but if I am wrong who wants to be right?
Melissa also wants to be your neighbor now, so who knows what's going on today.
Well maybe she heard about the Frazzled annual July 4th block party where I rent a giant slip and slide, snow cone machines, margarita machines, pull some barbeque grills around and serve about 200 burgers and dogs for the neighborhood. Even more importantly, its the only time people can come onto my lawn. Alternatively is may be becuase on rare occasions you can see Genghis Connie and Rodney the wonder wiener dog flying through the air on a trampoline. Yes in Texas we have flying wiener dogs. Top that Australia!
Frazzled wrote:is it just me or is it that Chongara used to post lefty posts, but now posts righty trolling posts. I think he's just trolling in general. I could be wrong, but if I am wrong who wants to be right?
Well, Point Frazzled. I wouldn't really say trolling per se. That would imply my intent (at least originally), was actually to get a rise out of people and it really isn't the case.
A while back I posted an obviously sarcastic hyper-right wing post as a way of making fun of something I didn't agree with. You know just making a bit of caricature out of the opposition. Not exactly high brow, but I expected people to take it as the silliness it was. Buuuuuut.... people were responding to it as if it was a serious post, I was a little bit surprised. Sure a few people said "He's probably being sarcastic" but they were easily outweighed by those who (seemed) to take such insanity serious. So I figured "What the hell, roll with it.".
I think it's kind of sad it actually took this level of insanity before it became unbelievable. Just goes to show what people are used to actually hearing real people say. That the OP could even say my little character was the "Only one who sort of gets his ideas" just says volumes about the quality those ideas. I mean I was posting with all the subtlety and cleverness of a Jeff Dunham puppet for goodness sake. He's not even a good comedian!
I do love these patriotic gifs though, I might just keep posting those.
(seriously what kind of crackpot makes these?)
Chongara, you insult America by adding sparkles to the flag. We are not the United States of Twilight Vampires!
Indeed, we don't cotton to no fangbangers round these parts. The Church of the Sun is rising and will stop this plague upon America and its fine upstanding values.
Did you read the words to what I put or did you just look at the pretty pictures?
3 out of the 6 income security subfunctions go to pensions and unemployment – things that must be earned by working and paying into...As you can see the vast majority of the money spent in the “Income Security” function of the government is spent on programs not directed at the poor or programs where the income must be earned
Frazzled wrote:
Regardless 28% is higher than the 5% rate you blew out of your ass.
The feth?
I said the government spends 5% of its income on the poor, as broken down by spending (remember half of the social security payouts were contributed by members), you've decided to include healthcare and pensions along with it.
Joey wrote:
I said the government spends 5% of its income on the poor, as broken down by spending (remember half of the social security payouts were contributed by members)....
And are therefore contributions to the state, also known as government income.
Joey wrote:
I said the government spends 5% of its income on the poor, as broken down by spending (remember half of the social security payouts were contributed by members)....
And are therefore contributions to the state, also known as government income.
Right. Except this is about people complaining about their money being spent on other peoples' welfare, despite the fact that only 5% of government revenue is spent in this way.
The feth? I said the government spends 5% of its income on the poor, as broken down by spending (remember half of the social security payouts were contributed by members), you've decided to include healthcare and pensions along with it.
No I didn’t . You really need to read things more carefully. The 28% is welfare and healthcare. Welfare is for the poor. (Corporate tax breaks are welfare for the rich and that’s another category altogether). Health care is for the poor (I’m assuming this does not include the VA).
So to use the words of a younger Genghis Connie “You’re wrong wrong really wrong you’re so wrong you’re went around the world and almost came out right but your still wrong.” (the “wrong dance” begins here, occasionally followed by “wag my butt at you” dance). Mmmm….miss those days.
Joey wrote:
Right. Except this is about people complaining about their money being spent on other peoples' welfare, despite the fact that only 5% of government revenue is spent in this way.
5% of "other" people's money?
I don't see how you arrive at that number, only unemployment works that way.
The feth?
I said the government spends 5% of its income on the poor, as broken down by spending (remember half of the social security payouts were contributed by members), you've decided to include healthcare and pensions along with it.
No I didn’t . You really need to read things more carefully. The 28% is welfare and healthcare.
Welfare is for the poor. (Corporate tax breaks are welfare for the rich and that’s another category altogether). Health care is for the poor (I’m assuming this does not include the VA).
Oh okay so you're including Health spending as a subisdy for the poor (damn those needy bastards getting ill all the time). In that case spending 17% of your nations budget to help the poor is grossly innefficient. Assuming it only helps the bottom 20%, that's incredibly inefficient. I mean you'd need 85% of government spending to give healthcare to EVERYONE.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Joey wrote:
Right. Except this is about people complaining about their money being spent on other peoples' welfare, despite the fact that only 5% of government revenue is spent in this way.
5% of "other" people's money?
I don't see how you arrive at that number, only unemployment works that way.
Of the 11% spent on social security, 6% is paid for by the recipient anyway, hence 5%. That's my undersanding, anyway.
Not good at math either I see. 28% is welfare and health care. That does not include social security. That’s double defense (14%) and does not include education (including, you know, poor people) of 15%
Now lets look at the UK. Oh wow they’re like, THE SAME. Evidently per Joey the UK is horrible horrible place too. UK US Welfare: 15% 11% Health: 17% 17% Education (federal) 12% 15% http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/
Frazzled wrote:Not good at math either I see. 28% is welfare and health care. That does not include social security. That’s double defense (14%) and does not include education (including, you know, poor people) of 15%
Now lets look at the UK. Oh wow they’re like, THE SAME. Evidently per Joey the UK is horrible horrible place too.
UK US
Welfare: 15% 11%
Health: 17% 17%
Education (federal) 12% 15%
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/
wh-
what?
What does that have to do with anything? Are you just determined to disagree with me on every single thing I say on the OT with the occasional "derp mountain lions derp"?
Someone was complaining about their taxes being paid to the poor via social welfare programs, I proved that is not true.
No one mentioned education, or healthcare. But for the record that healthcare spending in the UK treats our entire population, you have to spend 17% just to help the people who fall between the gaps.
Frazzled wrote:Not good at math either I see. 28% is welfare and health care. That does not include social security. That’s double defense (14%) and does not include education (including, you know, poor people) of 15%
Social security is spread across several categories of the graph you provided. For example, unemployment is technically part of social security.
Frazzled wrote:Not good at math either I see. 28% is welfare and health care. That does not include social security. That’s double defense (14%) and does not include education (including, you know, poor people) of 15%
Social security is spread across several categories of the graph you provided. For example, unemployment is technically part of social security.
This is part of what confused me before.
Mmm. Good note. Can you reference a better chart? I'm having difficulty getting a easily pulled information. its almost like they don't want you to know...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Not good at math either I see. 28% is welfare and health care. That does not include social security. That’s double defense (14%) and does not include education (including, you know, poor people) of 15%
Now lets look at the UK. Oh wow they’re like, THE SAME. Evidently per Joey the UK is horrible horrible place too. UK US Welfare: 15% 11% Health: 17% 17% Education (federal) 12% 15% http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/
wh- what? What does that have to do with anything? Are you just determined to disagree with me on every single thing I say on the OT with the occasional "derp mountain lions derp"? Someone was complaining about their taxes being paid to the poor via social welfare programs, I proved that is not true. No one mentioned education, or healthcare. But for the record that healthcare spending in the UK treats our entire population, you have to spend 17% just to help the people who fall between the gaps.
then you went on and blew smoke out your ass about saying the US only spends 5% on the poor. Its a patently icorrect and appears to be a lie, since you're not correcting yourself. EDIT: As to the mountain lion thing, well what can I say. I'm just so amazed to have conversed with a person who can break the neck of a mountain lion, naked and with just their bare hands. Its utterly fascinating to me, such that I can't help but be inspired by your self avowed mountain lion killing prowess every time we interact.
Frazzled wrote:
Mmm. Good note. Can you reference a better chart? I'm having difficulty getting a easily pulled information. its almost like they don't want you to know...
I could make one, but I usually charge for that kind of effort.
There's this, but...
...20% seems awfully low. Most estimates I see are in the 24-5% range.
sourclams wrote:Medicare+Medicaid adds up to 23% combined, which seems about right.
The top six us budget expenditures.
833 billion on medicare/medicaid
731 billion on social security
696 billion on defense
395 billion on income securities
226 billion on interest on the debt
214 billion on federal pensions
Explain to me how America doesn't spend too much of its budget on social welfare programs when medicare/medicaid is 120% of defense spending not to mention social security, foodstamps, affordable housing?
sourclams wrote:Medicare+Medicaid adds up to 23% combined, which seems about right.
The top six us budget expenditures.
833 billion on medicare/medicaid
731 billion on social security
696 billion on defense
395 billion on income securities
226 billion on interest on the debt
214 billion on federal pensions
Explain to me how America doesn't spend too much of its budget on social welfare programs when medicare/medicaid is 120% of defense spending not to mention social security, foodstamps, affordable housing?
Because the government is obligated to provide a certain minimum level of care to the citizens. That the wild west corporate health care system has made doing this cripplingly expensive, isn't really the fault of the level of care budgeted for. It's the fault of a lack of regulation and price control creating an environment where that minimum level of care is unreasonably expensive.
broodstar wrote:First we say that those who right the budget have to submit it 1 year in advance or no taxes will be collected. The last census put the population of the united states at 311 million, of that number 21% (65.3 million) of the population was age 15 and under also 16% (50 million) of the population was age 60 and over. So if we have 196 million left of the taxable population. and now we simply do spending over population.
So... corporations no longer have to pay taxes under your plan? You seem to have left them out.
What about people for whom paying $3500 is great hardship? Minimum wage full time is only about $15K at 40 hours, and most minimum wage full time jobs realistically only give 32-35 hours for 12-13K. And given that medical insurance at that leve costs an average of $100-150 per two week pay period, now thier take-home pay after taxes comes down to around 6K per year... before even considering the manditory premiums for SSDI. Can you live on $500 per month? In most places your rent alone is going to be that much.
Personally, I think we make one deduction out of cost of living. This is the amount of money it costs to survive in your general location; including rent/started morgage; reasonable inexpensive food; heating, electicity, and phone; resonable expense for transport (in areas with bad mass transit options this would be starter car payments, gas, and insurance, in areas with good mass transit this would be enough to pay for monthly passes), and a small extra bit for clothes and et cetera (call it $20 a month per person). This is NOT intended to be a 'lap of luxury' lifestyle, nor even a 'comfortably well off' one; this is 'just enough to survive.' And having a $5,000,000 dollar house and a $100,000 dollar car is NOT 'just enough to survive', regardless of where you live; after all LA includes Compton, not just Beverly Hills.
One more deduction, MEDICAL INSURANCE AND EXPENSES (this would be individualized per person), and you're done. Subtract these two from your gross income and there is your taxable income. Then a flat tax percentage across the board. Will 10% cover what the fed needs? 20%? The census bureau would have to determine that.
Corporations pay the percentage on profit, including stock dividends; not on gross. Is this enough? Not a tax lawyer or accountant; someone will have to enlighten me.
sourclams wrote:Medicare+Medicaid adds up to 23% combined, which seems about right.
The top six us budget expenditures.
833 billion on medicare/medicaid
731 billion on social security
696 billion on defense
395 billion on income securities
226 billion on interest on the debt
214 billion on federal pensions
Explain to me how America doesn't spend too much of its budget on social welfare programs when medicare/medicaid is 120% of defense spending not to mention social security, foodstamps, affordable housing?
Because the government is obligated to provide a certain minimum level of care to the citizens. That the wild west corporate health care system has made doing this cripplingly expensive, isn't really the fault of the level of care budgeted for. It's the fault of a lack of regulation and price control creating an environment where that minimum level of care is unreasonably expensive.
No the federal government is not obligated to do anything of the sort. Its obligated to protect the against foreign attack and facilitate intrastate trade. Everything else is jelly.
sourclams wrote:Medicare+Medicaid adds up to 23% combined, which seems about right.
The top six us budget expenditures.
833 billion on medicare/medicaid
731 billion on social security
696 billion on defense
395 billion on income securities
226 billion on interest on the debt
214 billion on federal pensions
Explain to me how America doesn't spend too much of its budget on social welfare programs when medicare/medicaid is 120% of defense spending not to mention social security, foodstamps, affordable housing?
Because the government is obligated to provide a certain minimum level of care to the citizens. That the wild west corporate health care system has made doing this cripplingly expensive, isn't really the fault of the level of care budgeted for. It's the fault of a lack of regulation and price control creating an environment where that minimum level of care is unreasonably expensive.
Do you remember 1979 when Nixon instituted price fixing on gas to "help consumers with energy costs". And what did that lead to energy companies could afford to produce the fuel at the price it was being sold for, so the companies started laying off the workers. So A policy designed to reduce energy cost, create an energy shortage. One thing I've learned while on this planet is with the exception of defense the government doesn't really do anything really well.
sourclams wrote:Medicare+Medicaid adds up to 23% combined, which seems about right.
The top six us budget expenditures.
833 billion on medicare/medicaid
731 billion on social security
696 billion on defense
395 billion on income securities
226 billion on interest on the debt
214 billion on federal pensions
Explain to me how America doesn't spend too much of its budget on social welfare programs when medicare/medicaid is 120% of defense spending not to mention social security, foodstamps, affordable housing?
Because the government is obligated to provide a certain minimum level of care to the citizens. That the wild west corporate health care system has made doing this cripplingly expensive, isn't really the fault of the level of care budgeted for. It's the fault of a lack of regulation and price control creating an environment where that minimum level of care is unreasonably expensive.
Do you remember 1979 when Nixon instituted price fixing on gas to "help consumers with energy costs". And what did that lead to energy companies could afford to produce the fuel at the price it was being sold for, so the companies started laying off the workers. So A policy designed to reduce energy cost, create an energy shortage. One thing I've learned while on this planet is with the exception of defense the government doesn't really do anything really well.
Funny how America and Somalia are the only two countries on earth who think that way.
It doesn't bother you that literally every other country on earth goes to efforts to alleviate the suffering of its less fortunate citizens?
Lets say the government wanted to spend $1.4 trillion dollars need year, the dividend would be $7142.86 for each person between the ages of 15 and 60. And that my friends is when the effect of government spending is staring you in the face.
This is pure class warfare and would not fly. So let's play with this like the government is want to do.
About 50% of the population has problems whether it is physical, psychological or being plain poor. So let's get some votes and exclude 98 million.
Then we will go on the news and state that we are going to make up the difference by "taxing the rich."
Then we figure out that the 1% (1.96 million) are not going to donate to our cause if we hit them for what the 98 million we are letting off the hook. (over $700000 each)
So we finagle it so that if you are not in the exempt category, you are "rich" and now you have a base load of $14000+ per person.
This is a problem as the $14000 hit is too little on those on the high end of the income spectrum but absolutely debilitating to the bottom guy who is not exempt. So say the cut off point is $24000 for a family of 4 doesn't have to pay anything. Now anyone who makes 24001 to 38000 is screwed because they are making more than the exempt "poor line" but have to suck it up and pay the $14000.
This is middle class warfare. And while we don't get a tax "bill" like this, this is in effect what is happening today with our complicated tax code.
I truly would like to see a flat tax rate with no tax breaks for anything. I think this is the best way to incentivise getting a good paying job while not creating tax loopholes that only the rich can afford or qualify for. Hit me for 10% and know if I make 10000 dollars you get 1000 and if I make 1 million dollars I owe you 100000.
Of course this will never happen because it guarantees no need for the IRS, H&R Block, or any tax lawyer. Too many out of a job.
sourclams wrote:Medicare+Medicaid adds up to 23% combined, which seems about right.
The top six us budget expenditures.
833 billion on medicare/medicaid
731 billion on social security
696 billion on defense
395 billion on income securities
226 billion on interest on the debt
214 billion on federal pensions
Explain to me how America doesn't spend too much of its budget on social welfare programs when medicare/medicaid is 120% of defense spending not to mention social security, foodstamps, affordable housing?
Because the government is obligated to provide a certain minimum level of care to the citizens. That the wild west corporate health care system has made doing this cripplingly expensive, isn't really the fault of the level of care budgeted for. It's the fault of a lack of regulation and price control creating an environment where that minimum level of care is unreasonably expensive.
Do you remember 1979 when Nixon instituted price fixing on gas to "help consumers with energy costs". And what did that lead to energy companies could afford to produce the fuel at the price it was being sold for, so the companies started laying off the workers. So A policy designed to reduce energy cost, create an energy shortage. One thing I've learned while on this planet is with the exception of defense the government doesn't really do anything really well.
Funny how America and Somalia are the only two countries on earth who think that way.
It doesn't bother you that literally every other country on earth goes to efforts to alleviate the suffering of its less fortunate citizens?
And we do as well, or has that math thing not sunk in for you yet?
sourclams wrote:Medicare+Medicaid adds up to 23% combined, which seems about right.
The top six us budget expenditures.
833 billion on medicare/medicaid
731 billion on social security
696 billion on defense
395 billion on income securities
226 billion on interest on the debt
214 billion on federal pensions
Explain to me how America doesn't spend too much of its budget on social welfare programs when medicare/medicaid is 120% of defense spending not to mention social security, foodstamps, affordable housing?
Because the government is obligated to provide a certain minimum level of care to the citizens. That the wild west corporate health care system has made doing this cripplingly expensive, isn't really the fault of the level of care budgeted for. It's the fault of a lack of regulation and price control creating an environment where that minimum level of care is unreasonably expensive.
No the federal government is not obligated to do anything of the sort. Its obligated to protect the against foreign attack and facilitate intrastate trade. Everything else is jelly.
Is that written on the dark side of the moon or something? Who says that.
sourclams wrote:Medicare+Medicaid adds up to 23% combined, which seems about right.
The top six us budget expenditures.
833 billion on medicare/medicaid
731 billion on social security
696 billion on defense
395 billion on income securities
226 billion on interest on the debt
214 billion on federal pensions
Explain to me how America doesn't spend too much of its budget on social welfare programs when medicare/medicaid is 120% of defense spending not to mention social security, foodstamps, affordable housing?
Because the government is obligated to provide a certain minimum level of care to the citizens. That the wild west corporate health care system has made doing this cripplingly expensive, isn't really the fault of the level of care budgeted for. It's the fault of a lack of regulation and price control creating an environment where that minimum level of care is unreasonably expensive.
No the federal government is not obligated to do anything of the sort. Its obligated to protect the against foreign attack and facilitate intrastate trade. Everything else is jelly.
Is that written on the dark side of the moon or something? Who says that.
sourclams wrote:Medicare+Medicaid adds up to 23% combined, which seems about right.
The top six us budget expenditures.
833 billion on medicare/medicaid
731 billion on social security
696 billion on defense
395 billion on income securities
226 billion on interest on the debt
214 billion on federal pensions
Explain to me how America doesn't spend too much of its budget on social welfare programs when medicare/medicaid is 120% of defense spending not to mention social security, foodstamps, affordable housing?
Because the government is obligated to provide a certain minimum level of care to the citizens. That the wild west corporate health care system has made doing this cripplingly expensive, isn't really the fault of the level of care budgeted for. It's the fault of a lack of regulation and price control creating an environment where that minimum level of care is unreasonably expensive.
No the federal government is not obligated to do anything of the sort. Its obligated to protect the against foreign attack and facilitate intrastate trade. Everything else is jelly.
Is that written on the dark side of the moon or something? Who says that.
sourclams wrote:Medicare+Medicaid adds up to 23% combined, which seems about right.
The top six us budget expenditures.
833 billion on medicare/medicaid
731 billion on social security
696 billion on defense
395 billion on income securities
226 billion on interest on the debt
214 billion on federal pensions
Explain to me how America doesn't spend too much of its budget on social welfare programs when medicare/medicaid is 120% of defense spending not to mention social security, foodstamps, affordable housing?
Because the government is obligated to provide a certain minimum level of care to the citizens. That the wild west corporate health care system has made doing this cripplingly expensive, isn't really the fault of the level of care budgeted for. It's the fault of a lack of regulation and price control creating an environment where that minimum level of care is unreasonably expensive.
No the federal government is not obligated to do anything of the sort. Its obligated to protect the against foreign attack and facilitate intrastate trade. Everything else is jelly.
Is that written on the dark side of the moon or something? Who says that.
Lots of people. It's hardly a rare view in my experience.
sourclams wrote:Medicare+Medicaid adds up to 23% combined, which seems about right.
The top six us budget expenditures.
833 billion on medicare/medicaid
731 billion on social security
696 billion on defense
395 billion on income securities
226 billion on interest on the debt
214 billion on federal pensions
Explain to me how America doesn't spend too much of its budget on social welfare programs when medicare/medicaid is 120% of defense spending not to mention social security, foodstamps, affordable housing?
Because the government is obligated to provide a certain minimum level of care to the citizens. That the wild west corporate health care system has made doing this cripplingly expensive, isn't really the fault of the level of care budgeted for. It's the fault of a lack of regulation and price control creating an environment where that minimum level of care is unreasonably expensive.
No the federal government is not obligated to do anything of the sort. Its obligated to protect the against foreign attack and facilitate intrastate trade. Everything else is jelly.
Is that written on the dark side of the moon or something? Who says that.
Lots of people. It's hardly a rare view in my experience.
But repetition doesn't make something legal or natural law as frazzled seems to be implying.
Vulcan wrote:So... corporations no longer have to pay taxes under your plan? You seem to have left them out.
We can but dream.
Vulcan wrote:Corporations pay the percentage on profit, including stock dividends; not on gross. Is this enough? Not a tax lawyer or accountant; someone will have to enlighten me.
Corporations deduct all of their expenses (including salaries) then pay tax on that amount. After they've paid tax (35%) they distribute stock dividends.
And despite such crushing socialism corporate profits are the highest they have ever been and people are flocking to dividends as a way to cheat on their taxes. What do other countries do for tax structures relating to investment payouts? I know it's not nearly so contentious an issue in europe or the asias.
And despite such crushing socialism corporate profits are the highest they have ever been and people are flocking to dividends as a way to cheat on their taxes. What do other countries do for tax structures relating to investment payouts? I know it's not nearly so contentious an issue in europe or the asias.
How are receiving dividends cheating on your taxes?
Vulcan wrote:So... corporations no longer have to pay taxes under your plan? You seem to have left them out.
We can but dream.
Vulcan wrote:Corporations pay the percentage on profit, including stock dividends; not on gross. Is this enough? Not a tax lawyer or accountant; someone will have to enlighten me.
Corporations deduct all of their expenses (including salaries) then pay tax on that amount. After they've paid tax (35%) they distribute stock dividends.
Then those dividends are taxed at 15%.
And businesses don't pay tax, they pass them on to the consumer through raises in price, so when you tax a business you are actually taxing yourself. Once you realize that I'll talk to you about why I don't tax businesses.
And despite such crushing socialism corporate profits are the highest they have ever been and people are flocking to dividends as a way to cheat on their taxes. What do other countries do for tax structures relating to investment payouts? I know it's not nearly so contentious an issue in europe or the asias.
How are receiving dividends cheating on your taxes?
Its an income stream that individuals are taxed at often times half what other Americans are going to have to pay for their own income. It's generates further income disparities as those with means are vastly more likely to receive excessive income from dividend payouts while the havenots are left paying higher taxes and working for their income.
So yeah, you don't have a job? You have a trust fund? You pay half the taxes of the next dude? Thats a legal form of tax evasion. Ignoring when people will pay themselves through dividends to avoid taxes entirely, it's just bad social engineering.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:
biccat wrote:
Vulcan wrote:So... corporations no longer have to pay taxes under your plan? You seem to have left them out.
We can but dream.
Vulcan wrote:Corporations pay the percentage on profit, including stock dividends; not on gross. Is this enough? Not a tax lawyer or accountant; someone will have to enlighten me.
Corporations deduct all of their expenses (including salaries) then pay tax on that amount. After they've paid tax (35%) they distribute stock dividends.
Then those dividends are taxed at 15%.
And businesses don't pay tax, they pass them on to the consumer through raises in price, so when you tax a business you are actually taxing yourself. Once you realize that I'll talk to you about why I don't tax businesses.
Thats a beautiful cup full of koolaid you just handed out. I mean, if it was simply going to consumers and everything else was maintained upper management pay wouldn't have skyrocketed in the past 20 years! Clearly the tax rates are whats directing the gravy train in U.S. corporate boardrooms (well, the companies that actually pay the taxes anyway. That numbers surprisingly small.)
And despite such crushing socialism corporate profits are the highest they have ever been and people are flocking to dividends as a way to cheat on their taxes. What do other countries do for tax structures relating to investment payouts? I know it's not nearly so contentious an issue in europe or the asias.
How are receiving dividends cheating on your taxes?
Its an income stream that individuals are taxed at often times half what the majority of America is going to have to pay for its own income. It's generates further income disparities as those with means are vastly more likely to receive excessive income from dividend payouts while the havenots are left paying higher taxes and working for their income.
So yeah, you don't have a job? You have a trust fund? You pay half the taxes of the next dude? Thats a legal form of tax evasion. Ignoring when people will pay themselves through dividends to avoid taxes entirely, it's just bad social engineering.
Half of America doesn't pay income taxes.
I can probably say a very large percentage of retired people recieve dividends. If you have a retirement plan, one day you will be paid dividends. Does that make you a cheater?
And despite such crushing socialism corporate profits are the highest they have ever been and people are flocking to dividends as a way to cheat on their taxes. What do other countries do for tax structures relating to investment payouts? I know it's not nearly so contentious an issue in europe or the asias.
How are receiving dividends cheating on your taxes?
Its an income stream that individuals are taxed at often times half what the majority of America is going to have to pay for its own income. It's generates further income disparities as those with means are vastly more likely to receive excessive income from dividend payouts while the havenots are left paying higher taxes and working for their income.
So yeah, you don't have a job? You have a trust fund? You pay half the taxes of the next dude? Thats a legal form of tax evasion. Ignoring when people will pay themselves through dividends to avoid taxes entirely, it's just bad social engineering.
Half of America doesn't pay income taxes. I can probably say a very large percentage of retired people recieve dividends. If you have a retirement plan, one day you will be paid dividends. Does that make you a cheater?
Yeah, i phrased that wrong. I'm smashing these out while at work so I'm going a bit fast. You caught it before I could edit it. My bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Then those dividends are taxed at 15%.
And despite such crushing socialism corporate profits are the highest they have ever been and people are flocking to dividends as a way to cheat on their taxes. What do other countries do for tax structures relating to investment payouts? I know it's not nearly so contentious an issue in europe or the asias.
How are receiving dividends cheating on your taxes?
Its an income stream that individuals are taxed at often times half what the majority of America is going to have to pay for its own income. It's generates further income disparities as those with means are vastly more likely to receive excessive income from dividend payouts while the havenots are left paying higher taxes and working for their income.
So yeah, you don't have a job? You have a trust fund? You pay half the taxes of the next dude? Thats a legal form of tax evasion. Ignoring when people will pay themselves through dividends to avoid taxes entirely, it's just bad social engineering.
Half of America doesn't pay income taxes. I can probably say a very large percentage of retired people recieve dividends. If you have a retirement plan, one day you will be paid dividends. Does that make you a cheater?
I don't think that system is going to exist when I'm that age. It's a broken one. I doubt I'm gonna get social security either.
ShumaGorath wrote:Its an income stream that individuals are taxed at often times half what the majority of America is going to have to pay for its own income. It's generates further income disparities as those with means are vastly more likely to receive excessive income from dividend payouts while the havenots are left paying higher taxes and working for their income.
So? The wealth that is generating the income has already been taxed. I don't see why it should be taxed again for earning interest or gains.
ShumaGorath wrote:So yeah, you don't have a job? You have a trust fund? You pay half the taxes of the next dude? Thats a legal form of tax evasion. Ignoring when people will pay themselves through dividends to avoid taxes entirely, it's just bad social engineering.
Interesting. So paying the amount of taxes you're legally required to pay is "tax evasion"?
Are you engaged in tax evasion?
Also, to answer your earlier question: Europe and Asia generally don't double tax corporate earnings.
ShumaGorath wrote:
broodstar wrote:And businesses don't pay tax, they pass them on to the consumer through raises in price, so when you tax a business you are actually taxing yourself. Once you realize that I'll talk to you about why I don't tax businesses.
Thats a beautiful cup full of koolaid you just handed out. I mean, if it was simply going to consumers and everything else was maintained upper management pay wouldn't have skyrocketed in the past 20 years! Clearly the tax rates are whats directing the gravy train in U.S. corporate boardrooms (well, the companies that actually pay the taxes anyway. That numbers surprisingly small.)
He's right.
If you run a corporation and all of a sudden the government tells you that your income will be reduced by 20%, what would you do? Probably raise prices, if you can afford to. (Of course, you would get undercut by foreign firms not subject to the same tax rates, but hey, too bad for American jobs).
Vulcan wrote:So... corporations no longer have to pay taxes under your plan? You seem to have left them out.
We can but dream.
Vulcan wrote:Corporations pay the percentage on profit, including stock dividends; not on gross. Is this enough? Not a tax lawyer or accountant; someone will have to enlighten me.
Corporations deduct all of their expenses (including salaries) then pay tax on that amount. After they've paid tax (35%) they distribute stock dividends.
Then those dividends are taxed at 15%.
And businesses don't pay tax, they pass them on to the consumer through raises in price, so when you tax a business you are actually taxing yourself. Once you realize that I'll talk to you about why I don't tax businesses.
Thats a beautiful cup full of koolaid you just handed out. I mean, if it was simply going to consumers and everything else was maintained upper management pay wouldn't have skyrocketed in the past 20 years! Clearly the tax rates are whats directing the gravy train in U.S. corporate boardrooms (well, the companies that actually pay the taxes anyway. That numbers surprisingly small.)
Actually you can see that you can see that quite clearly in tobacco (I know, I use it). In 2007 a can of Grizzly cost $1.49, in 2008 Obama signed a bill raising the tobacco tax by $1 per ounce, then the price of Grizzly was $2.49. Yesterday the price of a can if Grizzly was $3.89. How else do you expect the price of a good to rise $2.40 per unit in 5 years.
ShumaGorath wrote:I don't think that system is going to exist when I'm that age. It's a broken one. I doubt I'm gonna get social security either.
Thats not a system, thats stock ownership. Do you not think people are going to have retirement plans in the future?
I don't think the stock market will function as it does now in the future. Its becoming steadily more unstable and confusing and it's creating economic instabilities that it was physically incapable of causing even 30 years ago. Either it will destroy itself or it will be transformed by some sort of desperate series of harsh international regulations. All the signs are pointing to further and deepening instability caused by the financial markets and transaction automation, the simplest prediction is that something will eventually go very wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:
biccat wrote:
Vulcan wrote:So... corporations no longer have to pay taxes under your plan? You seem to have left them out.
We can but dream.
Vulcan wrote:Corporations pay the percentage on profit, including stock dividends; not on gross. Is this enough? Not a tax lawyer or accountant; someone will have to enlighten me.
Corporations deduct all of their expenses (including salaries) then pay tax on that amount. After they've paid tax (35%) they distribute stock dividends.
Then those dividends are taxed at 15%.
And businesses don't pay tax, they pass them on to the consumer through raises in price, so when you tax a business you are actually taxing yourself. Once you realize that I'll talk to you about why I don't tax businesses.
Thats a beautiful cup full of koolaid you just handed out. I mean, if it was simply going to consumers and everything else was maintained upper management pay wouldn't have skyrocketed in the past 20 years! Clearly the tax rates are whats directing the gravy train in U.S. corporate boardrooms (well, the companies that actually pay the taxes anyway. That numbers surprisingly small.)
Actually you can see that you can see that quite clearly in tobacco (I know, I use it). In 2007 a can of Grizzly cost $1.49, in 2008 Obama signed a bill raising the tobacco tax by $1 per ounce, then the price of Grizzly was $2.49. Yesterday the price of a can if Grizzly was $3.89. How else do you expect the price of a good to rise $2.40 per unit in 5 years.
Ahh, yes, you point out something where the price has risen specifically in response to vice taxes. Taxes put in place specifically to raise the price of the vices in question. Throw the dart again please.
So? The wealth that is generating the income has already been taxed. I don't see why it should be taxed again for earning interest or gains.
Every form of worker compensation and payment has been taxed already farther up the chain. Why should the chosen pay method of the rich be exempted from paying into the pot all the normals have to pay into?
Interesting. So paying the amount of taxes you're legally required to pay is "tax evasion"?
When you set pay policy in your company and you pay yourself in dividends? Yeah. Its tax evasion in the same way that insider trading is insider trading even when congress does it. Laws aren't applied evenly, but when two revenue streams are identical except one can pay twice the taxes of the other than something has gone wrong.
Are you engaged in tax evasion? Also, to answer your earlier question: Europe and Asia generally don't double tax corporate earnings.
Taxes on dividends aren't taxes on corporate earnings, they're taxes on income.
Also, to answer your earlier question: Europe and Asia generally don't double tax corporate earnings.
Please answer what I actually asked, don't just throw buzzword bs at me.
He's right.
No, not really. Otherwise corporate profits wouldn't be the highest they have been in history and executive pay wouldn't be the same. If our tax rate is so abominable than why the feth are they making (and then sharing with themselves) so much money?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:There is a billion of examples, of how the taxes are being passed to you. Would you like me to start naming them off?
No, because I'm quite convinced you don't actually understand most of the things you're talking about. If you really must though than I can't stop you.
biccat wrote:So? The wealth that is generating the income has already been taxed.
That is utterly irrelevant.
The wealth of the corporation is separate from the wealth of the shareholder because they are legally separate entities.
broodstar wrote:Explain to me how America doesn't spend too much of its budget on social welfare programs when medicare/medicaid is 120% of defense spending
Why should the government spend more on defense than on improving the lives of its citizens?
broodstar wrote:There is a billion of examples, of how the taxes are being passed to you. Would you like me to start naming them off?
No, because I'm quite convinced you don't actually understand most of the things you're talking about. If you really must though than I can't stop you.
No Sir, it is I who am convinced that you don't know what is going and when you take the time to research and add up all the little taxes around you, you'll find at you are actually being taxed 75% of your income.
broodstar wrote:There is a billion of examples, of how the taxes are being passed to you. Would you like me to start naming them off?
No, because I'm quite convinced you don't actually understand most of the things you're talking about. If you really must though than I can't stop you.
No Sir, it is I who am convinced that you don't know what is going and when you take the time to research and add up all the little taxes around you, you'll find at you are actually being taxed 75% of your income.
Adorable. This is the man that wanted to cut every government service including most essential services because the tax code was too complicated now telling me mathematically (with numbers!) how I am receiving fully one quarter of the money I should.
broodstar wrote:Explain to me how America doesn't spend too much of its budget on social welfare programs when medicare/medicaid is 120% of defense spending
Why should the government spend more on defense than on improving the lives of its citizens?
The Federal government isn't supposed to be doing social welfare programs. The government to jobs, provide for the common defense and and monitor state to state trade.
broodstar wrote:Explain to me how America doesn't spend too much of its budget on social welfare programs when medicare/medicaid is 120% of defense spending
Why should the government spend more on defense than on improving the lives of its citizens?
The Federal government isn't supposed to be doing social welfare programs. The government to jobs, provide for the common defense and and monitor state to state trade.
And just who the hell decided that? The slave owners that wrote the initial system that our modern government doesn't particularly resemble? Ron Paul? Who the hell cares about state to state trade, we became the most powerful economy on earth by throwing the ideas of independent state economic governance out the window. Thats the exact kind of gak that is currently torpedoing Europe and you're posting some halt wits comics to try and prove an insoluble point about how it's better?
Melissia wrote:The wealth of the corporation is separate from the wealth of the shareholder because they are legally separate entities.
No it's not. We've been over this before. The corporation is an extension of the shareholders' common ownership.
ShumaGorath wrote:
So? The wealth that is generating the income has already been taxed. I don't see why it should be taxed again for earning interest or gains.
Every form of worker compensation and payment has been taxed already farther up the chain. Why should the chosen pay method of the rich be exempted from paying into the pot all the normals have to pay into?
Because we have an income tax scheme, not a wealth tax scheme.
ShumaGorath wrote:When you set pay policy in your company and you pay yourself in dividends? Yeah. Its tax evasion in the same way that insider trading is insider trading even when congress does it. Laws aren't applied evenly, but when two revenue streams are identical except one can pay twice the taxes of the other than something has gone wrong.
So paying the amount of taxes you're legally required to pay is "tax evasion"?
If you want to avoid paying taxes on money your company earns, you pay yourself a salary, not dividends. Salaries are paid pre-tax and top out at a federal rate of 35% (individual). Dividends are taxed first at the corporate level (35%) and then at the dividend level (15%), which is more expensive.
ShumaGorath wrote:Taxes on dividends aren't taxes on corporate earnings, they're taxes on income.
No, they're taxes on corporate earnings, just applied to the individual shareholder.
ShumaGorath wrote:Please answer what I actually asked, don't just throw buzzword bs at me.
Frankly, I don't care enough to scroll up and find out what you actually asked. Plus, I have no idea why you're being so hostile.
ShumaGorath wrote:No, not really. Otherwise corporate profits wouldn't be the highest they have been in history and executive pay wouldn't be the same. If our tax rate is so abominable than why the feth are they making (and then sharing with themselves) so much money?
Unless - and just bear with me here - corporate profits are at an all time high in spite of high corporate tax rates.
Whoa. Mind fething blown!
ShumaGorath wrote:And just who the hell decided that? The slave owners that wrote the initial system that our modern government doesn't particularly resemble? Ron Paul? Who the hell cares about state to state trade, we became the most powerful economy on earth by throwing the ideas of independent state economic governance out the window. Thats the exact kind of gak that is currently torpedoing Europe and you're posting some halt wits comics to try and prove an insoluble point about how it's better?
Slaveowners who wrote the US constitution are "currently torpedoing Europe"? What the hell?
Adorable. This is the man that wanted to cut every government service including most essential services because the tax code was too complicated now telling me mathematically (with numbers!) how I am receiving fully one quarter of the money I should.
OK, let focus on one commodity, say gas, How much of every dollar you pay at the pump is actually going to getting the oil company, would you say 99% or 100%?
Taxes: 13 cents
Distribution and Marketing: 8 cents
Refining: 14 cents
Crude oil: 65 cents
So, not only are you being taxed for your get your income but also being taxed for using that income. Take a look around examples of that are everywhere.
Vulcan wrote:So... corporations no longer have to pay taxes under your plan? You seem to have left them out.
We can but dream.
Vulcan wrote:Corporations pay the percentage on profit, including stock dividends; not on gross. Is this enough? Not a tax lawyer or accountant; someone will have to enlighten me.
Corporations deduct all of their expenses (including salaries) then pay tax on that amount. After they've paid tax (35%) they distribute stock dividends.
Then those dividends are taxed at 15%.
And businesses don't pay tax, they pass them on to the consumer through raises in price, so when you tax a business you are actually taxing yourself. Once you realize that I'll talk to you about why I don't tax businesses.
Me and you own widget stalls. At the moment we are both competing with each other and charging $5 per widget, making $50k a year profit, of which 7.5k, 15%, is taxed.
The government raises corporation tax by 5%, and YOU respond by raising prices to $5.25, in order to retain your profit.
I, however, take the hit on my profits.
Which of us is going to get more customers?
Tax increases are only passed on to the consumer in a monopoly or a cartel (like energy in the UK).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Adorable. This is the man that wanted to cut every government service including most essential services because the tax code was too complicated now telling me mathematically (with numbers!) how I am receiving fully one quarter of the money I should.
OK, let focus on one commodity, say gas, How much of every dollar you pay at the pump is actually going to getting the oil company, would you say 99% or 100%?
Taxes: 13 cents
Distribution and Marketing: 8 cents
Refining: 14 cents
Crude oil: 65 cents
So, not only are you being taxed for your get your income but also being taxed for using that income. Take a look around examples of that are everywhere.
Joey wrote:Me and you own widget stalls. At the moment we are both competing with each other and charging $5 per widget, making $50k a year profit, of which 7.5k, 15%, is taxed.
The government raises corporation tax by 5%, and YOU respond by raising prices to $5.25, in order to retain your profit.
I, however, take the hit on my profits.
Which of us is going to get more customers?
If you could have taken the hit to your profits, why didn't you drop your price earlier in order to get more customers?
If I'm selling widgets at $5, but could afford the drop in profit by selling them at $4.75, why would I continue to compete with you for customers by selling them at $5?
Joey wrote:Me and you own widget stalls. At the moment we are both competing with each other and charging $5 per widget, making $50k a year profit, of which 7.5k, 15%, is taxed.
The government raises corporation tax by 5%, and YOU respond by raising prices to $5.25, in order to retain your profit.
I, however, take the hit on my profits.
Which of us is going to get more customers?
If you could have taken the hit to your profits, why didn't you drop your price earlier in order to get more customers?
If I'm selling widgets at $5, but could afford the drop in profit by selling them at $4.75, why would I continue to compete with you for customers by selling them at $5?
Because you have to maintain a profit margin? There's no evidence at all that raises in corporation tax is "passed on to the consumer" or every tax rise would result in an increase in inflation and the revenue raised would be irrelavent.
Adorable. This is the man that wanted to cut every government service including most essential services because the tax code was too complicated now telling me mathematically (with numbers!) how I am receiving fully one quarter of the money I should.
OK, let focus on one commodity, say gas, How much of every dollar you pay at the pump is actually going to getting the oil company, would you say 99% or 100%?
Taxes: 13 cents
Distribution and Marketing: 8 cents
Refining: 14 cents
Crude oil: 65 cents
So, not only are you being taxed for your get your income but also being taxed for using that income. Take a look around examples of that are everywhere.
Yes, it's called salex taxes. Point?
That way to high to be sales tax, that's double what sales tax is. Anyways the point I am making is that everyone is taxed multiple times throughout the day. Your taxed for your income and then taxed for using your cell phone, tax at the pump, and on and on.
My proposal is that instead of all the little taxes throughout the year, why not consolidate them into one bill that the government sends you once a year? That way you get to keep all of your pay throughout that year, juggle your finances better, and be placing the tax payment into a bank account where it can accrue interest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Joey wrote:
biccat wrote:
Joey wrote:Me and you own widget stalls. At the moment we are both competing with each other and charging $5 per widget, making $50k a year profit, of which 7.5k, 15%, is taxed.
The government raises corporation tax by 5%, and YOU respond by raising prices to $5.25, in order to retain your profit.
I, however, take the hit on my profits.
Which of us is going to get more customers?
If you could have taken the hit to your profits, why didn't you drop your price earlier in order to get more customers?
If I'm selling widgets at $5, but could afford the drop in profit by selling them at $4.75, why would I continue to compete with you for customers by selling them at $5?
Because you have to maintain a profit margin? There's no evidence at all that raises in corporation tax is "passed on to the consumer" or every tax rise would result in an increase in inflation and the revenue raised would be irrelavent.
Have you ever stopped to think that the taxation on goods maybe the cause of the inflation.
broodstar wrote:
That way to high to be sales tax, that's double what sales tax is. Anyways the point I am making is that everyone is taxed multiple times throughout the day. Your taxed for your income and then taxed for using your cell phone, tax at the pump, and on and on.
My proposal is that instead of all the little taxes throughout the year, why not consolidate them into one bill that the government sends you once a year? That way you get to keep all of your pay throughout that year, juggle your finances better, and be placing the tax payment into a bank account where it can accrue interest.
Well it would be policially unpalitable in the United States, for one. In Denmark IIRC their average citizen is taxed at 55% but sales taxes are almost negligent and quality of life is very high.
There is definitely something to be said for consolidating all taxes (except alcohol and tobacco tax, if you like, not entirely decided myself) into income tax. The amount you'd save on beurocracy would be huge, for a start.
broodstar wrote:
Have you ever stopped to think that the taxation on goods maybe the cause of the inflation.
Our government recently raised VAT by 2.5% and as a concequence inflation rocketed. So yes.
However inflation occurrs for many complicated reasons. Sales tax may be one of them but it's temporary. For example in January of last year the rise in sales tax occurred, so inflation immediately jumped from ~3 to 5%. Now last month it "dropped out" and inflation is down to 3.5%. Inflation still occurrs regardless of sales tax. It's not like the Weimar Republic collapsed because they had a billion percent sales tax.
Vulcan wrote:So... corporations no longer have to pay taxes under your plan? You seem to have left them out.
We can but dream.
Vulcan wrote:Corporations pay the percentage on profit, including stock dividends; not on gross. Is this enough? Not a tax lawyer or accountant; someone will have to enlighten me.
Corporations deduct all of their expenses (including salaries) then pay tax on that amount. After they've paid tax (35%) they distribute stock dividends.
Then those dividends are taxed at 15%.
And businesses don't pay tax, they pass them on to the consumer through raises in price, so when you tax a business you are actually taxing yourself. Once you realize that I'll talk to you about why I don't tax businesses.
A great example of how businesses pass taxes onto the consumer was the expiration of aviation taxes last year. When the aviation taxes expired in July all the customers buying airline tickets got instant savings when the cost of tickets went down. Taxes that no longer needed to be collected resulted in instant savings for consumers .
But what actually happened was that as soon as the airlines no longer needed to collect $x for each ticket sold, they raised the prices of each ticket by $x. The airlines realized that people were willing to pay $500 for an airline ticket (random number), so they decided that if the government would no longer take their cut they would just keep the end price the same and pocket the difference. Call me a "corporations are evil" guy if you want. But if a business knows that you have always been willing to pay $50 for something, then why would they drop the price to $45 just because they don't have to pay taxes? The price of an item is set by what the market is willing to pay, not what the cost is to the company.
The primary responsibility of a company is to make the maximum amount of profit they can. Passing tax savings onto the consumer is not part of that responsibility.
broodstar wrote:
That way to high to be sales tax, that's double what sales tax is. Anyways the point I am making is that everyone is taxed multiple times throughout the day. Your taxed for your income and then taxed for using your cell phone, tax at the pump, and on and on.
My proposal is that instead of all the little taxes throughout the year, why not consolidate them into one bill that the government sends you once a year? That way you get to keep all of your pay throughout that year, juggle your finances better, and be placing the tax payment into a bank account where it can accrue interest.
Well it would be policially unpalitable in the United States, for one. In Denmark IIRC their average citizen is taxed at 55% but sales taxes are almost negligent and quality of life is very high.
There is definitely something to be said for consolidating all taxes (except alcohol and tobacco tax, if you like, not entirely decided myself) into income tax. The amount you'd save on beurocracy would be huge, for a start.
Actually America is a mix. Liberals are generally found in the northern states like Maine, New Hampshire, and New York, as well as the Pacific Coast like California, Nevada and Washington. Conservatives is usually found in southern state like Alabama, Georgia and Kentucky as well as interior states like Omaha,Texas and Wyoming.
broodstar wrote:
That way to high to be sales tax, that's double what sales tax is. Anyways the point I am making is that everyone is taxed multiple times throughout the day. Your taxed for your income and then taxed for using your cell phone, tax at the pump, and on and on.
My proposal is that instead of all the little taxes throughout the year, why not consolidate them into one bill that the government sends you once a year? That way you get to keep all of your pay throughout that year, juggle your finances better, and be placing the tax payment into a bank account where it can accrue interest.
Well it would be policially unpalitable in the United States, for one. In Denmark IIRC their average citizen is taxed at 55% but sales taxes are almost negligent and quality of life is very high.
There is definitely something to be said for consolidating all taxes (except alcohol and tobacco tax, if you like, not entirely decided myself) into income tax. The amount you'd save on beurocracy would be huge, for a start.
Actually America is a mix. Liberals are generally found in the northern states like Maine, New Hampshire, and New York, as well as the Pacific Coast like California, Nevada and Washington. Conservatives is usually found in southern state like Alabama, Georgia and Kentucky as well as interior states like Omaha,Texas and Wyoming.
Actually I think the tensions are so high that the culture war will go hot, (that liberals and conservatives will start shooting each other.) and a civil war will happen. But I pray that I'm wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Anyway, back to the topic.
biccat wrote:No it's not. We've been over this before.
And you've consistently been wrong.
The corporation is a separate entity, therefor it is taxed separately. If it wasn't a separate entity, it'd not have all the rights of being one. But of course, it is a separate entity, with separate legal rights, with the shareholders not being liable for its actions.
biccat wrote:No it's not. We've been over this before.
And you've consistently been wrong.
The corporation is a separate entity, therefor it is taxed separately. If it wasn't a separate entity, it'd not have all the rights of being one. But of course, it is a separate entity, with separate legal rights, with the shareholders not being liable for its actions.
Would you also say that a corporation has the right to vote, sense it is a separate entity?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Does anyone believe that we should go through and look at every law to see if it is still relevant? example: In Florida, it is illegal for a man and woman to live in the same house, unmarried.
Do you you believe that there are business laws that are irrelevant in order to make finding the relevant laws easier?
broodstar wrote:
Do you remember 1979 when Nixon instituted price fixing on gas to "help consumers with energy costs".
Nixon left office in 1974, you're thinking of the 1973 crisis. In 1979 Carter started to deregulate oil prices.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
He's right.
If you run a corporation and all of a sudden the government tells you that your income will be reduced by 20%, what would you do? Probably raise prices, if you can afford to. (Of course, you would get undercut by foreign firms not subject to the same tax rates, but hey, too bad for American jobs).
Well, he's sort of right. As you've alluded, whether or not a company raises prices is determined by more than the corporate tax rate. Indeed, what they can reasonably obtain for their product or service is the most important variable when considering how revenue will be maximized.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
If I'm selling widgets at $5, but could afford the drop in profit by selling them at $4.75, why would I continue to compete with you for customers by selling them at $5?
Revenue projections favor a higher price point.
Plenty of market studies have shown that uninformed consumers often use price as a means of determining quality.
Vulcan wrote:So... corporations no longer have to pay taxes under your plan? You seem to have left them out.
We can but dream.
Vulcan wrote:Corporations pay the percentage on profit, including stock dividends; not on gross. Is this enough? Not a tax lawyer or accountant; someone will have to enlighten me.
Corporations deduct all of their expenses (including salaries) then pay tax on that amount. After they've paid tax (35%) they distribute stock dividends.
Then those dividends are taxed at 15%.
And businesses don't pay tax, they pass them on to the consumer through raises in price, so when you tax a business you are actually taxing yourself. Once you realize that I'll talk to you about why I don't tax businesses.
You know, I never considered that before... makes me feel kinda dumb, because I've pointed out where that happens for other business expenses (oil prices being the most recent example) but never considered how that would apply to taxes.
(Yes, STOP THE INTERENT! I actually changed my mind to agree with someone!)
biccat wrote:
Unless - and just bear with me here - corporate profits are at an all time high in spite of high corporate tax rates.
The average, effective, federal corporate tax rate for companies in the highest bracket is ~22% (pretty much where its been since Reagan), which is in line with the rest of the developed world once you factor in state taxes.
Not that this a good thing, as the emphasis on deductions heavily influences corporate decision making. A lower tax rate, with fewer deductions, is almost universally superior.
One: Both the US and the UK spend 17% of their federal budgets on Health Care. Whether these numbers are accurate, I do not know. But I do know that the citizens of the UK, regardless of how much money is in their bank accounts, can walk down to the dentist/doctor and be treated. In the US... you'd better have some bucks saved up, or have decent insurance, or (most likely) both.
Two: People keep lumping Social Security into 'welfare' or 'government aid.' It's not. Properly speaking, money spend on Social Security is the payment of benefits accrued from the individual's paying into his Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance. Yes, INSURANCE. It is NOT a handout; we, the people of America, paid our money in premiums deducted straight from our paychecks all our lives.
If receiveing Social Security is getting a handout, so is getting reimbursed for damage to your car from your Automotive Insurance, as is getting reimbursed for damage to your house for your Home Insurance, as is getting a good chunk of your doctor's bill paid by your Health Insurance. And if any one of those failed to pay as defined in the contract, you would blow a fuse!
So why is OASDI different? Just because it is run by the Federal Government? Because now, after years of Congress skimming the surplusses off the OASDI premiums in a move that puts Enron to shame, the Fed finds itself in a position that it has to make up what Congress once stole? What makes it a 'handout' to want back the money you paid into the fund in the first place!?!
One: Both the US and the UK spend 17% of their federal budgets on Health Care. Whether these numbers are accurate, I do not know. But I do know that the citizens of the UK, regardless of how much money is in their bank accounts, can walk down to the dentist/doctor and be treated. In the US... you'd better have some bucks saved up, or have decent insurance, or (most likely) both.
Two: People keep lumping Social Security into 'welfare' or 'government aid.' It's not. Properly speaking, money spend on Social Security is the payment of benefits accrued from the individual's paying into his Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance. Yes, INSURANCE. It is NOT a handout; we, the people of America, paid our money in premiums deducted straight from our paychecks all our lives.
If receiveing Social Security is getting a handout, so is getting reimbursed for damage to your car from your Automotive Insurance, as is getting reimbursed for damage to your house for your Home Insurance, as is getting a good chunk of your doctor's bill paid by your Health Insurance. And if any one of those failed to pay as defined in the contract, you would blow a fuse!
So why is OASDI different? Just because it is run by the Federal Government? Because now, after years of Congress skimming the surplusses off the OASDI premiums in a move that puts Enron to shame, the Fed finds itself in a position that it has to make up what Congress once stole? What makes it a 'handout' to want back the money you paid into the fund in the first place!?!
SS isn't really a handout, it's more of a tax. You every drive by the SS office and notice all SS lawyer's offices around it. That's because you have to sue the government in order to collect it. One guy even went up to the supreme court, and they told his that he was not entitled to the money he worked all his life for.
broodstar wrote:OK, it's time to play your little game.
I'm not playing a game. I'm trying to explain some things to you.
So are you saying that mankind can not possible live without big brother looking over their shoulder?
No, because it's a nonsense question, because the thing you call Big Brother is just the codeword you use for 'government that is bad, as opposed to all the obviously necessary functions of government that I choose not to think about'.
The government has to be involved in everything you do, so a bureaucrat follows you around telling of a federal regulation that says that he must stay with you every day to enure that you are breathing properly, what would your response to him be?
You are making the very stupid assumption that believing the existance of government is necessary and beneficial means accepting any and all levels of government.
Please stop making up such stupid things, and return to thinking about the issues I already presented you with.
Can the government do anything better for you, than you can do for yourself?
Government operates in a fundamentally different manner to private individuals. This means some things are done better by relying on open markets and the invisible hand, while others are better done through government institutions.
For instance, it would be an absolute, complete disaster to rely on government to develop the next range of smart phones. They simply do not have an effective system to innovate consumer goods compared to private enterprise.
On the other hand, it'd be just as big a disaster to rely on private individuals to develop a national road network. The private sector simply does not have an effective system for developing assets that benefit a very wide range of people.
Have you ever lived in a world without laws?
No, and nor have you.
Have you struggled to make ends meet while others have played the system?
I've never struggled to make ends meet, so no.
Have you ever considered that in this system you are a pawn, not of those of a higher income, but of a lower income?
If the poor are so powerful, then how come they're poor?
And have you ever considered a system where you can live your whole life hunting and living off your land with the only government interaction is the sheriff coming up once a month just to check up on you?
No, because I quite like civilisation. if other people want to do that then they're welcome to, but it's got absolutely nothing to do with what's being discussed here.
Now that I've gone through your list of entirely pointless questions, please go back and read what I've already explained to you, and stop, and actually think about it. Accept that you have little to no understanding of economics, and that the populist drivel you've put in its place is no substitute.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:Yeah that will happen, grow up to a life of subjugation ok.
Except, of course, it isn't subjugation by any sensible definition.
We were meant to live for so much more.
We're better lives than anyone in history, so really that's just romantic sounding nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:The military I give all my heart for, I'll give you that but the roads maintained bwahahaha.
Yeah, it's almost as if a country increasingly convinced that government is bad has failed to properly govern for the decline of road infrastructure.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:The top six us budget expenditures.
833 billion on medicare/medicaid
731 billion on social security
696 billion on defense
395 billion on income securities
226 billion on interest on the debt
214 billion on federal pensions
Explain to me how America doesn't spend too much of its budget on social welfare programs when medicare/medicaid is 120% of defense spending not to mention social security, foodstamps, affordable housing?
Because your argument basically sums up to;
"I spend $150 a week on rent and $85 on food, so explain to me how the $60 I spend on antique soft drink cans is excessive."
I mean fething seriously dude, you don't just line items up next to each other and see which is the biggerest, then job 'r done.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:No the federal government is not obligated to do anything of the sort. Its obligated to protect the against foreign attack and facilitate intrastate trade. Everything else is jelly.
The constitution gave the people the ability to vote for their representatives in government. Those representatives built a system with a welfare component. And the people kept voting for them, or for people like them.
So I really, really don't get what you're complaining about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:And despite such crushing socialism corporate profits are the highest they have ever been and people are flocking to dividends as a way to cheat on their taxes. What do other countries do for tax structures relating to investment payouts? I know it's not nearly so contentious an issue in europe or the asias.
Dividends you receive here are treated as part of your ordinary income. So if you earned $60,000 from your job, and received $10,000 in dividends, you'd be taxed the same as a person who earned $70,000 from their job.
The other part is that the tax system recognises taxes already paid on income and gives you a credit for it. So to go back to the example above, the company would have already paid 30% company on that $10,000 income, leaving you with only $7,000 as a dividend payment. But the system works to basically say 'well some of your tax for the year has already been paid, so we'll consider you to have received $10,000 in dividend income, but to have personally already paid $3,000 in tax'. So your assessable income would be the $60,000 you received in salary, plus the $7,000 you receive in dividends, plus the $3,000 you received in tax credits, for a total of $70,000. But then you'd get a tax credit for $3,000, because the system considers you to have already paid $3,000 in taxes.
The end result for your tax position is exactly the same as if the company had never been taxed at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:How are receiving dividends cheating on your taxes?
When the company tax and dividend tax rates combined are lower than the top marginal rate of tax for ordinary income, it becomes better for the individual to shift his income into dividends, by setting up shell companies. So instead of receiving payments as a contractor, I set up sebster incorporated, and have my employer pay my company for my services, which I then receive as dividends.
It isn't cheating because it is legal (in most cases, if you do it right), but it is certainly sun-optimal for a tax system to encourage people to play such games with how their income is defined. Which is why, as I've said many times here, the simple solution is to treat all income earned as part of your total assessable income, and forget about the source.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Half of America doesn't pay income taxes.
Half of America is paid so little that they cannot be taxed, lest it put them into poverty.
I'll never stop being amazed that there are people out there who see that as a problem with the tax code, and not with the distribution of income.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:So? The wealth that is generating the income has already been taxed. I don't see why it should be taxed again for earning interest or gains.
You're right that it shouldn't be taxed again. It should only be taxed once, like all other income.
You're absolutely, 100% positively completely wrong when you use that to pretend it should be taxed the same as all other income, though.
Also, to answer your earlier question: Europe and Asia generally don't double tax corporate earnings.[/quote
Whether it gets taxed once, twice, or seven times doesn't mean anything. What matters is the total level of taxation, and in this regard the US is lower than most European countries.
He's right.
If you run a corporation and all of a sudden the government tells you that your income will be reduced by 20%, what would you do? Probably raise prices, if you can afford to. (Of course, you would get undercut by foreign firms not subject to the same tax rates, but hey, too bad for American jobs).
I continue to be puzzled how the people who are so deeply in love with the market can understand so little about it. I mean, this is just straight up demand and supply, and this exact example is something you should have done in either Year 8 or Year 9.
When all producers face the same increase in a cost, in this case taxes, then the supply graph will adjust upwards. As tax is a variable cost, the graph will shift to an increasing angle (as opposed to a fixed cost which would maintain the angle of the supply line, but 'lift' the whole line).
You can feel free to plot this out on a piece of paper, and doing so will allow you to notice two things. First is that the price increases, but that it doesn't increase to totally cover the increased cost. The second thing you'll notice is that supply declines. Play around with the angles if you want. Sooner or later you'll realise the only way for the whole of the cost to passed on to consumers is if demand is perfectly inelastic (that is, demand is a perfectly vertical line). Given that only happens with essential goods, we know the original assertion is mistaken.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:The wealth of the corporation is separate from the wealth of the shareholder because they are legally separate entities.
Which is utterly meaningless. The company is just a legal convenience, a way of avoiding an impossible nexus of contracts in which each shareholder is deemed as being in contract with every supplier and every employer for the company.
It makes absolutely no fething sense on any level to tax a person who generated $100,000 in dividends differently to a person who generated $100,000 from their sole tradership.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:No Sir, it is I who am convinced that you don't know what is going and when you take the time to research and add up all the little taxes around you, you'll find at you are actually being taxed 75% of your income.
If that were true, government would be taking in 75% of total US GDP every year in revenue. US GDP in 2011 was $15,011 trillion. US revenue in 2011 was $2.302 trillion, or 15%.
So, basically, in conclusion, you're wrong by a factor of six, which puts you pretty firmly in the bonkers category.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:The Federal government isn't supposed to be doing social welfare programs. The government to jobs, provide for the common defense and and monitor state to state trade.
The Federal Government is suppose to do what the people elect it to do, within the boundaries of the constitution. Given you have 200 years of elected representatives building a social welfare network, and these activities have passed constitutional check... then basically your claim above is completely, 100% wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
broodstar wrote:So, not only are you being taxed for your get your income but also being taxed for using that income. Take a look around examples of that are everywhere.
Are you actually trying to introduce sales tax as piece of new information? How old are you?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:If you could have taken the hit to your profits, why didn't you drop your price earlier in order to get more customers?
What? Are you treating the profit as the fixed component? What in the holy hell is that? Have you ever studied economics or business in your life?
country works. Who would have thought!
.
