Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

And all we have to do is cut everything to make it work!

Hey look cut the government in half and everyone does their fair share and hey look the country works. Who would have thought!

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:
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.

At least he didn't say "sheeple".

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.

dogma wrote:

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.

Shrike325 wrote:

$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).

dogma wrote:

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.

This is sounding very communist.

Not saying Communism is bad (I'm a Socialist/Communist (Idealist)) or anything, but Communism hasn't worked in the past.

Also, you sound like a little kid in Big Boy shoes.

Ronin-Sage wrote:

Shrike325 wrote:

$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!

Shrike325 wrote:

$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.

broodstar wrote:

Shrike325 wrote:

$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.

Three points;

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.

sebster wrote:Three points;

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.

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.

Yes, I am a libertarian

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.

ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

broodstar wrote:

sebster wrote:Three points;

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:

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.

Yes, I am a libertarian

http://www.wvculture.org/history/minewars.html
http://www.ilo.org/sapfl/Informationresources/ILOPublications/WCMS_081971/lang--en/index.htm

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.

broodstar wrote:
The freemarket does exist.

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.