NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you support tax cuts for the rich?

Or do you agree with me that we need education, childcare, healthcare, housing and food for ALL, and that the rich should pay for these due to the fact that they get all their profits from people?

But I say people over profit.

Therefore, if you want education, healthcare, childcare, housing and food for ALL, vote Democrat/NDP/Lib Dem (depending on what country you are in).

I support tax increases for the rich.

Only if they're overtaxed, which they're not. Currently I support government projects to employ the poor.

Do you support tax cuts for the rich?

do i bollox

Do you support tax cuts for the rich?

Depends on what the current taxes are.

Hell no. They're not that high.

do i bollox
hahaha what he said :P

hahaha what he said :P
He's a she, but I third that.

This OP never fails to surprise me. And I don't mean that in a good way.

No.

the last people who need a tax cut are the rich, if anything, they should have to pay more

This question is irrelevant for me, because I support the abolition of the income tax.

alright, who said yes? stupid non-conformists....

The result is 90-10.

Therefore, if you want education, healthcare, childcare, housing and food for ALL, vote Democrat/NDP/Liberal Democrat depending on your specific anglophonic country.

This question is irrelevant for me, because I support the abolition of the income tax.

What about equality?

Dear god no. I support large increases in tax for the rich.

The result is 90-10.

Therefore, if you want education, healthcare, childcare, housing and food for ALL, vote Democrat/NDP/Liberal Democrat depending on your specific anglophonic country.
:eek: Wow. I feel so enlightened now.

Do you support tax cuts for the rich?

Or do you agree with me that we need education, childcare, heatlhcare, housing and food for all, and that the rich should pay for these due to the fact that they get all their profits from people?

People over profit.

Clearly your a liberal hippy bomb throwing socialist red pink commie fascist.

The rich work long and hard to gain their honest wealth, and the last thing they need is to throw it away to some street hobos who can't be bothered to get an honest job.

The rich shouldn't have to pay any taxes at all, and taxes should be raised for the bloodsucking parisite hobos commonly called the middle and lower classes.

The result is 90-10.

Therefore, if you want education, healthcare, childcare, housing and food for ALL, vote Democrat/NDP/Liberal Democrat depending on your specific anglophonic country.

Who do I vote for, or am I forgotten again?

The rich work long and hard to gain their honest wealth, and the last thing they need is to throw it away to some street hobos who can't be bothered to get an honest job.

yeah- people like, well, paris hilton.....

:eek: Wow. I feel so enlightened now.
I shiver to think that that ... person with a D for science... and I might actually be member of the same political Party.
But I'm happy to note he's not in my parish.

What about equality?

What kind of equality? We could just kill everybody on the face of the planet, and then we'd all be equal, in a sense.

Most people in the United States, my family (who is nowhere near wealthy) are in the highest tax bracket.

Democrats forget to mention that little fact.

More people's opinions would change if they knew which bracket they fit in- anyone who makes over $25,000 a year is in the highest tax bracket. We're just a bunch of "rich people". So yes, I want more tax cuts.

Who do I vote for, or am I forgotten again?
Who are you?

And do you really need a thread on NS General to tell you who to vote for? You should be ashamed of yourself. Ashamed, I say.

:rolleyes:

yeah- people like, well, paris hilton.....

Nonononono! Paris Hilton is rich and therefore hard-working, honest and virtuous. Otherwise she would be poor. See?

Who are you?

And do you really need a thread on NS General to tell you who to vote for? You should be ashamed of yourself. Ashamed, I say.

:rolleyes:

Sure I do. Both of the major parties support tax cuts, so I have no idea. :p

(it's more that i'm slighted by not being included as a resident of an anglophonic country. Hmph.)

You mean do I support tax cuts on *investing*?

The rich are the ones with more money left over since they need buy less objects directly (No, not everyone earning $150k a year buys pools full of caviar and has a solid 24k gold bathtub.)

Rather than taking their "leftover money" (that they earned mind you) we *should* decrease the tax cuts around investing so they put the money back into the economy and *gasp* help development. They could also give some of that "extra money" to charity to actually help people with a degree of efficiency. Or we could give it to the government, one of the least efficient systems in the nation, so they could waste half of it and most likely only assist someone with it who is abusing the system because of their stupidity.

Edit: I'd also like to add I support a flat tax rate, or a universal sales tax, or something else to replace the mess of a graduated income tax system we have.

I shiver to think that that ... person with a D for science... and I might actually be member of the same political Party.
But I'm happy to note he's not in my parish.
:p

Nonononono! Paris Hilton is rich and therefore hard-working, honest and virtuous. Otherwise she would be poor. See?

that's what i was saying! you know, we're like, so on the same level :eek:

I support reasonable tax cuts for everyone.

Both of the major parties support tax cuts, so I have no idea. :p
That would be funny if it wasn't so sad. :p :( :rolleyes:

It took some time for the republicans/tories to come vote.

To the tories: David Cameron has basically admitted that laissez-faire is obsolete, so give up on your tax cuts for the rich by now.

Who do I vote for, or am I forgotten again?
Vote for labor, oddly not labour. But back to the topic, I support tax cuts for the rich and for everyone else too.

He's a she, but I third that.

This OP never fails to surprise me. And I don't mean that in a good way.
oh ok... what she said then :)


and as for the op: example (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11306362&postcount=28)

and as for the op: example (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11306362&postcount=28)
Maybe you said it in his head? :eek:

That would be funny if it wasn't so sad. :p :( :rolleyes:

Hm, yeah. Actually, i'm having a hard time figuring out what they disagree on. They've both come out as pro-censorship in recent weeks as well. Not that I watch TV, so it won't affect me there, but the internets is on the agenda too. :/

Taxation is theft and I see many of you have a Robin Hood mentality. Only instead of robbing from the rich and giving to the poor, you rob from the rich and give to the government. Nice. :rolleyes:

Most people in the United States, my family (who is nowhere near wealthy) are in the highest tax bracket.

Democrats forget to mention that little fact.

More people's opinions would change if they knew which bracket they fit in- anyone who makes over $25,000 a year is in the highest tax bracket. We're just a bunch of "rich people". So yes, I want more tax cuts.

Again, most people would want tax cuts for the "RICH" if they knew that...(see above)

Vote for labor, oddly not labour. But back to the topic, I support tax cuts for the rich and for everyone else too.

See above post re: major parties.

(it's more that i'm slighted by not being included as a resident of an anglophonic country. Hmph.) And this although you even talk like a ... er, no, let's not go into that. <.< :p

Most people in the United States, my family (who is nowhere near wealthy) are in the highest tax bracket.

Democrats forget to mention that little fact.

More people's opinions would change if they knew which bracket they fit in- anyone who makes over $25,000 a year is in the highest tax bracket. We're just a bunch of "rich people". So yes, I want more tax cuts.
That's not true. I make over $25,000 and I certainly don't fit into the highest tax bracket.

Educate yourself before you post.

http://www.wwwebtax.com/tables/tax_rate_schedules98.htm

And this although you even talk like a ... er, no, let's not go into that. <.< :p

Silly you, I don't talk any more, you've traumatised me out of it. :p

Hm, yeah. Actually, i'm having a hard time figuring out what they disagree on. They've both come out as pro-censorship in recent weeks as well. Not that I watch TV, so it won't affect me there, but the internets is on the agenda too. :/
Do you have elections coming up? [/cluelessness about Australian politics apart from generally hating their
PM (<-- their PM, not our PM! I love our PM! :) ]

Silly you, I don't talk any more, you've traumatised me out of it. :p:eek: Oh, but you should've seen me backpaddle (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11297486&postcount=32). :p

Taxation is theft and I see many of you have a Robin Hood mentality. Only instead of robbing from the rich and giving to the poor, you rob from the rich and give to the government. Nice. :rolleyes:
Taxation isn't theft. It's payment for the benefits of citizenship in a given country. Rich folks get more benefits, and can afford to pay more in membership fees.

Do you have elections coming up? [/cluelessness about Australian politics apart from generally hating their
PM (<-- their PM, not our PM! I love our PM! :) ]

No, we're stuck with Johnny 'till the end of next year at least.

:eek: Oh, but you should've seen me backpaddle (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11297486&postcount=32). :p

Heh. No, not Australians as a whole, it's just me. ;) :p

That's not true. I make over $25,000 and I certainly don't fit into the highest tax bracket.

Educate yourself before you post.

http://www.wwwebtax.com/tables/tax_rate_schedules98.htm
Thank you, he threw me there for a second. That sounded really way too low to be in any kind of top tax bracket.

Given our current budget problems, I don't support tax cuts for anybody right now. But, then again, I'm a person who doesn't believe in using credit cards unless absolutely necessary, so my views on keeping a balanced budget are a bit conservative.

Do you have elections coming up? [/cluelessness about Australian politics apart from generally hating their
PM (<-- their PM, not our PM! I love our PM! :) ]
hahahaha subtle! :p


...but cute :) :fluffle: (thanks! you know what? you rock too :fluffle:)

No, we're stuck with Johnny 'till the end of next year at least. Ugh.
Heh. No, not Australians as a whole, it's just me. ;) :p But that's what I said. :cool:

Taxation isn't theft. It's payment for the benefits of citizenship in a given country. Rich folks get more benefits, and can afford to pay more in membership fees.

No, because if you don't pay taxes, they don't revoke your "membership." They put you in prison. I can't think of any other 'club' where if you fail to pay your dues they take away your freedom and possibly life.

Well, maybe Scientology.

Besides that, the only benefits rich people get is solely because of their wealth. That's not a good basis to rape them harder and faster. It'd be like demanding (with the threat of force if refused) that fat people bring more food to your party on the basis that they probably have more of it.

But that's what I said. :cool:

Heee :)

Forgive me, i'm tired :p

No, because if you don't pay taxes, they don't revoke your "membership." They put you in prison. I can't think of any other 'club' where if you fail to pay your dues they take away your freedom and possibly life.

Well, maybe Scientology.

Besides that, the only benefits rich people get is solely because of their wealth. That's not a good basis to rape them harder and faster. It'd be like demanding (with the threat of force if refused) that fat people bring more food to your party on the basis that they probably have more of it.
You can always take your money and go elsewhere if you dont' want to pay for membership to the club, but if you tresspass on club property without paying your dues you get penalized.

Yep, rich folks do get more benefits. Better public schools in their neighborhood, better roads and communications infrastructure than in the ghetto or in small, dying steel mill towns, and better police protection are some of the benefits of being rich in the USA.

hahahaha subtle! :p


...but cute :) :fluffle: (thanks! you know what? you rock too :fluffle:) Well, I just wanted to make sure you didn't think I hate you... But eh, I rock, so it was worth it. *nod*

I can't think of any other 'club' where if you fail to pay your dues they take away your freedom and possibly life.

Well, maybe Scientology. :p

You can always take your money and go elsewhere if you dont' want to pay for membership to the club, but if you tresspass on club property without paying your dues you get penalized.

But the analogy continues to breakdown because a club is a private place that you choose to go to. No one chooses to be born in the US. No one chooses to pay. Who would honestly give a third of their every salary, donate to the government-club to fund wars, if it wasn't required?

And every other club is pretty much the same. Governments have an absolute monopoly on this dubious "service" they provide. Not much alternatives.

But the analogy continues to breakdown because a club is a private place that you choose to go to. No one chooses to be born in the US. No one chooses to pay. Who would honestly give a third of their every salary, donate to the government-club to fund wars, if it wasn't required?

And every other club is pretty much the same. Governments have an absolute monopoly on this dubious "service" they provide. Not much alternatives.
Everyone's free to move to another country with lower tax rates.

Yep, rich folks do get more benefits. Better public schools in their neighborhood, better roads and communications infrastructure than in the ghetto or in small, dying steel mill towns, and better police protection are some of the benefits of being rich in the USA.

What you're describing is economic differences between areas, not people. Financial attention from government-club is given to other government-clubs - in this case communities.

And frankly, I've seen some of these 'better public schools' in the wealthier parts of town. They're overrated.

And frankly, I've seen some of these 'better public schools' in the wealthier parts of town. They're overrated.

I've studied in one. They really ARE overrated.

In many countries, tax regulations is set by law. Those countries are in violation of their own legal system (the law is the same for everyone), when people are forced to pay different amounts of tax. The only truly fair tax would be an equal dollar/euro/sterling etc. amount for everyone. If you think of it, different levels of taxation is just as ridiculous as charging someone more for a can of coke, just cause he has more money -> the product being the services obtained in return from the government.

Besides this consideration, progressive taxation (which is present in most places in the world) is demotivating, since it causes diminuishing marginal utility of an extra dollar/euro/sterling etc. earned. This is especially true for overtime...when overtime is paid out, the net money earned for each hour of overtime is less then that of a regular hour, because often it will cause you to go into a higher tax bracket. In other words, you're being punished for being eager and wanting to be productive.

Long live financial paradises, the safe havens from the legalized theft called taxation!

everyone should be taxed the same %

Posted this in another thread, thought it was appropriate here as well.
Clipped from the Wall Street Journal editorial pages, July 5th edition


Democrats for Tax Cuts.

Democrats in Congress should get out more - out of Washington, that is, and into state capitals, where some of their fellow party members are embracing tax cuts, and even supply-side logic in the bargain.

Only last week, the very blue state of Rhode Island adopted one of the most sweeping pro-growth tax reforms in any state in recent years. Democrats, who control 70% of the state legislature, teamed up with Republican Governor Donald L. Carcieri to enact a plan that allows residents the choice of a flat tax that cuts the top tax rate on high income earners to 5.5% from 9.9% if they voluntarily give up deductions. In an instant, Rhode Island has gone from the state with the third highest income tax rate in the nation to the 27th, according to the Tax Foundation.

For good measure, the state also cut property taxes, passed a tax credit of up to $1 million for businesses to help fund private school tuition, and reformed the health insurance market by allowing small businesses to buy "stripped down" health insurance free of many costly mandates. The latter could save employers 25% while expanding the number of insured workers.

Just as impressive is the economic logic that Rhode Island Democrats used to justify the tax cuts. "Our high tax rates make us uncompetitive," says Democratic House Speaker William Murphy. "Business leaders with incomes of more than $250,000 look at Massachusetts and see a 5.3% income tax, Connecticut with a 5% tax, and Rhode Island with a 9.9% tax. They make a choice on where to move and create jobs, and that difference in tax rates is a big factor in where they go." Art Laffer couldn't have said it better.

A handful of Democratic Governors have also signed tax cut bills in recent weeks. Arizona's Janet Napolitano agreed to a 10% across the board cut in income tax rates, and Oklahoma's Brad Henry signed into law a budget that will cut rates by nearly 20%, from 6.25% to 5.25% and abolish the state estate tax.

Governors Henry and Napolitano resisted the tax cuts for much of this year, but now they are taking political credit for signing them. Maybe they learned from Bill Clinton, who signed a reduction in the capital gains tax in 1997 after campaigning against "tax cuts for the rich" and basked in the stock market rise and strong economy for much of the rest of his second term.

Another Democratic Governor who's embraced tax cutting and benifited politically is New Mexico's Bill Richardson. Since winning the state house in 2002, he has cut the state's top income tax rate to 4.9% from 8.2% and cut the capital gains tax in half. "This was our way of declaring to the world that New Mexico is open for business," Mr. Richardson tells us. "After all, businesses move to states where taxes are falling, not rising." But don't tax cuts produce budget deficits? Not in New Mexico, which now has a half-billion-dollar surplus and has seen tax revenues soar by 27% this year, faster than in any other sate over the past year, according to the Rockerfeller Institute state revenue report.

We asked Mr. Richardson how he thought his party could regain it's competitiveness with the GOP on the national level. His answer is good advice for democrats everywhere: "We have to be the party of growth and the American dream, not the party of redistribution."

I support Tax Cuts for everyone! :D

Right now I might support tax increases to reduce government deficit or at least halt growth. However, that is for everyone in the nation and it is assuming that we do not necessarily cut spending which is another way to stop deficit growth. In theory, I support taxes for the rich that are not too far from the average tax rate. Not the same though because the benefits gained from cutting taxes completely to that current average would not give enough incentive to pay off as the incentive increase would not be to as much benefit as the extra money. The rich should not have insanely high tax rates and they are not here to carry the burden of society, they are people and they deserve to reap what they sow.

Clearly your a liberal hippy bomb throwing socialist red pink commie fascist.

The rich work long and hard to gain their honest wealth, and the last thing they need is to throw it away to some street hobos who can't be bothered to get an honest job.

The rich shouldn't have to pay any taxes at all, and taxes should be raised for the bloodsucking parisite hobos commonly called the middle and lower classes.

If you had no money, no food, no roof over your head. I think you might feel that it is unfair for you to live in such a state as some guy in his H3 and $10,000,000,000 passes you. Also without the middle class, lower class, and legal imagrants our system would break down. Do you know how much it would cost to buy a salad. $5000 per leaf. and lastly :upyours:

Do you support tax cuts for the rich?

Or do you agree with me that we need education, childcare, heatlhcare, housing and food for all, and that the rich should pay for these due to the fact that they get all their profits from people?

People over profit.

Therefore, if you want education, healthcare, childcare, housing and food for ALL, vote Democrat/NDP/Liberal Democrat depending on your specific anglophonic country.

Education: Fair enough.
Childcare: If people were married when they had children they wouldn't need childcare, because the husband could go to work while the wife looks after the children.
Healthcare: We have healthcare, I should know, I work for HCA.
Housing and Food: Get a job.

I support high taxs on the upper class and try to use that money to help everyone.

Education: Fair enough.
Childcare: If people were married when they had children they wouldn't need childcare, because the husband could go to work while the wife looks after the children.
Healthcare: We have healthcare, I should know, I work for HCA.
Housing and Food: Get a job.

Childcare: Not all families can get jobs that can support a family with one parent not working.
Healthcare: should be increased so it applys to everyone and really helps.
Housing food: maybe you should try not being able to get a job and there for have no money or housing. Maybe that will change your view a bit.

What right does another person have to the benefits of my labor?
How am I making money at someone else's expense?


Even taxation for everybody!

What about equality?

Does equality have value, in and of itself?

I support a flat tax. If everyone paid a flat 10% (less some basic personal exemption, like the first $10,000 they earn is tax free), then the richer folks do pay more, but they pay a larger amount that is proportional to their means.

Does equality have value, in and of itself?

I support a flat tax. If everyone paid a flat 10% (less some basic personal exemption, like the first $10,000 they earn is tax free), then the richer folks do pay more, but they pay a larger amount that is proportional to their means.

But 10% for someone who only makes $10,000 is $1,000, but they NEED that $1,000, 10% for someone who makes $1,000,000 is $100,000, but they DON'T NEED that money.

Llewdor, why are you so greedy?

I believe that there should be a flat tax rate.

I support high taxs on the upper class and try to use that money to help everyone.
They typically do use their money to help everyone. Besides just spending money in general, they invest. And those investments allow for the growth of industries. People get jobs in industries, and with these jobs they can provide for themselves, without the aid of the state.

Childcare: Not all families can get jobs that can support a family with one parent not working.

Not if they want their own detached home with a yard and a car, no, but that's an unreasonable lifestyle for some people.

What if they shared a home with another couple, and three of them worked while the fourth stayed home to care for the children? That would dramatically improve their financial situation.

We can't all have the lifestyle portrayed on television in the '60s.

But 10% for someone who only makes $10,000 is $1,000, but they NEED that $1,000, 10% for someone who makes $1,000,000 is $100,000, but they DON'T NEED that money.

The solution to this is a rebated sales tax. The government rebates in advance the taxes that would be levied on goods up to the poverty line (so let's say the tax is 25% and the poverty line is $12,000. Everyone with this poverty line would get 3000 dollars in advance so that they don't pay expenses on necessities.) This way, we can have the same taxation on goods for everyone, but it would be effectively progressive because the $3000 would help a $10,000 earner more than a $100,000 earner, even though they both get the money. It's the same tax for everyone, but it helps out the poor.

But 10% for someone who only makes $10,000 is $1,000, but they NEED that $1,000, 10% for someone who makes $1,000,000 is $100,000, but they DON'T NEED that money.

Llewdor, why are you so greedy?

I'm not greedy. I just have a better understanding of how people really behave.

But if you're just going to take the money of the wealthy, then they won't bother to earn it in the first place, and that's a massive reduction in overall production. You get your wish: everyone is equally poor.

And, as I said, there should be a personal exemption, so that first $10,000 wouldn't get charged any tax.

Look, if I earn $1,000,000 a year, I must be doing something really valuable. I'm producing a lot of wealth for someone (or maybe a bunch of people) if they're willing to pay me $1,000,000 to do it.

I don't understand why you value equality as an end. If everyone has enough to live an adequate life, but some people are vastly richer, is that a bad thing? Would it be better if no one was richer, but everyone struggled to get by?

But 10% for someone who only makes $10,000 is $1,000, but they NEED that $1,000, 10% for someone who makes $1,000,000 is $100,000, but they DON'T NEED that money.

Llewdor, why are you so greedy?
Need is not the appropriate justifier. The appropriate justifier for the possession of wealth is how it is earned.

Anyways, who the hell are you to decide who needs what and who doesn't need what?

"From each according to his ability to each according to his need" is defunct. It doesn't work, it smothers innovation and growth. It is a concept based on enforced taking. Instead "From each as he chooses to each as he is chosen" is fair, as it is based on voluntary giving.

yes

if you tax the hell out of the rich, these are the repercussions:

Those who create opportunities in the business world will have:
1) Less money to invest in new businesses
2) Less money for starting new businesses

...which means that:

a) There will be fewer jobs
b) There will be crappier products
c) Because there will be less competition (fewer firms), there will be lower value for the consumer

So yeah, tax the hell out of the rich/successful/productive, and see where it gets you.

Taxes should not be used to punish success/productivity and lift up marginal or negative return.

I'm not greedy. I just have a better understanding of how people really behave.

But if you're just going to take the money of the wealthy, then they won't bother to earn it in the first place, and that's a massive reduction in overall production. You get your wish: everyone is equally poor.

And, as I said, there should be a personal exemption, so that first $10,000 wouldn't get charged any tax.

Look, if I earn $1,000,000 a year, I must be doing something really valuable. I'm producing a lot of wealth for someone (or maybe a bunch of people) if they're willing to pay me $1,000,000 to do it.

I don't understand why you value equality as an end. If everyone has enough to live an adequate life, but some people are vastly richer, is that a bad thing? Would it be better if no one was richer, but everyone struggled to get by?

Llewdor, studies show that people earn the same no matter how high the government taxes it, therefore, the government should tax it very highly so that it is fair for ALL.

The rich only get rich by stealing from the poor or tricking them through marketing.

Do you support tax cuts for the rich?


Yes.

I support tax cuts for everybody, including the rich.

I support tax increases for the rich.


You mean stealing?

Yes.

I support tax cuts for everybody, including the rich.

But the rich already are getting so much money from the government, it's time the government gave money to the poor.

But the rich already are getting so much money from the government, it's time the government gave money to the poor.


That's stealing.

Llewdor, studies show that people earn the same no matter how high the government taxes it, therefore, the government should tax it very highly so that it is fair for ALL.

Could you possibly show me these studies of yours, by any chance?

The rich only get rich by stealing from the poor or tricking them through marketing.

Yes, the poor people are utterly helpless without big government guiding their lives and protecting them from the "bad people" from whom the poor want to buy their goods. They should just buy everything the government tells them to- in fact, they should just do everything the government tells them to do, because their ways are obviously wrong and only the government knows what makes them happy.

Do you support tax cuts for the rich?

Or do you agree with me that we need education, childcare, heatlhcare, housing and food for all, and that the rich should pay for these due to the fact that they get all their profits from people?
Uh ... as far as I know, everyone who makes a profit does so in some way off of other people. The profit motive is the little engine that makes the wheels of commerce turn so that everyone can have jobs, etc. And not everyone who makes a profit is "rich." Seems to me that you need to get out more often. :rolleyes:

Llewdor, studies show that people earn the same no matter how high the government taxes it, therefore, the government should tax it very highly so that it is fair for ALL.

That's absurd. Show me those studies (and then go read The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek).

The rich only get rich by stealing from the poor or tricking them through marketing.

The rule of law should always prevent theft, but as for the marketing, isn't it the customer's fault for being tricked? As long as the marketing isn't fraudulent, what has the merchant done other than promote his product? That the consumer turns out to be an idiot isn't his fault, and that will, in turn, encourage people not to be idiots.

Incentives matter.

But the rich already are getting so much money from the government

That's a problem, too. The government needs to stop interfering in the market, both through excessive taxation and subsidies. Once subsidised, businesses have less motive to innovate and improve efficiency.

Incentives matter on that end, too.

Housing food: maybe you should try not being able to get a job and there for have no money or housing. Maybe that will change your view a bit.

That's nobody's fault but their own. There is no reason you should be unable to get a job unless you failed to get the education necessary to hold one, and I shouldn't have to subsidize your failure. The notion that it is impossible to find a job is ridiculous; the only reason you can't find one is either because you didn't get the education and you didn't put the effort to get in to college or you're not putting in the effort to get one.

There is enough federal, state, local, and college aid right now for a poor person to have their college paid for. If they don't want to put in the work, they don't deserve the rewards that come from it.

That's a problem, too. The government needs to stop interfering in the market, both through excessive taxation and subsidies. Once subsidised, businesses have less motive to innovate and improve efficiency.

Incentives matter on that end, too.
Excellent! [ high fives! ] :)

Yes.

I support tax cuts for everybody, including the rich.

yes

we should keep taxes as low as possible. of course we need some taxes...

- we need money for defense
- we need money for some basic welfare (we need to cut fraud.. maybe set limits on the amount of time a person can be on welfare, to prevent dependence)
- we need money for cops, roads, firefighters
- we need some money for education
etc.

in terms of federal taxes, in the US, i'd like to see the top tax bracket capped at something like 33% -- the government should not be privy to more than one-third of a person's earnings. Obviously, the tax rates would be lower in the lower tax brackets... say 30, then 25, then 20, then 15, then perhaps 0% or 5% for the lowest bracket.

The rule of law should always prevent theft, but as for the marketing, isn't it the customer's fault for being tricked? As long as the marketing isn't fraudulent, what has the merchant done other than promote his product? That the consumer turns out to be an idiot isn't his fault, and that will, in turn, encourage people not to be idiots.

Incentives matter.
No marketing that is effective doesn't border upon fraudulence.

Childcare: Not all families can get jobs that can support a family with one parent not working.
Healthcare: should be increased so it applys to everyone and really helps.
Housing food: maybe you should try not being able to get a job and there for have no money or housing. Maybe that will change your view a bit.
Maybe this will change your view a bit ( although I doubt it ): there are no guarantees in life; it is your job to take care of your own, not mine to support you so that you don't have to.

And don't even start with talking to me about "not being able to get a job!"

I support:

1) Eliminating all big business subsidies. Companies with a multimillion dollar profit margin do NOT need to have government funds to function properly.

2)Not raising taxes for the rich: just having them actually pay what they should be paying according to the current rates. That means a stop to fiscal evasion, fraud and accountmeddling to pay less taxes.


Do both of these things, and you'll find out that you roll on gold, and get back much more money than you'd b getting if you simply raised the taxes for the rich.

yes

we should keep taxes as low as possible. of course we need some taxes...

- we need money for defense
- we need money for some basic welfare (we need to cut fraud.. maybe set limits on the amount of time a person can be on welfare, to prevent dependence)
- we need money for cops, roads, firefighters
- we need some money for education
etc.

in terms of federal taxes, in the US, i'd like to see the top tax bracket capped at something like 33% -- the government should not be privy to more than one-third of a person's earnings. Obviously, the tax rates would be lower in the lower tax brackets... say 30, then 25, then 20, then 15, then perhaps 0% or 5% for the lowest bracket.
I'm leaning increasingly toward the fair tax (http://www.fairtax.org/):

* Abolishes the IRS
* Closes all tax loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
* Maintains our current Social Security and Medicare benefits
* Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
* Allows American products to compete fairly
* Reimburses the tax on purchases of basic necessities
* Enables retirees to keep their entire pension
* Enables workers to keep their entire paycheck

I support:

1) Eliminating all big business subsidies. Companies with a multimillion dollar profit margin do NOT need to have government funds to function properly.

2)Not raising taxes for the rich: just having them actually pay what they should be paying according to the current rates. That means a stop to fiscal evasion, fraud and accountmeddling to pay less taxes.

If we eliminated subsidies, we might be able to eliminate the oppressive AMT that double-taxes the upper middle class but does nothing about the people above them who should have to pay it but don't.

Government needs a much larger involvement in the healthcare market. We already spend more per capita in healthcare for little to no result - there are still huge copays and companies are continuously decreasing coverage for employees while simultaneously increasing their pay for they do cover.

What about equality?



so yo uwant an economic or political system based on the sharing of all work and property by the whole community.

In other words, Communism.

The trickle-down theory of economics, proposed by (surprise!) rich elites, is clearly nonsense. The countries operating on this model are typically the ones with the largest income gaps between rich and poor, high unemployment etc etc.

Instead it seems fairly logical to assume that wealth trickles *upwards*... i.e. those starting with more (capital, skill, luck etc) are able to leverage their advantage to exploit the labour of others and to accumulate wealth faster than average, thus further increasing their advantage. Therefore without programmes to actively redistribute that wealth in ways that *specifically* benefit the poor you end up with countries like the USA, and worse, where you have a few billionaires and many homeless people.

While it's true that investment creates jobs, it's also true that for investors the purpose of investment is not to create jobs but to make a profit. Hence they will invest in whatever is most profitable, not what is most socially beneficial. Workers are an expense, so to make an investment more profitable ways are often found to *cut* jobs or wages.

Therefore it is clear that allowing the rich to accumulate wealth unchecked and invest it wherever they like will lead to a more polarised society, with less of a prosperous middle ground and more people unemployed and unable to provide for themselves.

Taxing rich people more is one way to put a brake on this polarising tendency.

No marketing that is effective doesn't border upon fraudulence.

It's not a continuum. An ad is either fraudulent or it's not. It either lies or it doesn't.

If it does actually make false claims, that needs to be stopped. If not, I don't see what's wrong with the ad.

And everyone does this. When anti-chemical folks insist that the inclusoin of some random pesticide on apples triples our risk of contracting some horrible illness, that doesn't really tell us how dangerous it is. People draw all sort of conclusions from that, but most of them don't think to ask what the risk actually is. If the danger went from 2 in a billion to 6 in a billion, that's triple, but the odds are still long enough that I don't really care.

I'm leaning increasingly toward the fair tax (http://www.fairtax.org/):

The benefit to economic competitiveness from such a program would be massive. It would make the market freer and more transparent, both of benefit to the US economy and by extension our tax revenues. Did you know US businesses pay the highest real taxes in the world due to the sheer complexity and variety of taxes? Our nominal rates are average, but the real cost is nearly 2x as high...that makes us an increasingly unattractive place to do business.

(We also pay the highest price in the world for natural gas, but that's because of stupid NIMBY attitudes rather than taxes...we'll need to fix this one too to boost our competitiveness in manufacturing)

It's not a continuum. An ad is either fraudulent or it's not. It either lies or it doesn't.

If it does actually make false claims, that needs to be stopped. If not, I don't see what's wrong with the ad.

And everyone does this. When anti-chemical folks insist that the inclusoin of some random pesticide on apples triples our risk of contracting some horrible illness, that doesn't really tell us how dangerous it is. People draw all sort of conclusions from that, but most of them don't think to ask what the risk actually is. If the danger went from 2 in a billion to 6 in a billion, that's triple, but the odds are still long enough that I don't really care.
You need to watch more tv.

The trickle-down theory of economics, proposed by (surprise!) rich elites, is clearly nonsense. The countries operating on this model are typically the ones with the largest income gaps between rich and poor, high unemployment etc etc.

Instead it seems fairly logical to assume that wealth trickles *upwards*... i.e. those starting with more (capital, skill, luck etc) are able to leverage their advantage to exploit the labour of others and to accumulate wealth faster than average, thus further increasing their advantage. Therefore without programmes to actively redistribute that wealth in ways that *specifically* benefit the poor you end up with countries like the USA, and worse, where you have a few billionaires and many homeless people.

While it's true that investment creates jobs, it's also true that for investors the purpose of investment is not to create jobs but to make a profit. Hence they will invest in whatever is most profitable, not what is most socially beneficial. Workers are an expense, so to make an investment more profitable ways are often found to *cut* jobs or wages.

Therefore it is clear that allowing the rich to accumulate wealth unchecked and invest it wherever they like will lead to a more polarised society, with less of a prosperous middle ground and more people unemployed and unable to provide for themselves.

Taxing rich people more is one way to put a brake on this polarising tendency.

You're concluding ends based on motives. It doesn't matter what the motives of the investment is (of course it's profit); it matters what the effects are.

It's never logical to assume anything. If you want to know what effects certain behaviour has, measure it. That's what economics is - the measurement of human behaviour.

If it matters, measure it.

A strong economy needs failures. That some people fail creates the incentive to invest wisely and not take stupid risks. It encourages people to produce and support their own lifestyles. If the government prevents suffering from failure, more people will take dumb risks on get-rish quick schemes, and while some of them might succeed, more of them will fail, but with the government there to catch them they're more willing to risk failure.

A low bankruptcy rate is evidence of a stagnant economy.

Government needs a much larger involvement in the healthcare market. We already spend more per capita in healthcare for little to no result - there are still huge copays and companies are continuously decreasing coverage for employees while simultaneously increasing their pay for they do cover.

Well, actually, the government involvement in the healthcare industry IS the problem. By distorting the actual value of healthcare by taxing it in individual consumption, but leaving it alone for business consumption for employees (through tax loops and subsidies), people do not choose their own healthcare. Instead, the businesses decide for their employees what kind of healthcare they have, so as to get the lowest cost for the highest tax benefit, and since no one can decide their consumption best than themselves, the more inefficient providers are rewarded if their costs are lower.

Also, because consumers are not in charge of their own healthcare, but rather are operating out of an employee pool, they draw upon their insurance whenever they feel like it because it is not really theirs and they don't really have to pay for it directly. If their healthcare was in their own hands, they would not pay for expensive insurance that they can use whenever they want, but rather have high-deductible, cheap insurance for accidents and just use their own money for everything else, which would be far more inexpensive. But because of the upward pressure with everyone using the healthcare provided by insurance, insurance must raise their revenues to compensate for their expenditures, thus causing a ballooning of healthcare expenses.

Not to mention that mandated coverages for insurance, such as for contraceptive, means that everyone must pay for these things even if they don't want to, raises the costs. Additionally, insurance companies must cover everyone, even those who engage in risky activities, and to compensate for these high risk people and not being able to tailor their costs to these individuals, they must raise prices for everyone.

This is the real root of the problem. The healthcare industry should be put back into the hands of consumers, not business and the government, in order to be truly effective.

And everyone does this. When anti-chemical folks insist that the inclusoin of some random pesticide on apples triples our risk of contracting some horrible illness, that doesn't really tell us how dangerous it is. People draw all sort of conclusions from that, but most of them don't think to ask what the risk actually is. If the danger went from 2 in a billion to 6 in a billion, that's triple, but the odds are still long enough that I don't really care.

The point is not that you personally are marginally more likely to get sick... it's that over the whole population three times as many people will get sick. Which is likely a significant number of people.

Advertising is essentially proof that capitalism is unsustainable, in that it's main purpose is to *create* demand. Ever increasing lengths have to be taken to hype up demand to drive continuing growth, above and beyond the natural rate of market growth due to population. Clearly the system is unable to operate in a steady-state mode.

A low bankruptcy rate is evidence of a stagnant economy.

Yes. The bankruptcy rate was falling throughout the 1970's after rising in the 1960's, and began to rise again during the 1980's and 1990's. Spikes due to recessions or similar problems are corrected, but the trend is for bankruptcies to rise in sync with GDP growth.

If we eliminated subsidies, we might be able to eliminate the oppressive AMT that double-taxes the upper middle class but does nothing about the people above them who should have to pay it but don't.
I have no idea what that AMT you speak of is. Bear in mind I'm Canadian, so it that's a fiscal specific of the USA, I know nothing about it.

You need to watch more tv.

I watch too much TV already.

I just don't draw irrational conclusions from advertising. Most advertising should never work on rational people. Like cross promotion. Why should I care than Darth Vader is in this Pepsi ad? Won't my decision to drink Pepsi be based on whether I like Pepsi enough that it's worth my money? Darth Vader (or some other celebrity endorsement) is immaterial.

I really enjoy Burger King's new ads. I find them funny. I still won't eat there, though, because the food is appalling.

I have no idea what that AMT you speak of is. Bear in mind I'm Canadian, so it that's a fiscal specific of the USA, I know nothing about it.

Alternate minimum tax. If you have X nominal income, no matter how much it has changed to inflation, you must pay Y% in taxes, no matter what you do.

You're concluding ends based on motives. It doesn't matter what the motives of the investment is (of course it's profit); it matters what the effects are.

It's never logical to assume anything. If you want to know what effects certain behaviour has, measure it. That's what economics is - the measurement of human behaviour.

If it matters, measure it.

That's what I'm talking about... leaving it to the rich to invest as they like leads to the polarised societies you see in countries like the USA and others on that model. These are the measurements that have been made.

Working backwards from these a reasonable hypothesis would be the one I gave... that since investors are trying to make a profit rather than benefit the poor... they get richer and the poor get poorer, checked only by factors such as taxation and government redistribution of wealth in welfare programmes. ie exactly what you see in reality.

Advertising is essentially proof that capitalism is unsustainable, in that it's main purpose is to *create* demand. Ever increasing lengths have to be taken to hype up demand to drive continuing growth, above and beyond the natural rate of market growth due to population. Clearly the system is unable to operate in a steady-state mode.

It doesn't "create" demand. To create demand you'd have to put a gun to people's head and make them buy your things, because all consumption is based upon the subjective preferences of consumers, which means that people decide for themselves what products they want or don't want. It's simply showing people what products you have, and they decide upon whether they like it or not based on their preferences. And these "ever increasing lengths" add up to about 1.6% of corporate expenditures overall, just so you know.

We need tax cuts for the lower class. The rich obviously have no trouble making money, otherwise they wouldn't be rich.

I really enjoy Burger King's new ads. I find them funny. I still won't eat there, though, because the food is appalling.

I have to give credit to Burger King.

Not only for there awesome commercials but because at a time when most fast food places are trying to make there menus more healthful, BK has gone in the opposite direction.

Triple Whopper, Angus and the 4 patty stacker with Bacon.

I have no idea what that AMT you speak of is. Bear in mind I'm Canadian, so it that's a fiscal specific of the USA, I know nothing about it.

Alternative Minimum Tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Minimum_Tax#Complexity_and_Unintended_Consequences)

It's a second tax that is applied to incomes over a certain threshold, originally designed to tax the very rich who were able to dodge paying ordinary income tax in the 1960's. I think the threshold for the AMT is generally around $75,000 dollars; of course, there are many people who earn that much or more in the middle class and a good number of areas have median incomes of $75,000 or more, so the upper 50% of taxpayers might be subject to the AMT despite having a modest living standard due to the high cost of living.

The geniuses who designed the tax didn't chain the tax to inflation or personal income, so more and more people in the middle class will become subject to the AMT due to income inflation and growth in real income. That means the middle class will be taxed twice while the people the AMT was supposed to target still get away with not paying it.

$75,000 in 1965=$446,860 in 2005

Alternate minimum tax. If you have X nominal income, no matter how much it has changed to inflation, you must pay Y% in taxes, no matter what you do.

Forgive me if i'm getting the wrong end of the stick here, but isn't that just a flat-rate income tax?

And me? I support a negative income tax, and the subsiquent abolition of most welfare, bar public services like the NHS and state education.

That's what I'm talking about... leaving it to the rich to invest as they like leads to the polarised societies you see in countries like the USA and others on that model. These are the measurements that have been made.

Working backwards from these a reasonable hypothesis would be the one I gave... that since investors are trying to make a profit rather than benefit the poor... they get richer and the poor get poorer, checked only by factors such as taxation and government redistribution of wealth in welfare programmes. ie exactly what you see in reality.

You're assuming a zero sum game. What actually happens is the rich get richer, and the poor get richer, because wealth is created.

It doesn't "create" demand. To create demand you'd have to put a gun to people's head and make them buy your things, because all consumption is based upon the subjective preferences of consumers, which means that people decide for themselves what products they want or don't want. It's simply showing people what products you have, and they decide upon whether they like it or not based on their preferences. And these "ever increasing lengths" add up to about 1.6% of corporate expenditures overall, just so you know.

But this relates to the earlier post by Llewdor about Darth Vader in Pepsi ads. Having Darth Vader in there clearly works for Pepsi or they wouldn't do it... yet a rational person should be unswayed as Darth is irrelevant to their subjective preference for one cola vs another vs no cola (who 'needs' cola anyway right?).

The point is of course to appeal to irrational impulses... the only one which have the ability to 'create' artificial demands, ie for products we don't need or want for rational reasons.

Alternative Minimum Tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Minimum_Tax#Complexity_and_Unintended_Consequences)

It's a second tax that is applied to incomes over a certain threshold, originally designed to tax the very rich who were able to dodge paying ordinary income tax in the 1960's. I think the threshold for the AMT is generally around $75,000 dollars; of course, there are many people who earn that much or more in the middle class and a good number of areas have median incomes of $75,000 or more, so the upper 50% of taxpayers might be subject to the AMT despite having a modest living standard due to the high cost of living.

The geniuses who designed the tax didn't chain the tax to inflation or personal income, so more and more people in the middle class will become subject to the AMT due to income inflation and growth in real income. That means the middle class will be taxed twice while the people the AMT was supposed to target still get away with not paying it.

$75,000 in 1965=$446,860 in 2005
Ouch. And your fucktards politicians are not updating it ... because?

The point is not that you personally are marginally more likely to get sick... it's that over the whole population three times as many people will get sick. Which is likely a significant number of people.

But my interest is governed by whether I'll get sick. People I don't know die everyday. I try not to get torn up about it.

Advertising is essentially proof that capitalism is unsustainable, in that it's main purpose is to *create* demand. Ever increasing lengths have to be taken to hype up demand to drive continuing growth, above and beyond the natural rate of market growth due to population. Clearly the system is unable to operate in a steady-state mode.

Or, it's evidence that the products are in competition with each other. Most of our needs are already filled by existing products. The new products advertise to get us to swtich to those products to serve our needs.

Forgive me if i'm getting the wrong end of the stick here, but isn't that just a flat-rate income tax.

Kind of. It's a flat tax designed to squeeze as much money from the taxpayers subject to it as possible. If you're subject to the AMT, you compare your tax bill on the regular tax forms with the amount you would pay under the AMT flat-tax rules, and you pay the larger bill.

Either way, you're paying the most tax regardless of whether it's fair or not to be taxed like that.

But this relates to the earlier post by Llewdor about Darth Vader in Pepsi ads. Having Darth Vader in there clearly works for Pepsi or they wouldn't do it... yet a rational person should be unswayed as Darth is irrelevant to their subjective preference for one cola vs another vs no cola (who 'needs' cola anyway right?).

The point is of course to appeal to irrational impulses... the only one which have the ability to 'create' artificial demands, ie for products we don't need or want for rational reasons.

But who's fault is that? Are the people not to be held accountable for their own bad decisions?

But this relates to the earlier post by Llewdor about Darth Vader in Pepsi ads. Having Darth Vader in there clearly works for Pepsi or they wouldn't do it... yet a rational person should be unswayed as Darth is irrelevant to their subjective preference for one cola vs another vs no cola (who 'needs' cola anyway right?).

The point is of course to appeal to irrational impulses... the only one which have the ability to 'create' artificial demands, ie for products we don't need or want for rational reasons.

First of all, companies aren't perfect. Seeing as how advertisement is less than 2% of company expenditures, it really doesn't matter that much what they do with it, as overall it's not that big a slice of the pie and won't have a massive effect, so it doesn't really matter what effect Darth has. Darth is just there to get attention and to use as a vehicle to present the product. It is still up to the consumer to decide whether or not their subjective preferences are satisfied by the Pepsi, which Darth does not effect- he is just there to get attention. And as for needs... do you 'need' your computer? Do you 'need' your TV? Do you 'need' a pencil, or a table, or any other thing you might have? Do you really 'need' to eat, if you don't feel like living? It's all based on subjective preferences, in the end, and to try and present yourself as the knower of all real needs is plain stupidity, as only the consumer knows what he wants and what will fulfill his needs.

Instead of trying to decide for others what they should or shouldn't want, you should just leave them alone to decide for themselves what they want or don't want.

Ouch. And your fucktards politicians are not updating it ... because?

It produces a pretty healthy amount of revenue to the federal government; it enables the politicians to cut taxes or hike spending while simultaneously recouping the losses from the other cuts due to the increasing number of people subject to the AMT. In 2000, 2-3% of taxpayers were subject to the AMT. In 2005, it was 15%.

That's a 37.9% growth rate in the number of people subject to the AMT; were that growth rate to continue the number of taxpayers forced to pay the AMT would grow to 75% of the total by 2010. That's unacceptable and unfair to the American public, especially when the people it was supposed to target are still unaffected by the AMT due to loopholes.

Forgive me if i'm getting the wrong end of the stick here, but isn't that just a flat-rate income tax?

And me? I support a negative income tax, and the subsiquent abolition of most welfare, bar public services like the NHS and state education.

No. It's not. Everything still increases from that point onwards, you just can't find any reason to get lower. It just increases the progressivity.

Also, I agree about the negative tax. I would do this through a rebated sales tax, i.e. the FairTax.

You're assuming a zero sum game. What actually happens is the rich get richer, and the poor get richer, because wealth is created.

Except this isn't what actually happens in the real world is it? This is only what 'actually' happens in flawed economic models.

Where does wealth come from? Ultimately it's from natural resources and labour.

It's possible for investment to provide profit to investors without bringing more natural resources or labour into the economy. For example moving production overseas where wages are less.

Even if wealth is created by new investment it hardly follows that it will automatically benefit both rich and poor. More likely the rich will have a big advantage in ensuring it goes mostly to them. This is very much where we started isn't it.

I support no income taxes.

First of all, companies aren't perfect. Seeing as how advertisement is less than 2% of company expenditures, it really doesn't matter that much what they do with it, as overall it's not that big a slice of the pie and won't have a massive effect, so it doesn't really matter what effect Darth has. Darth is just there to get attention and to use as a vehicle to present the product. It is still up to the consumer to decide whether or not their subjective preferences are satisfied by the Pepsi, which Darth does not effect- he is just there to get attention. And as for needs... do you 'need' your computer? Do you 'need' your TV? Do you 'need' a pencil, or a table, or any other thing you might have? Do you really 'need' to eat, if you don't feel like living? It's all based on subjective preferences, in the end, and to try and present yourself as the knower of all real needs is plain stupidity, as only the consumer knows what he wants and what will fulfill his needs.

Instead of trying to decide for others what they should or shouldn't want, you should just leave them alone to decide for themselves what they want or don't want.

Wow, you won't get far in Marketing with that attitude though will you?

Isn't this exactly what advertising *doesn't* do... leaving people to decide for themselves what they want and need?

Why do I need TV ads for Pepsi at all? I already know a range of sodas are available at my corner store. If I feel like a soda I can go down there and buy one. If I don't like it then next time I can try a different brand.

Clearly there's more to advertising than just 'letting people know' your product is for sale. And really, no one from the ad industry would argue this!

E
It's possible for investment to provide profit to investors without bringing more natural resources or labour into the economy. For example moving production overseas where wages are lesst

But then wages in the overseas nation rise, producing more economic growth and demand for imports; that in turn produces more growth in the nations that export to them and increases employment and wages in those nations as well. Also, the profits from offshoring aren't held on to, they're reinvested in new facilities and expansion of the business to generate even more revenue. Either that, or they're given out as a dividend to boost the stock price.

Offshoring isn't a bottomless pit of cheap labor; India and China are eliminating poverty and are creating a middle class with rising incomes and increasing demand for consumer goods. Their wages are catching up with ours, and eventually will approach parity with the result being higher wages for everyone and strong economic growth.

Clearly there's more to advertising than just 'letting people know' your product is for sale. And really, no one from the ad industry would argue this!

Yes, it's to get people to buy your product rather than someone else's. The purpose of advertising is for competitive advantage over other providers of the same product.

It produces a pretty healthy amount of revenue to the federal government; it enables the politicians to cut taxes or hike spending while simultaneously recouping the losses from the other cuts due to the increasing number of people subject to the AMT. In 2000, 2-3% of taxpayers were subject to the AMT. In 2005, it was 15%.

That's a 37.9% growth rate in the number of people subject to the AMT; were that growth rate to continue the number of taxpayers forced to pay the AMT would grow to 75% of the total by 2010. That's unacceptable and unfair to the American public, especially when the people it was supposed to target are still unaffected by the AMT due to loopholes.
You guys need to get on it and make them update that tax.

Or, it's evidence that the products are in competition with each other. Most of our needs are already filled by existing products. The new products advertise to get us to swtich to those products to serve our needs.

Exactly how many people "needed" to go see Superman last weekend? Exactly how many people "need" a new car? Exactly how many people "need" drugs for restless leg syndrome? Exactly how many of us "need" to speak with a personal injury attorney? Exactly how many of us "need" to eat Chocolate-Frosted Sugar Bombs for breakfast? And yet, how many of those "needs" are heavily advertised?

If our economy were a need-based one, it would be about a tenth the size it currently is: we eat more than we need to, we consume more power than we need to, and we consume vastly more services and goods than we need. If our advertising were based on need, then 1) we wouldn't see such careful psychological manipulation to convince you to want/desire the good for values other than it's practical benefits, and 2) advertising for unneccessary goods would be singularly inneffectual, while advertising for necessary goods would at best be minimally necessary (how many ads have you seen for toilet bowl plungers, for instance, compared to how many people have them?).

Now we can argue about whether or not advertising is excessive or not, or even whether such high rates of consumption are good or not, but let's not kid ourselves about what the purpose of that advertising is: to drive up consumption well past subsistence-level existence.

You guys need to get on it and make them update that tax.

There are some politicians who want to either eliminate it or replace it, but the huge deficits of the past few years and the upcoming Social Security/Medicare deficits are going to make it a hard sell.

Unfortunately, the political climate makes it nearly impossible to reform this...and ironically, keeping the AMT will cost us tax revenue in the long run by hurting the very economic growth and investment that produce money for the government in the first place.

No. It's not. Everything still increases from that point onwards, you just can't find any reason to get lower. It just increases the progressivity.

Also, I agree about the negative tax. I would do this through a rebated sales tax, i.e. the FairTax.

Yeah, I just read the wikipedia article. Although the idea behind FairTax is nice, I just don't like sales taxes, end of story. Creating the potential for a huge black market and then relying on it for government incoem isn't my cup of tea. And trust me, I know about tea, I'm British.

But then wages in the overseas nation rise, producing more economic growth and demand for imports; that in turn produces more growth in the nations that export to them and increases employment and wages in those nations as well. Also, the profits from offshoring aren't held on to, they're reinvested in new facilities and expansion of the business to generate even more revenue. Either that, or they're given out as a dividend to boost the stock price.

Offshoring isn't a bottomless pit of cheap labor; India and China are eliminating poverty and are creating a middle class with rising incomes and increasing demand for consumer goods. Their wages are catching up with ours, and eventually will approach parity with the result being higher wages for everyone and strong economic growth.

The problem, of course, is that fifteen years ago we could have said exactly the same thing about Mexico. Guess where everyone outsourced their outsourced labor once Mexico's wages started to rise and they opened their borders to heavy investment? Answer: China.

So my query: How high will China's labor really rise, given the fact that they still have an untapped pool of labor of nearly 700 million? Querying further: supposing their wages do go up, exactly how long will it take before companies move to, say, Bangladesh or Niger?

Yeah, I just read the wikipedia article. Although the idea behind FairTax is nice, I just don't like sales taxes, end of story. Creating the potential for a huge black market and then relying on it for government incoem isn't my cup of tea. And trust me, I know about tea, I'm British.

It might be easier to scrap the tax code and impose a VAT instead, although the experiences of Michigan with its Single Business Tax make that rather unattractive. Somehow, someway, the tax code has to change.

Except this isn't what actually happens in the real world is it?

Isn't it? Do you have any relevant data?

This is only what 'actually' happens in flawed economic models.

And now you label the models as flawed in advance, just because they don't give you the answers you want.

Where does wealth come from? Ultimately it's from natural resources and labour.

And innovation, sure (I suppose you could call that labour). The margins can be influenced significantly by gains in efficiency.

It's possible for investment to provide profit to investors without bringing more natural resources or labour into the economy. For example moving production overseas where wages are less.

That's the efficiency I was talking about. But, that also benefits the poor. If the wages overseas are lower, that's because the workers overseas were poorer.

Even if wealth is created by new investment it hardly follows that it will automatically benefit both rich and poor. More likely the rich will have a big advantage in ensuring it goes mostly to them. This is very much where we started isn't it.

So what if it mostly goes to the rich. If it partly goes to the poor, then it's still benefitting them, isn't it? There's no intrisic value in equity.

India and China are eliminating poverty and are creating a middle class with rising incomes and increasing demand for consumer goods. Their wages are catching up with ours, and eventually will approach parity with the result being higher wages for everyone and strong economic growth.

Is there actually any evidence of poverty elimination or is it just a nice idea?

From what I've read the poor are no better or worse off while local elites form the consumer class.

What is the engine by which their wages are raised to parity with ours?

Do you support tax cuts for the rich?

Or do you agree with me that we need education, childcare, heatlhcare, housing and food for all, and that the rich should pay for these due to the fact that they get all their profits from people?

People over profit.

Therefore, if you want education, healthcare, childcare, housing and food for ALL, vote Democrat/NDP/Liberal Democrat depending on your specific anglophonic country.

Rich people profit because they understand business. People buy things because they want or need them. If people could not profit off the sale of things then nobody would do it. There needs to be an incentive for people to want to provide these goods and services. The thing that liberals (and this includes liberals like George Bush who most people consider conservative) often forget is that there is also an international market for capital and by lowering taxes on wealthy folks you can encourage them to come to your country with their investment capital.

There is nothing evil about wealth. I know lots of wealthy people who did not inherit jack squat but are wealthy because they work hard, save their money, and invest wisely. It is seriously not that hard to become fairly wealthy. You just have to build and invest capital instead of wasting your time on foolishness and wasting your money on junk.

Wealthy people do more for society than deadbeats. I see so many Americans squandering their money that they should be investing. It makes me sick. No way should I have to bail their sorry asses out for the dumb life decisions they made. Their stupidity is not my fault.

Wow, you won't get far in Marketing with that attitude though will you?

Isn't this exactly what advertising *doesn't* do... leaving people to decide for themselves what they want and need?

Why do I need TV ads for Pepsi at all? I already know a range of sodas are available at my corner store. If I feel like a soda I can go down there and buy one. If I don't like it then next time I can try a different brand.

Clearly there's more to advertising than just 'letting people know' your product is for sale. And really, no one from the ad industry would argue this!

They wouldn't argue it, just like anyone else wouldn't argue that their job does something- otherwise, there's no point for the continued existence of his job.

I never said that it leaves the people to decide for themselves. That would be nonsensical- I've never seen an ad that says "Hey, maybe you should try our product, but if you want to try another one, that's OK." Perhaps the intention of the advertisement is to make people buy it, but it's not how it works out. Individuals decide which products they want, in order to satisfy their subjective preferences. Advertising intentions be damned, the advertisement only works as a presentation of the product to inform those with that subjective need that there is a product that fulfills it. But the intention really doesn't matter, since the spending is only so much of the overall spending of the company, so they have plenty of room to make those kinds of mistakes, since the repercussions with that small amount of money being lost are minimal. That way, they can make the mistake of advertising to you when you know that there is Pepsi at your store and you know where to get it and what it is. The only way you can "create" demand is to force people to buy something, which isn't what advertising does.

The problem, of course, is that fifteen years ago we could have said exactly the same thing about Mexico. Guess where everyone outsourced their outsourced labor once Mexico's wages started to rise and they opened their borders to heavy investment? Answer: China.

So my query: How high will China's labor really rise, given the fact that they still have an untapped pool of labor of nearly 700 million? Querying further: supposing their wages do go up, exactly how long will it take before companies move to, say, Bangladesh or Niger?

But that's a good thing. Manufacturing (we can just call them sweatshops, if you like) go to countries where the people are desperate, and it pays them wages for their commodity (labour). Once they're no longer desperate, the work moves somewhere where people are, so it can exploit their desperation to keep costs down.

But the net result is that the people are less desperate than they were. This is a good thing.

The problem, of course, is that fifteen years ago we could have said exactly the same thing about Mexico. Guess where everyone outsourced their outsourced labor once Mexico's wages started to rise and they opened their borders to heavy investment? Answer: China.

China is not doing only menial, unskilled manufacturing but are developing a huge service/tech sector and a major value-added manufacturing sector as well as a domestic consumption market. The problem with Mexico is that they didn't try to develop their economy but remained dependent on low-skill manufacturing and when costs rose the companies bailed. They had nothing to replace those sectors because their workforce was uneducated and unskilled.

China's economy is developing and more and more workers are becoming skilled or are getting college degrees. That's producing phenomenal growth in the high-skill, high-wage sectors of the economy and making them able to grow strongly independent of the low-skill sector. Were companies to bail today, the economy would be hurt but it wouldn't collapse backwards like Mexico's.

So my query: How high will China's labor really rise, given the fact that they still have an untapped pool of labor of nearly 700 million? Querying further: supposing their wages do go up, exactly how long will it take before companies move to, say, Bangladesh or Niger?

It will keep growing because China's economy has a lot more to it than just low-skill manufacturing. There are severe shortages of skilled professionals, and demand is rising with each passing quarter of blazing growth. In fact, many managers are starting to draw Western-sized salaries because of the demand for their skills.

China will lose its low-skill manufacturing once the economy reaches a certain level just like the US and Europe did. However, they will not collapse like Mexico because their economy has the diversity needed to survive and grow; China's barely started to develop its domestic consumption market, and that will produce a lot of demand for workers especially if those 700 million keep increasing their skills and education.

Isn't it? Do you have any relevant data?

And now you label the models as flawed in advance, just because they don't give you the answers you want.

My point is... do you have any relevant data? Or do you just *want* the models to be true?

I will try and dig some up but it may take too long for this forum...


If it partly goes to the poor, then it's still benefitting them, isn't it? There's no intrisic value in equity.

That's easy to say if you're not on the disadvantaged side. Wouldn't some intrinsic values of greater equality be things like less children dying through malnutrition, less war, suffering, crime etc etc?

The thing is there's no reason under the system for any of it to go to the poor.

China is not doing only menial, unskilled manufacturing but are developing a huge service/tech sector and a major value-added manufacturing sector as well as a domestic consumption market. The problem with Mexico is that they didn't try to develop their economy but remained dependent on low-skill manufacturing and when costs rose the companies bailed. They had nothing to replace those sectors because their workforce was uneducated and unskilled.

Ah, those foolish Mexicans!

Perhaps the difference is that the Chinese government spends money to develop these industries (argh evil big govt distorting the free market etc! ...just as the USA Japan Europe etc did in the 1st half of 20th C), and is able to because the US is in debt to China. Whereas Mexico was in debt to the IMF etc and had no scope to develop their economy, were instead forced to take the only opporunity on offer, becoming a temporary source of cheap labour.

But that's a good thing. Manufacturing (we can just call them sweatshops, if you like) go to countries where the people are desperate, and it pays them wages for their commodity (labour). Once they're no longer desperate, the work moves somewhere where people are, so it can exploit their desperation to keep costs down.

But the net result is that the people are less desperate than they were. This is a good thing.

It isn't a good thing if by moving you reintroduce and compound desperation in the people, and that seems to be exactly what happened. If you want to know why there is currently an immigration crisis in this country, take a gander to various goverment websites and compare the estimated rate of illegal immigration with the dates that China got First-Nation Trading status with the U.S. and the date that Mexico signed NAFTA. If it's true that people are swarming the border because they have no hope of making a subsistence living for their family in Mexico (which is true), and the rate of border crossings exploded after all the American multis packed up and went across the Pacific after China got FN trading status (which is true), then it suggests that your economic policy failed the people of Mexico. It didn't build infrastructure; it made them dependent on American jobs which left, leaving nothing.

The only way you can "create" demand is to force people to buy something, which isn't what advertising does.

If you make someone want something that they didn't want before they saw the ad then you're not forcing them to buy it, but you are 'creating' demand.

Many ads are designed to do exactly this.

It's why, for example, tobacco advertising is banned.

China is not doing only menial, unskilled manufacturing but are developing a huge service/tech sector and a major value-added manufacturing sector as well as a domestic consumption market. The problem with Mexico is that they didn't try to develop their economy but remained dependent on low-skill manufacturing and when costs rose the companies bailed. They had nothing to replace those sectors because their workforce was uneducated and unskilled.

Again, fifteen years ago you could have said exactly the same thing about Mexico. Yes, they have a fledgling domestic market, and yes, they are attempting to diversify, but what you are forgetting is caveats two. First, China, every bit as much as Mexico, depends on foreign exports for the bulk of its economy. There are a number of factors in place that all make China the premium exporter nation in the world: the American strong-dollar economics, the reticence of China to unpeg its currency to the dollar, the status of China as a first-nation trading partner, and the current value China has to one politically influential company named Wal-Mart. If any of those values changed, China would be economically shattered. Second, that exportation depends on keeping labor costs low. As a consequence, most industrial jobs go to women, because they can be paid less money and they do not ask for raises. They are required to work substantial number of hours per week, the pay is low to start out with, and Chinese officials routinely look the other way when labor, sanitation, or safety laws are violated. In short, the bulk of the jobs this boom has created are not the kind of jobs you can depend on to build a domestic economic market in the first place.


China's economy is developing and more and more workers are becoming skilled or are getting college degrees. That's producing phenomenal growth in the high-skill, high-wage sectors of the economy and making them able to grow strongly independent of the low-skill sector. Were companies to bail today, the economy would be hurt but it wouldn't collapse backwards like Mexico's.

It will keep growing because China's economy has a lot more to it than just low-skill manufacturing. There are severe shortages of skilled professionals, and demand is rising with each passing quarter of blazing growth. In fact, many managers are starting to draw Western-sized salaries because of the demand for their skills.

China will lose its low-skill manufacturing once the economy reaches a certain level just like the US and Europe did. However, they will not collapse like Mexico because their economy has the diversity needed to survive and grow; China's barely started to develop its domestic consumption market, and that will produce a lot of demand for workers especially if those 700 million keep increasing their skills and education.

Again, you can't build a successful and robust economy on the existence of an elite white-collar class of workers. Only a strong working class has the resources and numbers to build a truly durable domestic economy, and what their economy, indeed, depends on not to happen, so that companies do not move to Bangladesh, is a strong working class. The proper term for what neo-liberal economic policies are building in China is not a middle class. It's more properly termed "a house of cards."

If you make someone want something that they didn't want before they saw the ad then you're not forcing them to buy it, but you are 'creating' demand.

Many ads are designed to do exactly this.

It's why, for example, tobacco advertising is banned.

No, tobacco advertising was banned because of a situation similar to the prisoner's dilemma. Statistics showed that if one tobacco company was the only one to advertise in one month, the smokers would choose that company because it was the only one that was displayed that could satisfy smokers' subjective needs. But if two or more tobacco companies advertised in one month at the same time, there would be no change in either company's gains because the smoker's would not be pushed to satisfy their subjective preferences with one company specifically, because they would have a choice. This, obviously, would be a waste of money, and no tobacco company would willfully surrender profit to another and let have company A have one month and company B have another month. So, just like tobacco companies would do in other PR ventures, like donating to anti-youth smoking campaigns, they supported anti-tobacco advertising on TV so that they could avoid any one of them gaining an advantage. This, of course, was paraded under the guise of tobacco companies being "good" and "caring" about people, but in reality it was just people using the state for their own benefit.

People have subjective preferences, but they don't always know what those are. For example, could you describe the intricate details needed in the facial features of a man or woman to be attractive? Probably not. But you'd know one if you saw one, because those satisfy your subjective preferences. Now, did that person "make" you think those details are attractive? No, you are the one who decides that because they satisfy your subjective preferences.

No, tobacco advertising was banned because of a situation similar to the prisoner's dilemma. Statistics showed that if one tobacco company was the only one to advertise in one month, the smokers would choose that company. But if two or more tobacco companies advertised in one month at the same time, there would be no change in either company's gains because the smoker's would not be pushed to satisfy their subjective preferences one over the other with the multiple presentations of the "goods" (inasmuch as tobacco can be a good). This, obviously, would be a waste of money, and no tobacco company would willfully surrender profit to another. So, just like tobacco companies would do in other PR ventures, like donating to anti-youth smoking campaigns, they supported anti-tobacco advertising on TV so that they could avoid any one of them gaining an advantage. This, of course, was paraded under the guise of tobacco companies being "good" and "caring" about people, but in reality it was just people using the state for their own benefit.

Wait a minute... it seems you are saying that tobacco companies *asked* for tobacco advertising to be banned because it didn't work! And yet for many years all tobacco companies advertised extensively.

Perhaps the adverts, though ineffective on current smokers, had some role in 'creating' demand among young non-smokers?

Wait a minute... it seems you are saying that tobacco companies *asked* for tobacco advertising to be banned because it didn't work! And yet for many years all tobacco companies advertised extensively.

It did work, but only under certain conditions. If only one company advertised on TV, they would get a big profit boost. If two or more advertised, there wouldn't be a real shift in preferences or sales, and they would end up wasting money. So they did support it, because they couldn't stand losing money in advertisement with no gain, but they didn't want each other to gain an advantage by being able to freely boost their funds while all of the others had to do with no advertising boost. Not to mention that by banning tobacco ads, they made themselves looked like they "cared", which made banning it all the more beneficial to them.

It did work, but only under certain conditions. If only one company advertised on TV, they would get a big profit boost. If two or more advertised, there wouldn't be a real shift in preferences or sales, and they would end up wasting money. So they did support it, because they couldn't stand losing money in advertisement with no gain, but they didn't want each other to gain an advantage by being able to freely boost their funds while all of the others had to do with no advertising boost. Not to mention that by banning tobacco ads, they made themselves looked like they "cared", which made banning it all the more beneficial to them.

Doesn't this apply to other forms of advertising too... eg cola? Would Coke and Pepsi like to have cola advertising banned so they don't have to keep spending all that money? If so, why don't they just ask? After all, there can surely be few people who aren't aware they're both out there and perhaps have tried both, forming some 'subjective preference'.

Maybe people would just drink water instead most of the time.

They aren't taxed enough as it is.

They aren't taxed enough as it is.

By a vote of 56-24, it is clear that the vast majority want higher taxes for the rich.

It's time we do this because it's only fair, and it was THE WHOLE OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

By a vote of 56-24, it is clear that the vast majority want higher taxes for the rich.

It's time we do this because it's only fair, and it was THE WHOLE OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

Taxing the rich was the whole of the american revolution? Not really.

what is wrong with equal taxation? How about paying more taxes if you want to earmark where the money goes to (like if you do not like your taxes going to the military when you disagree with a war). For example everyone needs to pay 15% income tax. However, if you want to specially direct your money you pay 22.5% in income tax? I support this idea.

Doesn't this apply to other forms of advertising too... eg cola? Would Coke and Pepsi like to have cola advertising banned so they don't have to keep spending all that money? If so, why don't they just ask? After all, there can surely be few people who aren't aware they're both out there and perhaps have tried both, forming some 'subjective preference'.

Maybe people would just drink water instead most of the time.

Well, they haven't asked, so that must mean that their advertising is different from tobacco's. This is quite likely, seeing as how tobacco is A.) Regarded as hazardous to your health, and B.) Addictive, making their consumers preferences different from the usual preferences of society. If the prisoner's dilemma applied for this category as well, I'm sure they would do it. But, unlike tobacco, they haven't, so...

Also, stop trying to pass off your 'subjective preferences' as 'objective preferences'. I practically never drink water, nor do I want to change my preferences because you say so, thank you very much. :p

what is wrong with equal taxation? How about paying more taxes if you want to earmark where the money goes to (like if you do not like your taxes going to the military when you disagree with a war). For example everyone needs to pay 15% income tax. However, if you want to specially direct your money you pay 22.5% in income tax? I support this idea.



I don't, it would kill revenue and increase the debt. 55% tax for all people making a million or more a year is fair.

It's time we do this because it's only fair, and it was THE WHOLE OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.
WTF? They were fighting TAXATION! They weren't fighting for higher taxes and part of the reason behind checks and balances was so that the rights of the rich would not be threatened by the poor. Many of our founding fathers were rich, they were not warriors for the cause of communist equality.

what is wrong with equal taxation? How about paying more taxes if you want to earmark where the money goes to (like if you do not like your taxes going to the military when you disagree with a war). For example everyone needs to pay 15% income tax. However, if you want to specially direct your money you pay 22.5% in income tax? I support this idea.

Pretty good idea worth considering. And the flat tax rate has served Eastern Europe well at least. So if you ask whether or not I support tax cuts for the rich, I say no. I say cut taxes for EVERYBODY and SPEND LESS. That's the key. Making a very simple flat tax would also make it harder for the rich to use their savvy lawyers to cheat the system. No more getting deductions because you used your 2 ton Hummer to qualify as 'farm equipment.' :upyours:

Well, they haven't asked, so that must mean that their advertising is different from tobacco's. This is quite likely, seeing as how tobacco is A.) Regarded as hazardous to your health, and B.) Addictive, making their consumers preferences different from the usual preferences of society. If the prisoner's dilemma applied for this category as well, I'm sure they would do it. But, unlike tobacco, they haven't, so...

Well, in the specific example of cola... they are a) implicated in child obesity rates and b) doped with addictive caffeine.

It seems to me the prisoners dilemma ought to apply to most current advertising since the market tends to produce competing products which aren't objectively different. eg Coke/Pepsi

Also, stop trying to pass off your 'subjective preferences' as 'objective preferences'. I practically never drink water, nor do I want to change my preferences because you say so, thank you very much. :p

Hehe... but *why* do you never drink water ;)

Do you support tax cuts for the rich?

Or do you agree with me that we need education, childcare, healthcare, housing and food for ALL, and that the rich should pay for these due to the fact that they get all their profits from people?

But I say people over profit.

Therefore, if you want education, healthcare, childcare, housing and food for ALL, vote Democrat/NDP/Lib Dem (depending on what country you are in).
I agree, except about voting Democrat. They'll do nothing for you.

Do you support tax cuts for the rich?

Or do you agree with me that we need education, childcare, healthcare, housing and food for ALL, and that the rich should pay for these due to the fact that they get all their profits from people?

But I say people over profit.

Therefore, if you want education, healthcare, childcare, housing and food for ALL, vote Democrat/NDP/Lib Dem (depending on what country you are in).


I support tax cuts for everyone, and not punishing people for happening to have been luckier or worked harder.

Pretty good idea worth considering. And the flat tax rate has served Eastern Europe well at least. So if you ask whether or not I support tax cuts for the rich, I say no. I say cut taxes for EVERYBODY and SPEND LESS. That's the key. Making a very simple flat tax would also make it harder for the rich to use their savvy lawyers to cheat the system. No more getting deductions because you used your 2 ton Hummer to qualify as 'farm equipment.' :upyours:

Ding ding ding!

We have a winner. We need to fix the current tax system of innumerable loopholes and other nonesense before we even think about more tax cuts.

And to the snobby bastard who said that the middle and lower classes were "bloodsucking hobos": Just remember bub, we outnumber your pampered, bon-bon eating asses about 20 to 1. I'd be a bit nicer if I were you.

Pretty good idea worth considering. And the flat tax rate has served Eastern Europe well at least. So if you ask whether or not I support tax cuts for the rich, I say no. I say cut taxes for EVERYBODY and SPEND LESS. That's the key. Making a very simple flat tax would also make it harder for the rich to use their savvy lawyers to cheat the system. No more getting deductions because you used your 2 ton Hummer to qualify as 'farm equipment.' :upyours:

Um yes, Eastern Europe, with their powerful economies and prosperous populations...? And mafias and people traffickers. I guess that's why those who can afford it all come here to London...?

Taxes on the rich are the main brake on spiralling inequality.

Um yes, Eastern Europe, with their powerful economies and prosperous populations...? And mafias and people traffickers. I guess that's why those who can afford it all come here to London...?

Taxes on the rich are the main brake on spiralling inequality.

Also not to mention that most are looking at stamping it out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#Has_flat_taxation_worked_in_Eastern_Europe.3F).

Taxes on the rich are the main brake on spiralling inequality.

Why is inequity bad?

You all keep pointing out that there's inequity. Who cares? Is there some actual value is us all being equally poor?

Why is inequity bad?

You all keep pointing out that there's inequity. Who cares? Is there some actual value is us all being equally poor?

#1 Glass half full/half empty.

#2 You obviously haven't been poor. I'd say that there's a pretty big value to not starving on the streets

But we're not here to debate communism (which I think you're trying to frame it as), just to make sure that everyone gets a fair shot (education, healthcare etc. all contribute to that).

But I stick by my point that we must close tax loopholes before we start any tax increases or cuts.

I don't, it would kill revenue and increase the debt. 55% tax for all people making a million or more a year is fair.

1. Where does fairness enter into the debate? Aren't we concerned more about results?

2. Don't you think such oppressive tax rates will discourage people from trying to earn that much?

If you want to be wealthy, earn more, spend less, and invest the difference. It is that simple.

you end up with countries like the USA, and worse, where you have a few billionaires and many homeless people.





There isnt alot of homeless people is the USA

2. Don't you think such oppressive tax rates will discourage people from trying to earn that much?

Worse yet it will discourage them from wanting to live and pay taxes in your country.

Why is inequity bad?

You all keep pointing out that there's inequity. Who cares? Is there some actual value is us all being equally poor?

I guess... the poor majority care? There's enough to go around, so wouldn't it be better if those at the bottom were lifted up to a decent level?

Is there anything so great about huge inequality, except for those handful at the top?

If you want to be wealthy, earn more, spend less, and invest the difference. It is that simple.

That is sickeningly oversimplified.

Do you go your whole life without variables like kids, medical bills, being laid off, etc? I don't think so. Being wealthy isn't simple at all.

#2 You obviously haven't been poor. I'd say that there's a pretty big value to not starving on the streets

That's not inequity. That's poverty. That's an entirely different thing.

I guess... the poor majority care? There's enough to go around, so wouldn't it be better if those at the bottom were lifted up to a decent level?

Is there anything so great about huge inequality, except for those handful at the top?

Again, I'm not talking about poverty. I'm talking about inequality. Would you still argue against inequity if everyone had at least that decent level?

That's not inequity. That's poverty. That's an entirely different thing.

No, I disagree. Poverty is an extreme example of inequity.

i do not support tax cuts at all and i am against flat taxing

No, I disagree. Poverty is an extreme example of inequity.

How? What if everyone's poor? There's no inequity there, but there's widespread poverty.

Or what if no one is poor, but there's still inequity? Some people are just well off, while others are obscenely wealthy.

Poverty and inequity are unrelated concepts.

Well, in the specific example of cola... they are a) implicated in child obesity rates and b) doped with addictive caffeine.

It seems to me the prisoners dilemma ought to apply to most current advertising since the market tends to produce competing products which aren't objectively different. eg Coke/Pepsi

Given. But it's a bit foolish to say that Coke/Pepsi are as deadly and addictive as tobacco. Plus, drinking soft drinks hardly has the social stigma of smoking tobacco. Coke and Pepsi have a far greater audience as well. A one-size-fits all policy hardly ever works, after all, and I think this is the same for advertising as for many other things in life.

Hehe... but *why* do you never drink water ;)

Because I like Dr. Pepper more. It fulfills my subjective preferences, of course. :D

Again, I'm not talking about poverty. I'm talking about inequality. Would you still argue against inequity if everyone had at least that decent level?

Yeah I think I would... inequality has implications for democracy, ie those with money and power can distort the political market just as the propaganda techniques used in advertising distort the market for products and services. This means society is unlikely to be run in a way that best advantages the majority of people.

My contention is that inequality (like entropy) will always tend to increase unless you take specific measures (eg constitutional) to counteract it. It's not enough to say "right now the poor people are okay, let the rich get rich" because before you know you have rich guys in power dismantling the elements that were keeping the poor people above the poverty line.

Obviously there will always be inequality of some forms, the point is not to enforce conformity but to at least recognise the tendency to inequality as a negative one and work against it.

That is sickeningly oversimplified.

Do you go your whole life without variables like kids, medical bills, being laid off, etc? I don't think so. Being wealthy isn't simple at all.

Yes I do. I am a proponent of planned childhood so check kids off that list. I make sure I have medical insurance so check medical bills off that list. I acquired job skills and save in an emergency fund so check off being laid off from the list. That is all there is it is that sickeningly oversimplified. I behave responsibly and I am building wealth. I am not there yet but I am working on becoming wealthy. Anybody can (except for the disabled of course and we do have a duty towards helping those people financially because they have problems that arent their fault).

How? What if everyone's poor? There's no inequity there, but there's widespread poverty.


If everyone was suddenly reduced to below the poverty line (not suggesting this as a viable alternative, just as an abstract illustration), the economy would compensate because people would be willing to sell at lower prices (as well as slashing quality by a good deal). In a sense, no one would truly be poor if everyone is poor. It would be a sad world though.

It's all about reference points.


Or what if no one is poor, but there's still inequity? Some people are just well off, while others are obscenely wealthy.

Then there would be inequity, but not to the extent that it produced poverty.

Poverty and inequity are unrelated concepts.

Wrong. Poverty needs a reference point, and the difference between the reference point and what is known as poverty can be nothing if not inequity.

Yes I do. I am a proponent of planned childhood so check kids off that list. I make sure I have medical insurance so check medical bills off that list. I acquired job skills and save in an emergency fund so check off being laid off from the list. That is all there is it is that sickeningly oversimplified. I behave responsibly and I am building wealth. I am not there yet but I am working on becoming wealthy. Anybody can (except for the disabled of course and we do have a duty towards helping those people financially because they have problems that arent their fault).
Make sure you have medical insurance how? Through work? There is no guarantee that the medical coverage will continue in the same form that it exists presently.
You then imply that (a) all disabled people can't take care of themselves and thus disparage them and (b) only disabled people suffer from circumstance beyond their control.

Yes I do. I am a proponent of planned childhood so check kids off that list. I make sure I have medical insurance so check medical bills off that list. I acquired job skills and save in an emergency fund so check off being laid off from the list. That is all there is it is that sickeningly oversimplified.

Yes. You get laid off because jobs that use your job skills are being shipped overseas (or perhaps the market is flooded with cheap qualified labor), therefore you lose your health insurance.

You're wise to keep a large emergency fund, but not everyone has a level of income from their job (or conversely may be too early in their career) to maintain a fund that will sustain them for a retraining process.

Life is full of nasty little surprise. You seem like you've made extensive preparations for them, so kudos to you, just don't oversimplify.

Wrong. Poverty needs a reference point, and the difference between the reference point and what is known as poverty can be nothing if not inequity.

That's entirely the wrong way to define poverty. If you have the things necessary for life (and we can set that bar wherever - it probably includes entertainment and leisure time), then you're not poor.

Measuring poverty relative to some mean or median is designed to create poverty as a problem that needs solving, but most of those people aren't poor.

In a society where no one has enough, and everyone struggles from day to day, there is widespread poverty. There is, however, no inequity.

I support tax cuts for everyone. I hate taxes. Down with big government!

Now, for all who say that the rich should be taxed mercilessly: your boss is likely rich. At least richer than you. If you take away all of his money, how is he suposed to pay you?

I support large tax increases for the rich, and more tax cuts for the poor, I mean they are the ones, that hardly can get by with what they have. A cut for them would be better, than giving a fat cat rich person a cut.

I support tax cuts for everyone. I hate taxes. Down with big government!

Now, for all who say that the rich should be taxed mercilessly: your boss is likely rich. At least richer than you. If you take away all of his money, how is he suposed to pay you?

hehe he doesn't need to, I just took all his money! :D

That's entirely the wrong way to define poverty. If you have the things necessary for life (and we can set that bar wherever - it probably includes entertainment and leisure time), then you're not poor.

Measuring poverty relative to some mean or median is designed to create poverty as a problem that needs solving, but most of those people aren't poor.

In a society where no one has enough, and everyone struggles from day to day, there is widespread poverty. There is, however, no inequity.

It's true that poverty is not the same as the bottom end of an inequality scale

But in a globalised world the question then is... is there enough to go around in the global economy. If so (and I currently it's my understanding there's more than enough) then you could say that all those currently in poverty are victims of global inequality.

Again, fifteen years ago you could have said exactly the same thing about Mexico. Yes, they have a fledgling domestic market, and yes, they are attempting to diversify, but what you are forgetting is caveats two. First, China, every bit as much as Mexico, depends on foreign exports for the bulk of its economy. There are a number of factors in place that all make China the premium exporter nation in the world: the American strong-dollar economics, the reticence of China to unpeg its currency to the dollar, the status of China as a first-nation trading partner, and the current value China has to one politically influential company named Wal-Mart. If any of those values changed, China would be economically shattered. Second, that exportation depends on keeping labor costs low. As a consequence, most industrial jobs go to women, because they can be paid less money and they do not ask for raises. They are required to work substantial number of hours per week, the pay is low to start out with, and Chinese officials routinely look the other way when labor, sanitation, or safety laws are violated. In short, the bulk of the jobs this boom has created are not the kind of jobs you can depend on to build a domestic economic market in the first place.

Growth is leading to massive benefits to China; poverty is plunging and overall access to infrastructure, health services, and education are all increasing. China's economic growth is the only way their people will be freed from political and social repression and it's the only way working standards will rise. Otherwise, the workers simply won't have the leverage necessary to demand decent conditions; the treatment of workers is bad and needs to change, but that won't happen unless growth and investment remain strong.

The Chinese realize that they can't keep their economy going on exports alone and are making efforts to broaden their market and to open it more to foreign and domestic investment. China has made massive strides in liberalization of its financial markets and its economy is becoming increasingly open and diversified; there are risks to growth, but the Chinese are developing a domestic consumer economy and it will keep them from suffering the same fate as Mexico. The Chinese government and businesses realize the risk of remaining export-dependent and are trying to reduce their dependence on them for growth; that's something Mexico did not do and is partially the cause of their problem.

China will survive the trials of its economic development and prosper; it's not like Mexico and will not end up like Mexico.

Again, you can't build a successful and robust economy on the existence of an elite white-collar class of workers. Only a strong working class has the resources and numbers to build a truly durable domestic economy, and what their economy, indeed, depends on not to happen, so that companies do not move to Bangladesh, is a strong working class. The proper term for what neo-liberal economic policies are building in China is not a middle class. It's more properly termed "a house of cards."

There is a middle class emerging in China, and the growth is real. High productivity, innovation, and a skilled workforce produce a strong domestic economy, and China is taking steps to encourage all three. The working class does not have the same purpose or influence it had 60 years ago because it has been displaced by white collar work that produces a lot more value for less cost.

The blue collar manufacturing class is becoming outdated because technology is enabling us to produce more with less cost and labor. That in turn creates demand for skilled workers and innovators that more than replace the workers displaced by improvements in technology and productivity. Those workers not only make more money, but the falling cost of production also means they can buy more. That's why living standards have risen so much so quickly compared to their levels in the 1920's or 1950's.
This service economy has higher living standards, lower poverty, and lower unemployment than any manufacturing economy.

There isnt alot of homeless people is the USA

I dunno, I saw a lot more when I was there than say back home in NZ, where I never saw any really

from Wikipedia Homeless entry
"United States: 3,500,000 including 0.9 to 1.4 million children (UN-HABITAT 2004)"

ah that explains it, roughly the same as the entire population of NZ!!

There is a middle class emerging in China, and the growth is real. High productivity, innovation, and a skilled workforce produce a strong domestic economy, and China is taking steps to encourage all three. The working class does not have the same purpose or influence it had 60 years ago because it has been displaced by white collar work that produces a lot more value for less cost.

In the end though, if China's economy is growing faster than the global economy that just means people elsewhere are getting poorer doesn't it?

I dunno, I saw a lot more when I was there than say back home in NZ, where I never saw any really

from Wikipedia Homeless entry
"United States: 3,500,000 including 0.9 to 1.4 million children (UN-HABITAT 2004)"

That's 1.7%; it's not a good thing, but it's also not representative of the United States population. Actually, Canada has a higher per-capita rate than the US so we're hardly the worst in the developed world in that regard. We need to improve that situation, but it's not a widespread problem.

In the end though, if China's economy is growing faster than the global economy that just means people elsewhere are getting poorer doesn't it?

No, because economic growth does not work that way. It means China is producing more goods and services, which means more jobs and higher wages. Also, China will import more as living standards rise, which means more growth worldwide and more jobs and wages around the world. Strong Chinese growth means the Chinese are getting richer, and through trade with the rest of the world others will also benefit. The net sum of Chinese growth is a vast increase in living standards overall.

It's true that poverty is not the same as the bottom end of an inequality scale

But in a globalised world the question then is... is there enough to go around in the global economy. If so (and I currently it's my understanding there's more than enough) then you could say that all those currently in poverty are victims of global inequality.

But there's no reason to believe that poverty is caused by inequality, or that people overall would be better off in the absence of inequality.

Inequality, in and of itself, doesn't hurt anyone. Poverty does, though, so let's examine what is best at alleviating poverty.

If it matters, measure it.

No, because economic growth does not work that way. It means China is producing more goods and services, which means more jobs and higher wages. Also, China will import more as living standards rise, which means more growth worldwide and more jobs and wages around the world. Strong Chinese growth means the Chinese are getting richer, and through trade with the rest of the world others will also benefit. The net sum of Chinese growth is a vast increase in living standards overall.

Ok, if the rate of growth is higher yeah. If the magnitude of growth is higher then it would have to be parasitic though?

I don't know if that's an unrealistic scenario, though maybe not if it's one of the largest economies in the world. Need some figures I guess, thanks!

Growth is leading to massive benefits to China; poverty is plunging and overall access to infrastructure, health services, and education are all increasing. China's economic growth is the only way their people will be freed from political and social repression and it's the only way working standards will rise. Otherwise, the workers simply won't have the leverage necessary to demand decent conditions; the treatment of workers is bad and needs to change, but that won't happen unless growth and investment remain strong.

The Chinese realize that they can't keep their economy going on exports alone and are making efforts to broaden their market and to open it more to foreign and domestic investment. China has made massive strides in liberalization of its financial markets and its economy is becoming increasingly open and diversified; there are risks to growth, but the Chinese are developing a domestic consumer economy and it will keep them from suffering the same fate as Mexico. The Chinese government and businesses realize the risk of remaining export-dependent and are trying to reduce their dependence on them for growth; that's something Mexico did not do and is partially the cause of their problem.

China will survive the trials of its economic development and prosper; it's not like Mexico and will not end up like Mexico.

So simply restating your original thesis waves all my points away? I ask because you completely ignore the fact that 1) China and Mexico have development stories that, initially anyway, seem only to differ on a matter of scale, and 2) China's development depends on factors that inhibit, not enhance, a solid domestic economy. You can't build a domestic economy on a consumer base paid $2,000 American dollars per year with no health benefits, yet if they pay any more, jobs go elsewhere. . .which is incidentally what happened to Mexico.


There is a middle class emerging in China, and the growth is real. High productivity, innovation, and a skilled workforce produce a strong domestic economy, and China is taking steps to encourage all three. The working class does not have the same purpose or influence it had 60 years ago because it has been displaced by white collar work that produces a lot more value for less cost.

The blue collar manufacturing class is becoming outdated because technology is enabling us to produce more with less cost and labor. That in turn creates demand for skilled workers and innovators that more than replace the workers displaced by improvements in technology and productivity. Those workers not only make more money, but the falling cost of production also means they can buy more. That's why living standards have risen so much so quickly compared to their levels in the 1920's or 1950's.
This service economy has higher living standards, lower poverty, and lower unemployment than any manufacturing economy.

. . .I had thought such airy pronouncements about the New Economy had disappeared with the dot-com crash, but apparently I was wrong.

Okay, lets deal with the first issue: living standards are not improving relative to the 1920's or the 1950's at all. They are stagnating or backsliding. That is because 1) people are not being paid more even though they are producing more efficiently (the increase in wages during the 90's was largely due to increased rates of overtime, not wage increases), and 2) those means of being paid more have dried up in the Bush economy. Put even more simply, if American citizens were living in such a peechy keen economy that you seem to think exists, then you wouldn't see five million more citizens without health insurance than five years ago, nor would you see bankruptcy rates skyrocketing, nor would you see the rates of debt accumulation that you have.

The real truth is that an economy without a goods-based industrial middle class is apparently an increasingly two-tiered one. The upper tier does indeed benefit substantially, as their highly specialized skills enable them to thrive and benefit substantially by the financially rewarding situation they find themselves in. The lower tier, however, cannot escape from their lower tier, because they lack the financial resources to do so. That would be the tier from which, for instance, 150,000 college-qualified students didn't go to college because they couldn't afford it. . .which is what happened in the U.S. three years ago. The obvious problem afforded by this two-tiered system is that it is inefficient; to truly thrive, we need every college-qualified student to attend college to build our human capital resources. The less obvious problem is that a society divided in two, with no common interests and no common cause, is a society that cannot survive.

Do you support tax cuts for the rich?

Or do you agree with me that we need education, childcare, healthcare, housing and food for ALL, and that the rich should pay for these due to the fact that they get all their profits from people?

But I say people over profit.

Therefore, if you want education, healthcare, childcare, housing and food for ALL, vote Democrat/NDP/Lib Dem (depending on what country you are in).
That's about the most stupid thing I've ever seen anyone post. Try again when you get out of middle school and learn how to justify opinions within a factual base. There is so much fallacy here I don't even know where to begin. Maybe a definition of 'rich' would be a start - since in America 95% ot taxes are paid be people earning $50,000 or more annually. THAT's rich!

But there's no reason to believe that poverty is caused by inequality, or that people overall would be better off in the absence of inequality.

Inequality, in and of itself, doesn't hurt anyone. Poverty does, though, so let's examine what is best at alleviating poverty.

If it matters, measure it.

The problem of inequality is about power as much as poverty. This is the primary means by which it hurts the poor and keeps them that way.

Do I support tax cuts for the scumbags?




No.

How about if they increased federal aid for poor people to go to college or decrease the tuiton costs in general instead of making them more expensive then there will be less poor people.

But there's no reason to believe that poverty is caused by inequality, or that people overall would be better off in the absence of inequality.

Inequality, in and of itself, doesn't hurt anyone. Poverty does, though, so let's examine what is best at alleviating poverty.

If it matters, measure it.

"Material inequality cuts life expectancy. Reducing inequality can increase how long people live."

"At similar levels of GDP/capita, people in some countries live much longer than the norm and people in others live much less than the norm. China and Sri Lanka are in the first group, living longer than the norm. Brazil and South Africa, Saudi Arabia and Barbados, are in the second, with shorter lives than the norm. In general terms, levels of inequality within each nation and state provision of social security can explain the anomalies."

"Public action, often but not exclusively by governments, can reduce material inequalities. Examples of such action would include land redistribution, health care provision for the poor, subsidized food provision, livelihood support and progressive taxation. In the graph above, China and Sri Lanka are examples where public action enabled high life expectancy despite low GDP/capita. Other examples include Cuba, and the Indian state of Kerala"

"South Africa, Saudi Arabia and Brazil have high levels of income inequality, and governments that have been chronically unresponsive to the needs of the poor. These two deficiencies are often reflected in low life expectancy relative to the GDP/capita of the country. Lack of income in the hands of the poor means they are unable to purchase medical care and other basic needs. Lack of government action to facilitate provision of livelihoods, food, health care, and other needs, also lowers life expectancy among the poor."

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/sen.php

Nice discussing with you folks... I gotta split.

"Another world is possible."

The problem of inequality is about power as much as poverty. This is the primary means by which it hurts the poor and keeps them that way.

What power? I think you might be approaching nation-specific problems, here.

"Material inequality cuts life expectancy. Reducing inequality can increase how long people live."

"At similar levels of GDP/capita, people in some countries live much longer than the norm and people in others live much less than the norm. China and Sri Lanka are in the first group, living longer than the norm. Brazil and South Africa, Saudi Arabia and Barbados, are in the second, with shorter lives than the norm. In general terms, levels of inequality within each nation and state provision of social security can explain the anomalies."

"Public action, often but not exclusively by governments, can reduce material inequalities. Examples of such action would include land redistribution, health care provision for the poor, subsidized food provision, livelihood support and progressive taxation. In the graph above, China and Sri Lanka are examples where public action enabled high life expectancy despite low GDP/capita. Other examples include Cuba, and the Indian state of Kerala"

"South Africa, Saudi Arabia and Brazil have high levels of income inequality, and governments that have been chronically unresponsive to the needs of the poor. These two deficiencies are often reflected in low life expectancy relative to the GDP/capita of the country. Lack of income in the hands of the poor means they are unable to purchase medical care and other basic needs. Lack of government action to facilitate provision of livelihoods, food, health care, and other needs, also lowers life expectancy among the poor."

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/sen.php

At similar levels of GDP/capita, sure. So, my assertion is that reduced taxes would lead to a higher GDP/capita, thus improving outcomes overall. Your assertion is that reducing inequality would improve outcomes overall.

But I'm asserting that your efforts to reduce inequality would sufficientl reduce GDP/capita that the gains wouldn't match those offered by increasiong GDP/capita and not worrying about inequality.

Those people suffer because they are poor. If we can make them less poor, they'll suffer less. I'm claiming that the best way to help the poor is to have a freer economy, and that means lower taxes.

So simply restating your original thesis waves all my points away? I ask because you completely ignore the fact that 1) China and Mexico have development stories that, initially anyway, seem only to differ on a matter of scale, and 2) China's development depends on factors that inhibit, not enhance, a solid domestic economy. You can't build a domestic economy on a consumer base paid $2,000 American dollars per year with no health benefits, yet if they pay any more, jobs go elsewhere. . .which is incidentally what happened to Mexico.

$2,000 dollars per year is a lot of money in China; everything is cheaper there due to the lower level of development, so they can buy a lot more with less money. Even so, labor shortages are driving up wages across the board, and skilled employees are getting salaries approaching Western levels. The unemployment rate for Chinese college graduates is 1.2%; that's half the rate in the US and it's driving up salaries at double-digit rates.

The US workers had no health benefits until the 1930's, and yet it emerged as a global and diversified economic power during that time. Economic growth creates benefits for its workers, not the other way around.


. . .I had thought such airy pronouncements about the New Economy had disappeared with the dot-com crash, but apparently I was wrong.

The dot-com bubble still revolutionized American communications and commerce. Many of the predictions they made are coming true today; the Internet is revolutionizing commerce and communications and is becoming an integral part of our lives. Even this message board would have been a dream a decade ago, yet it is as established a tool to us as a book or TV.

Okay, lets deal with the first issue: living standards are not improving relative to the 1920's or the 1950's at all. They are stagnating or backsliding. That is because 1) people are not being paid more even though they are producing more efficiently (the increase in wages during the 90's was largely due to increased rates of overtime, not wage increases), and 2) those means of being paid more have dried up in the Bush economy. Put even more simply, if American citizens were living in such a peechy keen economy that you seem to think exists, then you wouldn't see five million more citizens without health insurance than five years ago, nor would you see bankruptcy rates skyrocketing, nor would you see the rates of debt accumulation that you have.

US living standards and real income are both dramatically higher than they were in the 1950's or 1920's. Homeownership is a lot higher and people own a lot more things than they did in the 1950's; everyone has a color TV, most have cable or satellite, Internet and PC access is widespread, homes are larger and have more amenities, and people have a lot more real disposable income than they did then.

The 1990's saw income increases, not wage increases. That's because the nature of the economy is predominantly service based, which means more people are earning salaries and alternative forms of payment; few people today recieve an hourly wage for their work, and those that do are in occupations that are either not growing or are low-paying to begin with. The 1990's was a boom driven by skilled workers, with the result being that those with skills did great and those that didn't did poorly.

Bankruptcy skyrocketed because the laws changed making it harder to declare and write off debt. The decline in health insurance is due to a combination of the recession and rising corporate health care costs, a problem dating from the 1960's and exacerbated in the 1970's and 1990's. This is also true of debt accumulation; people want to have things but they don't want to save up and buy them. The proliferation of debt is due to personal choices, not people living paycheck-to-paycheck; they're drawing down home equity and maxing out credit cards to buy SUVs and HDTVs, not food or necessities. There's nothing wrong with that unless they can't pay it, but most people can (and that's why the housing slowdown hasn't been a major problem.)

The real truth is that an economy without a goods-based industrial middle class is apparently an increasingly two-tiered one. The upper tier does indeed benefit substantially, as their highly specialized skills enable them to thrive and benefit substantially by the financially rewarding situation they find themselves in. The lower tier, however, cannot escape from their lower tier, because they lack the financial resources to do so. That would be the tier from which, for instance, 150,000 college-qualified students didn't go to college because they couldn't afford it. . .which is what happened in the U.S. three years ago. The obvious problem afforded by this two-tiered system is that it is inefficient; to truly thrive, we need every college-qualified student to attend college to build our human capital resources. The less obvious problem is that a society divided in two, with no common interests and no common cause, is a society that cannot survive.

Income inequality is a good thing when people can move freely through society. The inability of the lower class to get an education is not a failure of the economy but a failure of government to provide the aid these people need to move up in society; we can remedy the situation by providing aid money and by reforming the schools in poor areas, but that's hard to push on a public that sees government spending as the root of all evil.

It should be a goal of our governmment to provide people with the tools they need so they can take advantage of the benefits of this new economy rather than have to suffer its negative side. Everyone could see huge and widespread improvements in their living standards if we do this, but the political climate doesn't allow it. That has to change more than anything else if we want to address the problems caused by economic change and reap its overwhelmingly positive benefits and opportunities.

Do I support discrimination against wealth and success? No. Flat income taxes are the way to go.

$2,000 dollars per year is a lot of money in China; everything is cheaper there due to the lower level of development, so they can buy a lot more with less money. Even so, labor shortages are driving up wages across the board, and skilled employees are getting salaries approaching Western levels. The unemployment rate for Chinese college graduates is 1.2%; that's half the rate in the US and it's driving up salaries at double-digit rates.

The US workers had no health benefits until the 1930's, and yet it emerged as a global and diversified economic power during that time. Economic growth creates benefits for its workers, not the other way around.

The price of goods is less, but the prive value of goods is not, or at least not much. No working-class Chinese citizen can afford a Hyundai or the equivalent domestic car, much less an SUV. They can usually afford rent, but not purchasing property. They can afford food, but barely. In other words, despite the lower price of goods, the amount of money they have does not allow them to afford more goods for the same amount of money to push them out of subsistence-level living.

Furthermore, the United States did not emerge as a global economic power until WWII. In point of fact, up until WWI, the United States had roughly the same annual GDP as Argentina. That ascent, incidentally, corresponds well with the time period of the success of the labor movement and the emergence of a true industrial blue-collar middle class.


The dot-com bubble still revolutionized American communications and commerce. Many of the predictions they made are coming true today; the Internet is revolutionizing commerce and communications and is becoming an integral part of our lives. Even this message board would have been a dream a decade ago, yet it is as established a tool to us as a book or TV.


They also predicted that the Dow would be hovering around 50,000 by now. It was these kinds of predictions I was referencing more than anything else.


US living standards and real income are both dramatically higher than they were in the 1950's or 1920's. Homeownership is a lot higher and people own a lot more things than they did in the 1950's; everyone has a color TV, most have cable or satellite, Internet and PC access is widespread, homes are larger and have more amenities, and people have a lot more real disposable income than they did then.

This is largely because of advances by the middle class in purchasing power during the 50's and 60's, coupled with beneficial government programs that aided the acquisition of houses. This same purchasing power has been steadily eroded since then, and the government well has dried up for support for home ownership. That the home ownership has stayed high is a testament to the generation of low interest rates that Alan Greenspan created, which made debt easy to take on, but that time is rapidly coming to an end, as we can no longer afford our strong-dollar economics.


The 1990's saw income increases, not wage increases. That's because the nature of the economy is predominantly service based, which means more people are earning salaries and alternative forms of payment; few people today recieve an hourly wage for their work, and those that do are in occupations that are either not growing or are low-paying to begin with. The 1990's was a boom driven by skilled workers, with the result being that those with skills did great and those that didn't did poorly.

Hence my problem with the New Economy: by your own admission, those who are fortunate enough to have those skills benefit, but all others get left behind. That's bad for business, not to mention bad for America.


Bankruptcy skyrocketed because the laws changed making it harder to declare and write off debt. The decline in health insurance is due to a combination of the recession and rising corporate health care costs, a problem dating from the 1960's and exacerbated in the 1970's and 1990's. This is also true of debt accumulation; people want to have things but they don't want to save up and buy them. The proliferation of debt is due to personal choices, not people living paycheck-to-paycheck; they're drawing down home equity and maxing out credit cards to buy SUVs and HDTVs, not food or necessities. There's nothing wrong with that unless they can't pay it, but most people can (and that's why the housing slowdown hasn't been a major problem.)

Okay, first of all, I wasn't speaking of the brief spike in bankruptcies that preceded the change in bankruptcy law. I was talking about the long-term increase in bankruptcies that prompted the credit-card industry to pressure Congress to change the law in the first place. That has been going on for years now, but it has accelerated since Bush took office. The larger point, however, is that there are two ways of explaining the existing economic data. One is to say that since the 1960's, there has been a progressive, non-stop, and incremental advance in collective irresponsibility and free-wheeling bad choices among the electorate that has been progressively driving more and more people into poverty, out of insurance coverage, and into debt. Another way is to say that structural considerations are driving the trend. Now, maybe I'm wrong, but I tend to think of myself as a fairly good judge of character, and I don't see anything more irresponsible today than I saw in the 1980's. To be honest, people are if anything far more diligent than then. To say that the problem is personal, then, just does not skew with what I know about the world. It also does not skew well with the fact that the data doesn't seem to support it, as most of these changes have come after specific changes in government policy, not some mysterious shift away from personal responsibility.


Income inequality is a good thing when people can move freely through society. The inability of the lower class to get an education is not a failure of the economy but a failure of government to provide the aid these people need to move up in society; we can remedy the situation by providing aid money and by reforming the schools in poor areas, but that's hard to push on a public that sees government spending as the root of all evil.

It should be a goal of our governmment to provide people with the tools they need so they can take advantage of the benefits of this new economy rather than have to suffer its negative side. Everyone could see huge and widespread improvements in their living standards if we do this, but the political climate doesn't allow it. That has to change more than anything else if we want to address the problems caused by economic change and reap its overwhelmingly positive benefits and opportunities.

While I agree with you on pretty much everything you've said about government action, you seem to wrongly infer that current income inequality is leading to more free movement through society. It isn't. In point of fact, most people are far more likely to end up in the same quintile of income as their parents here than they are in Sweden, France, or Germany, to say nothing of America circa 1960. The income inequality in this country is impeding social mobility, not aiding it.

This is largely because of advances by the middle class in purchasing power during the 50's and 60's, coupled with beneficial government programs that aided the acquisition of houses. This same purchasing power has been steadily eroded since then, and the government well has dried up for support for home ownership. That the home ownership has stayed high is a testament to the generation of low interest rates that Alan Greenspan created, which made debt easy to take on, but that time is rapidly coming to an end, as we can no longer afford our strong-dollar economics.

Home ownership isn't a great standard, though, as real estate prices have risen considerably in real dollars.

I support a simplified tax system that uses a realistic working class income as its base, meaning that no one below that pays a dime in income tax, and taxes everyone else above that at a flat percentage rate. No loopholes, no childcare credits (because taxing the poor and then giving them ridiculous math calculations to solve in order to get their money back is a waste of everyones time, and most of all....NO MORE BULLSHIT.

The tax code ought to be one page long in language a 4th grader can read. No one should need more than one form to file and no one should have to save paper and receipts like a packrat in order to get their due refund. The estimated it time it takes to file needs to be cut down to 30 minutes maxium, no matter who you are. The United States tax system is so oppressive that it takes hundreds of thousands of workers each year just to process the forms. That is so fucked up. We are the nation of pointless and endless beuracracy.

I sure would like to know what percentage of my tax dollars goes to that beaurocratic ball of string we call the IRS, as an agency, to collect and administer all those forms, as well as badger people who can't pay?

Clearly your a liberal hippy bomb throwing socialist red pink commie fascist.

The rich work long and hard to gain their honest wealth, and the last thing they need is to throw it away to some street hobos who can't be bothered to get an honest job.

The rich shouldn't have to pay any taxes at all, and taxes should be raised for the bloodsucking parisite hobos commonly called the middle and lower classes.

you crack me up. LOL

I support a simplified tax system that uses a realistic working class income as its base, meaning that no one below that pays a dime in income tax, and taxes everyone else above that at a flat percentage rate. No loopholes, no childcare credits (because taxing the poor and then giving them ridiculous math calculations to solve in order to get their money back is a waste of everyones time, and most of all....NO MORE BULLSHIT.

The tax code ought to be one page long in language a 4th grader can read. No one should need more than one form to file and no one should have to save paper and receipts like a packrat in order to get their due refund. The estimated it time it takes to file needs to be cut down to 30 minutes maxium, no matter who you are. The United States tax system is so oppressive that it takes hundreds of thousands of workers each year just to process the forms. That is so fucked up. We are the nation of pointless and endless beuracracy.

I sure would like to know what percentage of my tax dollars goes to that beaurocratic ball of string we call the IRS, as an agency, to collect and administer all those forms, as well as badger people who can't pay?

I once argued that the best way to make the tax code simpler was to force all elected officials to do their own taxes, by hand. They get locked in the House until they're done, and they can't leave for any reason until they're willing to file that return.

Alberta (my place of origin) has a flat 10% tax rate, and a $10,000 personal exemption (the first $10,000 in income isn't taxable). They've been discussing raising that to a $50,000 exemption. I think that would be an excellent tax structure.

The price of goods is less, but the prive value of goods is not, or at least not much. No working-class Chinese citizen can afford a Hyundai or the equivalent domestic car, much less an SUV. They can usually afford rent, but not purchasing property. They can afford food, but barely. In other words, despite the lower price of goods, the amount of money they have does not allow them to afford more goods for the same amount of money to push them out of subsistence-level living.

Yes, but there are more and more Chinese seeing their incomes rise and are becoming able to buy these things. 20 years ago, there were few if any people who could afford a car let alone any kind of property; now there are millions of people seeing their incomes and living standards rise, and they are getting the bargaining power

Furthermore, the United States did not emerge as a global economic power until WWII. In point of fact, up until WWI, the United States had roughly the same annual GDP as Argentina. That ascent, incidentally, corresponds well with the time period of the success of the labor movement and the emergence of a true industrial blue-collar middle class.

Well, yes. The economy of the United States was in a mature phase that allowed it to develop a working class; the economic development of the 19th century had a lot of abuses and excesses, but it was also the underpinning of the labor movements and the middle class that achieved progressive change in the 20th century. China is in the equivalent of 19th century America or Britain; it is developing a middle class and industrial base, but there are still abuses and problems that need to be fixed.


They also predicted that the Dow would be hovering around 50,000 by now. It was these kinds of predictions I was referencing more than anything else.

The speculative excesses I agree with; the same is true of predicting China as the economic God of the 21st century. It is seeing real gains in income and living standards, but it's not a utopia or the model for economic development worldwide. Nevertheless, China will be a major economic power and its people will benefit just like the Internet revolutionized our lives.

Any emerging technology or economy tends to have speculative excess surrounding it, but in the long run the technology or economy does transform our lives.

This is largely because of advances by the middle class in purchasing power during the 50's and 60's, coupled with beneficial government programs that aided the acquisition of houses. This same purchasing power has been steadily eroded since then, and the government well has dried up for support for home ownership. That the home ownership has stayed high is a testament to the generation of low interest rates that Alan Greenspan created, which made debt easy to take on, but that time is rapidly coming to an end, as we can no longer afford our strong-dollar economics.

Real disposable income rose by 2.9% per year from 1950-1970 and by 3.5% from 1980-2000; real income rose by similar rates for the top 25% of US income earners, and median income rose at a similar rate. That being said, the people benefiting from these trends are the educated and the skilled workers; real income for the bottom 25% is less today than it was in 1959, and that's a problem we have to address by helping people move out of the bottom 25%. Home ownership is rising because of a combination of low interest rates, rising real income, and home appreciation; again, all of these are beneficial to the middle and upper class but not the people stuck at the bottom.


Hence my problem with the New Economy: by your own admission, those who are fortunate enough to have those skills benefit, but all others get left behind. That's bad for business, not to mention bad for America.

Skills should not be something awarded by fortune; it's wrong that a person willing to do the work to get these skills and education is unable to due to the cost of college or vocational training. That's a failure of government, not the economy.

Okay, first of all, I wasn't speaking of the brief spike in bankruptcies that preceded the change in bankruptcy law. I was talking about the long-term increase in bankruptcies that prompted the credit-card industry to pressure Congress to change the law in the first place. That has been going on for years now, but it has accelerated since Bush took office. The larger point, however, is that there are two ways of explaining the existing economic data. One is to say that since the 1960's, there has been a progressive, non-stop, and incremental advance in collective irresponsibility and free-wheeling bad choices among the electorate that has been progressively driving more and more people into poverty, out of insurance coverage, and into debt. Another way is to say that structural considerations are driving the trend. Now, maybe I'm wrong, but I tend to think of myself as a fairly good judge of character, and I don't see anything more irresponsible today than I saw in the 1980's. To be honest, people are if anything far more diligent than then. To say that the problem is personal, then, just does not skew with what I know about the world. It also does not skew well with the fact that the data doesn't seem to support it, as most of these changes have come after specific changes in government policy, not some mysterious shift away from personal responsibility.

To a degree, increases in bankruptcy are two-sided. Sometimes, they can be a sign of a dynamic economy as was the case in Silicon Valley in the 1980's or Florida and Texas today, and at other times they can be a sign of economic trouble as is the case in NE Ohio or Michigan. To a degree, people are taking on more and more debt because they aren't as fiscally responsible today as they were in the 1960's when credit cards emerged as a means of payment; at the same time, they're also more fiscally savvy and willing to take the kinds of risks that high debt incurs in order to live beyond their means.

Loss of insurance is an unfortunate product of both an aging population and affluence; the American population is getting unhealthier with each passing year and we don't want to take preventitive steps to lower the burden on ourselves and employers. The companies ditching their health insurance aren't the Fortune 500 corporations but rather the small businesses that drive most of our economic growth. In order to win back insurance, people will have to take more control over their health...it's a product of poor personal decisions more than anything. In the 1950's when health benefits were won the population was a lot healthier overall and we had fewer of the "diseases of affluence" that require chronic care and treatment.

While I agree with you on pretty much everything you've said about government action, you seem to wrongly infer that current income inequality is leading to more free movement through society. It isn't. In point of fact, most people are far more likely to end up in the same quintile of income as their parents here than they are in Sweden, France, or Germany, to say nothing of America circa 1960. The income inequality in this country is impeding social mobility, not aiding it.

Oh, our income inequality is by no means helping us move. If it were, we wouldn't need the kind of reforms I support; the government's purpose should be to create a level playing field that enables those who put the effort in to succeed and those that don't to fail regardless of their fiscal situation. Inequality will always exist, but it should be the product of personal decisions and never an institutional wall to progress that condemns people simply for being born to the wrong income level.

Most people in the United States, my family (who is nowhere near wealthy) are in the highest tax bracket.

Democrats forget to mention that little fact.

More people's opinions would change if they knew which bracket they fit in- anyone who makes over $25,000 a year is in the highest tax bracket. We're just a bunch of "rich people". So yes, I want more tax cuts.

Obviously, we are not rich people. I consider $25,000 a year working class. Hell you can't buy a house in the midwest anymore for less than $150,000. You can't buy a car for under $20,000 after you finance it. And a damn chicken is $7.00. A fucking chicken!!! At $25,000 a year you are doing without A LOT. Without insurance, without cable, without vacations and much of the time without a decent meal. My kids get mac and cheese at least twice a week! I can feed two kids for under a dollar. Whoopty-fuckin-doo.

I hear ya honey. I feel yer pain. Its time for a revolution. If the working class went on tax strike en masse....shit would happen. I think its time.

Taxation isn't theft. It's payment for the benefits of citizenship in a given country. Rich folks get more benefits, and can afford to pay more in membership fees.

Ohhh Ohhh Ohhhhhhh. Its like country club dues! Its all so clear to me now... Don't forget...repair your ball marks!

Everyone's free to move to another country with lower tax rates.

Have you had to move lately? Do you have any idea how much it costs to relocate? Unless you can get a company to pay for your move, its all out of your own pocket, moving trucks, temporary lodging, weeks perhaps months or years of unemployment while you go through a job search, apply for citizenship, deposits and utility hookups, etc, etc, etc. How you gonna pay for that Johnnyboy?

In many countries, tax regulations is set by law. Those countries are in violation of their own legal system (the law is the same for everyone), when people are forced to pay different amounts of tax. The only truly fair tax would be an equal dollar/euro/sterling etc. amount for everyone. If you think of it, different levels of taxation is just as ridiculous as charging someone more for a can of coke, just cause he has more money -> the product being the services obtained in return from the government.

Besides this consideration, progressive taxation (which is present in most places in the world) is demotivating, since it causes diminuishing marginal utility of an extra dollar/euro/sterling etc. earned. This is especially true for overtime...when overtime is paid out, the net money earned for each hour of overtime is less then that of a regular hour, because often it will cause you to go into a higher tax bracket. In other words, you're being punished for being eager and wanting to be productive.

Long live financial paradises, the safe havens from the legalized theft called taxation!

Where are these places? Tell us! Tell us! :::greedily grabs her Atlas:::

Childcare: Not all families can get jobs that can support a family with one parent not working.
Healthcare: should be increased so it applys to everyone and really helps.
Housing food: maybe you should try not being able to get a job and there for have no money or housing. Maybe that will change your view a bit.

He's a kid living at home under mommy's roof. What does he know?

The poverty line ought to be define as the level at which the bottom 10% of the household in any given nation exist. In fact that is not the reality. In the United States an UNGODLY number of people live below the federal "poverty line", with something like 35% of all children in those households.

Oh shit! I meant to pick No but I picked Yes instead!:mad:

Except this isn't what actually happens in the real world is it? This is only what 'actually' happens in flawed economic models.

Where does wealth come from? Ultimately it's from natural resources and labour.

It's possible for investment to provide profit to investors without bringing more natural resources or labour into the economy. For example moving production overseas where wages are less.

Even if wealth is created by new investment it hardly follows that it will automatically benefit both rich and poor. More likely the rich will have a big advantage in ensuring it goes mostly to them. This is very much where we started isn't it.

Actually it is what happens in the real world. You can see the evidence all around you. The very fact that you have access to money is clear evidence of this. Once upon a time, there was a minimal proliferation of money throughout the United States. A farmer would be lucky to make forty or fifty dollars a year. He'd be able to purchase a handful of new farm implements and such with that money, but not really any luxury items, or any time to devote to luxury.

Since that point in time, Industrialists established businesses and hired laborers to work there. They were able to make far more than just fifty or sixty dollars a year, and eventually found themselves able to purchase not just the necessities of life, but also leisure goods, and have the ability to spend time on leisure. Over time, as the US has industrialized, and since entered this new information economy, everybody, everywhere has more to spend on leisure items and leisure time. This is certainly not because of government actions, instead it is because of industrialization and what those big, bad mean robber barons built.

Yes.

The "rich" pay the most, so they should get the most tax cuts in proportion to waht they pay. It only makes sense.

No. Even with what they pay now they still live far far far better then everybody else.

I support a simplified tax system that uses a realistic working class income as its base, meaning that no one below that pays a dime in income tax, and taxes everyone else above that at a flat percentage rate. No loopholes, no childcare credits (because taxing the poor and then giving them ridiculous math calculations to solve in order to get their money back is a waste of everyones time, and most of all....NO MORE BULLSHIT.

The tax code ought to be one page long in language a 4th grader can read. No one should need more than one form to file and no one should have to save paper and receipts like a packrat in order to get their due refund. The estimated it time it takes to file needs to be cut down to 30 minutes maxium, no matter who you are. The United States tax system is so oppressive that it takes hundreds of thousands of workers each year just to process the forms. That is so fucked up. We are the nation of pointless and endless beuracracy.

I sure would like to know what percentage of my tax dollars goes to that beaurocratic ball of string we call the IRS, as an agency, to collect and administer all those forms, as well as badger people who can't pay?

...What happens to the hundreds of thousands of workers?

As long as they aren't over taxes they are fine. I don't support tax increases on the rich. Really it's the middle class getting screwed over by taxes.

...What happens to the hundreds of thousands of workers?

If you mean IRS workers, well, we eat them.

No. Even with what they pay now they still live far far far better then everybody else.

Inequality is not a bad thing. It gives people incentive to actually do something.

Do you think the person who works 60 hours a week, plus spends 2 hours every night after work doing school work because they are trying to get an education - an education that they had to take out loans to pay for and will be saddled with that debt for the next 20 years – should have a better standard of living than someone who dropped out of high school so they could spend the day smoking pot and be lazy?

Make a society like that and you will soon see productivity drop to practically nothing. Why work if you won’t be any better off than someone who just sits around watching soap operas all day? Sure, some people will still work because they have a sense of self-worth and some self-respect, but not enough to provide all the luxuries demanded by the lazy and shiftless.

I happen to think that people should be rewarded for making a contribution to society, not merely for existing.

There will always be poor people in this world because there will always be people who are lazy and incompetent. How about this – there are one armed people so we should chop off an arm of those bastards that are walking around with two – that’s fair isn’t it?

If someone makes more money than you do, that does not give you the right to take their money. If someone was given a lot of money by their parents, you do not have the right to steal the money that their parents worked hard to earn.

I believe that everyone should have the opportunity to do well – not that everyone who does well should be penalized because some do not. Everyone has the right to work – not to sponge off of those who do.

...What happens to the hundreds of thousands of workers?

Ideally, the simplified tax code would create enough additional jobs to more than recoup losses from simplifying the code.

Inequality is not a bad thing. It gives people incentive to actually do something.


You didn't hear me say it was bad. In a perfect world, there wouldn't be inequality.


Do you think the person who works 60 hours a week, plus spends 2 hours every night after work doing school work because they are trying to get an education - an education that they had to take out loans to pay for and will be saddled with that debt for the next 20 years – should have a better standard of living than someone who dropped out of high school so they could spend the day smoking pot and be lazy?


:rolleyes:

Yea everybody drops out of highschool, smokes pot and leeches off the poor rich.

Try doing that with 2 kids as my mom did.

She leeched off the goverment so she could go to school because she bought into the family values bullshit about staying home with the children. When my stalwart example of a father ran out, she was there with two kids and zero skills.


Make a society like that and you will soon see productivity drop to practically nothing.


Hardly. People need something to do. My brother-in-law is wealthy. He started working agian because he was bored.

Why work if you won’t be any better off than someone who just sits around watching soap operas all day?

:rolleyes: You forgot eating bonbons.

Sure, some people will still work because they have a sense of self-worth and some self-respect, but not enough to provide all the luxuries demanded by the lazy and shiftless.


Wow now that was ignorant!

I happen to think that people should be rewarded for making a contribution to society, not merely for existing.

The same could be said for wealth inheritied. I went to school with wealth kids. Some went on to do things. Some readlly good things. There are a bunch that went on to how did you say it?

so they could spend the day smoking pot and be lazy?

Except they tend to get into the higher end drugs since they can afford them.

There will always be poor people in this world because there will always be people who are lazy and incompetent.


Hey two ignorant comments in one post!

How about this – there are one armed people so we should chop off an arm of those bastards that are walking around with two – that’s fair isn’t it?


And one lame analogy!

If someone makes more money than you do, that does not give you the right to take their money.


Taxes are a fact of life. Deal with it.

Even with these poor wittle rich people get taxed they still live better then those who pay less.

Pooor poor rich people. So abused. Just can't make a living.

The wealthy in the US have it easy. Take a look at the tax scales in Sweden.


If someone was given a lot of money by their parents, you do not have the right to steal the money that their parents worked hard to earn.


Kids? Why not? They tend to buy drugs because they can afford them. One of the local high schools gets raided by the cops twice a year.

I believe that everyone should have the opportunity to do well – not that everyone who does well should be penalized because some do not. Everyone has the right to work – not to sponge off of those who do.

Wow three ignorant comments in one post.

You must be a libertarian.

Where are these places? Tell us! Tell us! :::greedily grabs her Atlas:::
Most notably; the Cayman Islands, Bermuda & Panama (in the Americas) and Monaco, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg (in Europe).
Check out the following websites for interesting facts:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tax_tot_tax_as_of_gdp-taxation-total-as-of-gdp

and http://www.dunway.com/html/forming_company.html

There is more money in banks on the Cayman Islands then in banks in California. That also shows you the effect of high taxation on the rich. They will simply move their money elsewhere. Counter-productive I would say.

Diminishing the value of earning more money?

Does anyone here honestly believe that? Do you honestly believe that you'd rather make $30,000 and end up with $27,000 after taxes than make $100,000 and end up with $70,000 after taxes?

Punishing the succesful and hard working?

I live in a state with no income tax (and incidentally, a nightmarish property tax that often hurts the elderly and poor disproportionally), and I hear the "punishing the hard working" all the time as an excuse to keep it away. I really REALLY doubt that any attorney or investment banker works harder than my father in law, who is a carpenter.

Fair enough, you could say that he could have studied to be a banker or a lawyer, but honestly, there is NOT an unlimited call for either profession. Someone has to be carpenters, or store clerks or farmers in our society. You're all casting stones on them because they made a choice, but I challenge you to remember that by making that choice they are fufilling a NEEDED role in society. One that happens to PAY less, but that does not equate to working less hard.

Sure everyone had a choice (assuming there was an appropriate education system available to them, which is not always the case), but if everyone made the choice to be a doctor or a lawyer or an investment banker, we'd all die in a matter of weeks without food or manufactured goods. I think we should return the favor to these hard working folks by making sure that there is a decent social safety net for them, and since they're not making a hell of a lot of money in the first place, I don't think it's right to tax them on the same level that we do the rich folks.

And Llwedor, you're splitting hairs. Poverty is an extreme case of inequality, whether it is on an international or national scale. If everyone made around $8,000 a year, then how would prices stay high? Prices respond to what the market will pay. No one would be in poverty in such a country. (Note: Before you start call me Chavez, I'm not suggesting that this is the way to go, this is a continuation of a discussion that Llwedor and I had yesterday, thank you for not calling me a communist :D )

increase the tax to the ultra rich and lower the taxes of the poor, the middle class tax could be slitghtly modified as well, accordingly.

Everyone's free to move to another country with lower tax rates.
*waves Swiss flag*

A completelt free market invariably produces the highest per capita income. Unfortunately, in a completely free market, there is no guarantee that income will be distributed with the desired level of equality. One of the macroeconomic goals of self-labeled "liberals" is to provide for the needy. Direct redistribution is an effective way to achieve this goal.
It is important to note, however, that many liberal economic policies are ineffective in providing for the poor. Minimum wage is a perfect example. While some members of the poor class may experience income increases as a result of minimum wage, others suffer from a rise in unemployment that results therefrom. This is generally what happens with regulations that that are meant to have a redistributive effect.
In fact, regulation in general tends to hurt the economy. Admittedly, there are a few legitimate reasons to regulate the economy, such as externalities (especially those involved with the environment) and public goods. The key is to use those kinds of regulations as sparingly as possible and to remember that the market has the capacity to suprise us. (For example, light houses, an obvious public good, are mostly owned and operated within the private sector, which should be impossible.)
My point here is that, if you really want to help the poor, it would be best to end regulation, and to replace it with a system of direct redistribution. (This system of redistribution should be subject to the constraints that there must be as little bureaucracy as possible and that there will never be a financial disincentive to earn money.) By doing so, we would provide for the poor in the most efficient and effective way possible.

Voted "Don't know" but really I mean "Who cares?"
The truly rich only pay as much tax as they want to, anyway.
EDIT: Velatia and Tarroth said everything I would, if I was smart enough.

what, is Xisla the new myrth or something?

But... increase tax on the rich and decrease on the poor.

If there was a flat tax rate for all there would be a large buget surplus in a coulple of years that would allow a tax cut for all.

Do you support tax cuts for the rich?

Or do you agree with me that we need education, childcare, healthcare, housing and food for ALL, and that the rich should pay for these due to the fact that they get all their profits from people?

But I say people over profit.

Therefore, if you want education, healthcare, childcare, housing and food for ALL, vote Democrat/NDP/Lib Dem (depending on what country you are in).
*cough*poorly informed political hack*cough*

Given that the tax rate and government revenue are not directly related I support stepped tax cuts every three years until government revenue drops continually instead of rising. Not to mention a vastly simplified tax code.

Diminishing the value of earning more money?

Does anyone here honestly believe that? Do you honestly believe that you'd rather make $30,000 and end up with $27,000 after taxes than make $100,000 and end up with $70,000 after taxes?

But if it's a long, hard road to earning $100,000, I'm more likely to make some effort to get there if I'll earn $90,000 rather than $70,000.

Otherwise, it might just not be worth the effort, and I'll happily stay at the $27,000 level.

Punishing the succesful and hard working?

I live in a state with no income tax (and incidentally, a nightmarish property tax that often hurts the elderly and poor disproportionally), and I hear the "punishing the hard working" all the time as an excuse to keep it away. I really REALLY doubt that any attorney or investment banker works harder than my father in law, who is a carpenter.

If being an attorney is so easy, why don't more people do it?

Incidentally, up here carpenters are exceptionally well paid, these days. We're experiencing a crippling shortage of skilled tradesmen.

Fair enough, you could say that he could have studied to be a banker or a lawyer, but honestly, there is NOT an unlimited call for either profession. Someone has to be carpenters, or store clerks or farmers in our society. You're all casting stones on them because they made a choice, but I challenge you to remember that by making that choice they are fufilling a NEEDED role in society. One that happens to PAY less, but that does not equate to working less hard.

If there were a shortage of carpenters, carpentry would pay better (as it does up here right now). That's why teachers aren't paid as well as people seem to think they should. Becoming a teacher isn't that difficult, and their replacement costs aren't high.

Sure everyone had a choice (assuming there was an appropriate education system available to them, which is not always the case), but if everyone made the choice to be a doctor or a lawyer or an investment banker, we'd all die in a matter of weeks without food or manufactured goods.

Which, in turn, would cause those needed professions to become exceedingly lucrative, and people would do them. You act like wages by profession are somehow fixed and immutable.

And Llwedor, you're splitting hairs. Poverty is an extreme case of inequality, whether it is on an international or national scale. If everyone made around $8,000 a year, then how would prices stay high? Prices respond to what the market will pay. No one would be in poverty in such a country.

You're presupposing current levels of production, something higher taxes actually discourage.

When I posited a society where everyone was poor, that's a society where there doesn't exist sufficient goods to satisfy everyone's needs. They're all equal, but all poor. Similarly, it's possible that a society with tremendous inequality does exist, but the lowest rungs of that society live comfortably. In that society, no one is poor, despite the inequality.

It's important that we understand what we're actually discussing. I'm trying to solve the problem of poverty. You're trying to solve the problem of inequality, and I'm arguing that inequality isn't necessarily a bad thing. Just because we have both inequality and poverty in modern society doesn't mean that has to be so.

There exist people in society who won't work if they don't have to. These people are a drain on any social safety net, and we can't just pretend they're not there. I'm one of them. If you're willing to maintain the lifestyle to which I'm accustomed, and I don't have to contribute to it, bring it on.

Furthermore, I think we need to change our standard of what counts as poor. I think it's unreasonable to expect every family to be able to own its own home.

The problem here is that people often assume that the government doesn't waste our money. We don't need higher taxes to fund better programs. We could fund better programs if the government didn't waste so bloody much on idiotic kickback schemes and bloated bureaucracies.

Plus, lower taxes often lead to increased government revenue, as the lower taxes spur economic growth, so there appears a larger taxable base whcih produces more government revenue, even at a lower rate of tax. Kennedy did this.

If being an attorney is so easy, why don't more people do it?


How many lawyers do you have in Canada?

In 1995 The American Bar Association said there were about 896000 lawyers in the US. So we probably have about 1 million now.

How many lawyers do you have in Canada?

In 1995 The American Bar Association said there were about 896000 lawyers in the US. So we probably have about 1 million now.

2005 estimate (CanLaw): 67,000

Now, compare that to the number of teachers in either country, which I suspect is a bigger number. Plus, the education required to become a teacher is significantly less arduous.

2005 estimate (CanLaw): 67,000

Now, compare that to the number of teachers in either country, which I suspect is a bigger number. Plus, the education required to become a teacher is significantly less arduous.

Depends on the grade you are teaching.

I'm for the removal of the income tax. Besides the obvious inefficiencies, it requires so much effort to be put in on the part of the individual paying the tax, something that should be done by the government or by a machine.

No, I believe that a Value Added Tax would work far more effectively than the current income tax. Not only would it end the taxation of income that is being stored away for future investments (such as college funds) but it would also make life far easier for those who are paying the taxes, and those who are collecting them.

*waves Swiss flag*
I'm of Swiss descent, can I move there and get automatic citizenship?

Depends on the grade you are teaching.

Sometimes it requires as much as a 6-year program, but it's not like an Engineering degree where you work as hard as you possibly can and still half of you fail. You can BS your way through a lot of Education (my roommate was an Education student).

Sometimes it requires as much as a 6-year program, but it's not like an Engineering degree where you work as hard as you possibly can and still half of you fail. You can BS your way through a lot of Education (my roommate was an Education student).

You can BS your way through just about any subject. Lawyers are disbarred and doctors have their licenses pulled all the time.

I myself have come across many crappy engineers in my career.

It is interesting you hold teaching with such disdain. Overlooking the fact they are involved with teaching lawyers, doctors and engineers.

It is interesting you hold teaching with such disdain.

It's not so much disdain as I don't grant them the reverence most other people do.

Overlooking the fact they are involved with teaching lawyers, doctors and engineers.

But not actually when they're learning to be lawyers, doctors, and engineers.

...What happens to the hundreds of thousands of workers?

You know, I don't give a rats ass what happens to hundreds of thousands of IRS agents. Do you???

Ideally, the simplified tax code would create enough additional jobs to more than recoup losses from simplifying the code.

You put that money back in the hands of the people and it will get spent, no doubt about that, and when people are spending, jobs pop up like dandelions after rain. =)

You know if we could somehow have a national sales tax instead of an income tax, that would be awesome. BUT, I have a problem with business owners being forced into uncompensated tax collection and custodianship. Its like handing a monkey a banana and asking him to hold it for you for 30 days and then give it to you. Its a horrible burden for the monkey and not unlike what starving small businesses are asked to do.

I propose and electronic system where when a payment is made electronically, via a card or EFT, the sales tax is computed and remitted to the IRS on the spot, effectively cutting the businessman out and removing the temptation/burden. Cash payments could still be remitted on the spot electronically and removed daily from the depositers account. It would cost a bit to institute, but the amount of money collected would greatly increase.

You put that money back in the hands of the people and it will get spent, no doubt about that, and when people are spending, jobs pop up like dandelions after rain. =)

Even if taxes were the same level there would still be a lot of additional growth because it would be so much easier to invest in the US economy.

Taxing the rich only seems like a good idea if you're not rich.

I myself am really, really broke, but I think it would be much better if we could instill a sense of brotherhood in our fellow man, so that taxing them more wouldn't be necessary. Get them to give from their stores willingly. Makes them feel better, gets the job done, and doesn't involve the government looking like an accountancy firm.

However, you shouldn't vote Dem on one issue. Don't be retarded. Do your research. Don't listen to people who say that one party holds all the answers.

However, you shouldn't vote Dem on one issue. Don't be retarded. Do your research. Don't listen to people who say that one party holds all the answers.

Research issues and candidates?!?!?!?!?!?

What the hell are you talking about? You trying to change the way the US votes?!?!?!?!

You commie!

I support tax increases for the rich.

*sighs* i am so fed up of lefties in this forum..

What is wrong with a sensible flat rate of tax?

Also, is this UK or US? Because I'm not really clued up on the tax system in the US...

You know, I don't give a rats ass what happens to hundreds of thousands of IRS agents. Do you???

Moderately. These are people, yes?