NationStates Jolt Archive

For a while, I believed that a flat tax was the optimal method of taxation, given that the successful are not required to send a greater portion of their earnings to the government than are others. Recently, however, I realized that progressive taxation is preferable; although a flat tax does not favor anybody who earns a particular level of income, it has several problems associated with it that progressive taxation does not. The most glaring fault is the way in which it treats the poor.

The poor are coddled and treated as the equals of the rich and successful; they have to pay the same percentage of their income in tax money as do their superiors. This reduces the incentive for them to move up the ladder; no matter how much money they bring in, they know that the same percentage will go to the federal government. Thus, their productivity will suffer as they will be less determined to toil in order to attain a promotion. Consequently, the country's wealth will also be reduced.

Another problem is more philosophical in nature. Generally, rigorous labor is rewarded; those who devote their time and energy to a project receive something in return, whether it be a pat on the back, a raise, or the chance to keep more of their hard-earned money for themselves. In today's culture, this type of labor is punished; those who tirelessly apply themselves to a task are slapped with ever-increasing levels of taxation. This stands against traditional American ideals and the very American Dream itself; our current system of taxation is inherently anti-American. We need to completely reverse it by allowing the rich to pay less of their income in taxes. I envision a tax situation as is outlined below.

$0 - $30,000: 25%
$30,000 - $55,000: 20%
$55,000 - $100,000: 15%
$100,000+: 10%

What type of tax situation do you prefer? Poll coming.

"ya thats where she is from dollars...dollars, taxes hahahaha"

^ Tell me where this came from for a cookie.

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read, and that is even though I was prepared by going into one of the FAG troll's threads. Why did I do it? Why?!?

http://www.timewarp-toys.com/troll.jpg

There will, however, be a 36% Troll Tax. :)

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read, and that is even though I was prepared by going into one of the FAG troll's threads. Why did I do it? Why?!?

I dunno, prolly the same reason I responded to a post by the Parkus Whatsit th'other day...

25% tax on $0 :confused:

*hides my belly button lint*

http://www.timewarp-toys.com/troll.jpg

There will, however, be a 36% Troll Tax. :)

I hope theres not gonna be a pancake bunny tax, cuz I got no Idea what you talking about.

I dunno, prolly the same reason I responded to a post by the Parkus Whatsit th'other day...

I think it's like a form of sadism. You post because you want to enable sadness.

25% tax on $0 :confused:

Well, yes. 25% of 0 is still 0. You do realize that there is currently a tax of 10% on people who earn from $0 to $7,550, right?

*hides my belly button lint*

I see.

I hope theres not gonna be a pancake bunny tax, cuz I got no Idea what you talking about.

Gaah, now you bring up the bunny... I found a bunny making a burrow in my front yard... though this is irrelevant to the topic.

What is relevant: :confused:

What is relevant: :confused:

Could you be just a tad more specific than ":confused:"?

Well, yes. 25% of 0 is still 0. You do realize that there is currently a tax of 10% on people who earn from $0 to $7,550, right?

silly surely if your on $0 you get welfare, or at least soup :p

Gaah, now you bring up the bunny... I found a bunny making a burrow in my front yard... though this is irrelevant to the topic.

What is relevant: :confused:

Relevance has no place on NSG. *nod*

None, as I believe in a very, very small government.

Gaah, now you bring up the bunny... I found a bunny making a burrow in my front yard... though this is irrelevant to the topic.

What is relevant: :confused:

nah, i'm just talking about the good old "bunny with pancake", as shown below:

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/6595/bunnytu1.png

Lower levels of taxation for higher income? Gah!

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read

Please elaborate upon this assertion. Why do you believe it's stupid? Are you repelled by the idea that success should be rewarded? Do you detest the American Dream? Are you a communist?

Please elaborate upon this assertion. Why do you believe it's stupid? Are you repelled by the idea that success should be rewarded? Do you detest the American Dream? Are you a communist?

What is this "American Dream" you speak of?

None, as I believe in a very, very small government.

I'm just curious: how do you propose to finance the government that exists? Are tariffs and voluntary donations the only means of financial support that would be necessary?

Why does FreedomAndGlory seem so much liek MeansToAnEnd?

nah, i'm just talking about the good old "bunny with pancake", as shown below:

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/6595/bunnytu1.png

*looks around*

Am I the only one not seeing a pancake on its head? Anyone? Anyone at all? Damn, this confused me...

What is this "American Dream" you speak of?

Put simply, that those who labor day in and day out will be rewarded for their excellent ethic.

Why does FreedomAndGlory seem so much liek MeansToAnEnd?

maybe he is MTAE?

He's a pro wrestler; I present to you, "The American Dream" Dusty Rhodes:
http://slam.canoe.ca/WrestlingImagesR/rhodes_dusty.jpg

I believe in The American Dream. :D

Okay. And what does this guy have to do with taxation?

Why not fair tax?

Doesn't Arizona do that?

I mean, they DO have their own time zone.

What is this "American Dream" you speak of?

He's a pro wrestler; I present to you, "The American Dream" Dusty Rhodes:
http://slam.canoe.ca/WrestlingImagesR/rhodes_dusty.jpg

I believe in The American Dream. :D

*looks around*

Am I the only one not seeing a pancake on its head? Anyone? Anyone at all? Damn, this confused me...

there is a pancake in this picture. just ask LG.

nah, i'm just talking about the good old "bunny with pancake", as shown below:

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/6595/bunnytu1.png

That's not a pancake.... None of my messengers have ever looked like that...

IMPOSTER!!!

None, as I believe in a very, very small government.

I believe in a small government, too. In fact, mine is so small, that I can only see it with an electron microscope. Unfortunately, I lost it in the carpet ages ago, so I ended up having to cough up my taxes after all.

*looks around*

Am I the only one not seeing a pancake on its head? Anyone? Anyone at all? Damn, this confused me...

Success! :D

None, as I believe in a very, very small government.

yet you still believe you need a government *has realized anarchy is easier to argue*

Lower levels of taxation for higher income? Gah!

its the concept that the rich provide jobs if I remember right, course it didn't work like that ?-1920

nowadays its so crazy even Bill Gates goes "thats retarded, my tech support isn't made by me its made by AOL"

well... i disagree. quite a lot.

Okay. And what does this guy have to do with taxation?

:rolleyes: Must I explain everything to you?!?

:rolleyes: Must I explain everything to you?!?

no. I think maybe FAG should explain this one himself.

its the concept that the rich provide jobs if I remember right, course it didn't work like that ?-1920

If you are referring to the recession which began in 1929, people such as Milton Friedman have argued that the fault lies with excessive government intervention in the economy, extremely high tariffs (~10 times current levels), etc.

I'm just curious: how do you propose to finance the government that exists? Are tariffs and voluntary donations the only means of financial support that would be necessary?

Sounds good to me, although if government really needed funds, sales tax, or a small flat tax could be temperarily used to fund the government.

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read, and that is even though I was prepared by going into one of the FAG troll's threads. Why did I do it? Why?!?

You know, it actually started out as if he was being serious, what with the apparent promotion of progressive taxation. Then it turned into regressive, which, while stupid, is hilarious, especially the way he did it.

So, I say well done to FAG.

its the concept that the rich provide jobs if I remember right, course it didn't work like that ?-1920

nowadays its so crazy even Bill Gates goes "thats retarded, my tech support isn't made by me its made by AOL"

Oh I get what he's saying. I'm 'gah'ing in astonishment at such lunacy.

yet you still believe you need a government *has realized anarchy is easier to argue*






Well actually, I do believe people can and should live without governments, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

no. I think maybe FAG should explain this one himself.

I agree. :)

Put simply, that those who labor day in and day out will be rewarded for their excellent ethic.

LOL!

so when I'm horribly deformed from working to death since childhood on minimum wage I'm going to get all the shares in the company :)

http://www.nehrt.com/Demotivators/DM%20-%20Nepotism.jpg

That's not a pancake.... None of my messengers have ever looked like that...

IMPOSTER!!!

You just don't see the pancake yet. look harder and you will.

I smell satire.

I smell satire.


it could be trolling...

If you are referring to the recession which began in 1929, people such as Milton Friedman have argued that the fault lies with excessive government intervention in the economy, extremely high tariffs (~10 times current levels), etc.

...no I'm talking the slums, the lack of education, the huge social divides and that whole shabazz about insane crime rate of the time (!)

Well actually, I do believe people can and should live without governments, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

why not?

it could be trolling...

Either way.

I smell satire.

MMMmmm, that's good satire.

Personally I support the Fair Tax Plan.

I smell satire.
I smell sex and candy yeah...
Who's that lounging in my chair
Who's that casting devious stares in my direction
Mama this surely is a dream, yeah
Oh mama this surely is a dream.

Sorry, couldn't resist. :D

...no I'm talking the slums, the lack of education, the huge social divides and that whole shabazz about insane crime rate of the time (!)

The slums had been in existence for several decades and were mostly comprised of unskilled immigrants. Despite the huge social divide during the late 1800s, an emerging middle class was growing at a dizzying rate in the 1920s. Education was also expanding. As to the crime rate: do you have any statistics on that? I can give you some statistics of my own. Real income increased by 11% during the 1920s. In 1914, Ford had produced 0.5 million cars. By 1930, he had produced 20 million; the US had more automobiles at that point than the rest of the world combined. The affluence of the decade led to the election of 3 laissez-faire presidents (Harding, Coolidge, Hoover) by hefty margins. No, the people were definitely satisfied.

Flat tax.

Makes it easier to pay taxes (less forms) and makes it more fair (Everyone pays a certain percent of their income).

Except if you're under the minimal tax line, in which case you don't pay taxes at all.

so when I'm horribly deformed from working to death since childhood on minimum wage I'm going to get all the shares in the company :)

Who said anything about minimum wage? It is simply an instance of unnecessary government intervention in the economy which only serves to increase the unemployment rate. Also, if you work hard and are thrifty, you can amass a great fortune; for inspiration, look at Carnegie. His family immigrated to the US with nothing; he initially worked as a bobbin boy. But through his dedication, he rose through the ranks to become one of the greatest men and philanthropists of the century. By the time he died, he had $900 million dollars (today, that would top $100 billion dollars). If that's not an example of the American dream, I don't know what is.

Who said anything about minimum wage? It is simply an instance of unnecessary government intervention in the economy which only serves to increase the unemployment rate.

So you're saying that minimum wage increases unemployment? So, would it stand to reason that by your argument, abolishing minimum wage would increase employment? If so, would you not then be encouraging a system where corporations pay as low a wage as possible, in order to maximize their profit, and reduce their tax payments, simultaneously trapping the majority in jobs with very low wages who suddenly bear the highest in tax burden?

How does making more money equal working hard? Hard work does not necessarily translate into more money.

Also, if you work hard and are thrifty, you can amass a great fortune; for inspiration, look at Carnegie. His family immigrated to the US with nothing; he initially worked as a bobbin boy. But through his dedication, he rose through the ranks to become one of the greatest men and philanthropists of the century. By the time he died, he had $900 million dollars (today, that would top $100 billion dollars). If that's not an example of the American dream, I don't know what is.

For each Carnegie, how many paupers?

The slums had been in existence for several decades and were mostly comprised of unskilled immigrants.

do try to look out of your own borders I know its hard to imagine but the world isn't America

no slums did indeed have large numbers of immigrants unfortunately when immigrants have children they become US born and as such your argument falls apart form there

Despite the huge social divide during the late 1800s, an emerging middle class was growing at a dizzying rate in the 1920s. Education was also expanding. As to the crime rate: do you have any statistics on that?

well:

the middle class was created by groups of people helping each other (guilds is a perfect example)

education was expanding yes and that was because of a public school system and laws about having your kids in school and out of work

how about you go to school (http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/candp/)

I can give you some statistics of my own. Real income increased by 11% during the 1920s.

which had nothing to do at all with the point your trying to make, in case you hadn't noticed the last world war had caused some social upheaval and some radical ideas

No, the people were definitely satisfied.

pffft your giving me 20th century America which was having an economic boom at the time with or without the rampant capitalism how about you take a look at France, you might learn something

I often joke that I support a flat tax of 100%, but I don't. I don't because I oppose taxation...and money.

/snipWhat you've posted is regressive, not progressive.

So you're saying that minimum wage increases unemployment? So, would it stand to reason that by your argument, abolishing minimum wage would increase employment? If so, would you not then be encouraging a system where corporations pay as low a wage as possible, in order to maximize their profit, and reduce their tax payments, simultaneously trapping the majority in jobs with very low wages who suddenly bear the highest in tax burden?

Do you understand basic economics? Basic supply and demand dictates that abolishing the minimum wage would increase employment (unless the wage "floor" is set too low for it to make any real difference ). Furthermore, corporations already [I]do pay as low a wage as possible; they strive to maximize their profits with utter disregard to the welfare of their employees. That's why our entire economic system works, in fact: we all seek to maximize our own personal profit at the expense of everyone else's (within the law, of course). That's why a perfectly competitive industry is both productively and allocatively efficient; because competition works for both the producer and the consumer. That's why companies can't pay a scientist the same amount they pay a garbage man. That's why the US is as affluent as it is. Please, pick up an economics textbook before espousing "doom-and-gloom" scenarios; they are ridiculous.

How does making more money equal working hard?

Making money translates into marketing a desired skill of which there is not too much supply. However, I claimed that working hard translates into more money, not the other way around. If you are willing to dedicate yourself to your job, you will prosper.

For each Carnegie, how many paupers?

It's their fault.

After I am dictator of the world, anyone proposing regressive taxation shall be beaten, hung, drawn, quartered and their assets distributed among the poor.

Welcome back MTAE

...unfortunately when immigrants have children they become US born and as such your argument falls apart form there

Oh, drats! I forgot that children born in America are US born! How silly of me. Actually, I am cognizant of that fact, but is does not compromise my argument. Slums were generally composed of immigrants. Sure, they may have copulated, but that's irrelevant.

how about you take a look at France, you might learn something

Learn what: how not to manage a country?

What you've posted is regressive, not progressive.

Yeah, I realized that there was a better term for it when I was trying to differentiate between a positive and a negative progression in the tax rates for the poll, but I didn't bother to change it in the original post. Whatever, it's still progressive, just in the opposite direction.

It's their fault.
It must be nice to live in the State of Ignorance. I don't think that I ever want to visit there, but still must be nice to not to have to worry about actually knowing anything.

Fair, sales only.

I have NO idea how anyone can sanely vote for "regressive".

It must be nice to live in the State of Ignorance. I don't think that I ever want to visit there, but still must be nice to not to have to worry about actually knowing anything.

It's nice, but not as nice as posting hypocritical ad hominem attacks. It's not like I'd ever want to post something so inane, but it must be a refreshing change from actually thinking out one's posts.

Do you understand basic economics? Basic supply and demand dictates that abolishing the minimum wage would increase employment (unless the wage "floor" is set too low for it to make any real difference ). Furthermore, corporations already [I]do pay as low a wage as possible; they strive to maximize their profits with utter disregard to the welfare of their employees. That's why our entire economic system works, in fact: we all seek to maximize our own personal profit at the expense of everyone else's (within the law, of course). That's why a perfectly competitive industry is both productively and allocatively efficient; because competition works for both the producer and the consumer. That's why companies can't pay a scientist the same amount they pay a garbage man. That's why the US is as affluent as it is. Please, pick up an economics textbook before espousing "doom-and-gloom" scenarios; they are ridiculous.



Making money translates into marketing a desired skill of which there is not too much supply. However, I claimed that working hard translates into more money, not the other way around. If you are willing to dedicate yourself to your job, you will prosper.



It's their fault.

I just keep waiting for the punchline. I mean, with a name like

*scrolls down to look*

with a name like FreedomAndGlory, the series of viewpoints you've espoused on the fora do not persuade me that we agree on the meaning of either of the two - freedom or glory. I'd feel sorry for you, but I don't so I won't bother to pretend that I do.

Get help.

Your whole argument seems to run along the lines of work hard and get rich, anybody can do it. If EVERYBODY worked hard and got rich then? I'll tell you what, it wouldn't happen, because to get rich you need to do it at someone elses expense. Wealth and money are not some sort of infinite resource, they are fixed and finite. There is only so much to go round, and one of the (unwritten and unspoken) purposes of progressive taxation is to take money from those who can afford to give it and redistribute it through welfare etc to those who have none - regardless of how they have none, be they unlucky, uneducated or just plain lazy. This process is generally born out of a sense of human compassion and empathy where you feel for your fellow man if he has nothing, instead of just saying "fuck him, he was lazy he deserves it."

Slums were generally composed of immigrants. Sure, they may have copulated, but that's irrelevant.

immigrants have children these children (who aren't immigrants hope your following) can't get out of the slums because there is no way to achieve this beyond some extraordinary feat of luck

thus no the slums where not made of unskilled immigrants as you stated this is over many many years these where Americans who where stuck where they where lucky to keep there already slave wage (funny how the US still has those)

Learn what: how not to manage a country?

no how to manage a country beleive it or not France has a strong economy and is doing fine much like many Nordic nations who to not sound like a parrot I won't mention

It's their fault.

Please, explain to us how it could be possible for everybody to be as wealthy as Carnegie, had they had the work ethic he had.

It's nice, but not as nice as posting hypocritical ad hominem attacks. It's not like I'd ever want to post something so inane, but it must be a refreshing change from actually thinking out one's posts.
"It's their fault" is thinking out a post?

Ok, I want to hear the logic behind this. I really do. I want to know step by step why it is their fault.

Go ahead.

Yeah, I realized that there was a better term for it when I was trying to differentiate between a positive and a negative progression in the tax rates for the poll, but I didn't bother to change it in the original post. Whatever, it's still progressive, just in the opposite direction.

What you're proposing is punishing poor people for being poor. It's stupid. It's unethical. It's state-sponsored class warfare.

Actually, I like your idea, anything that will bring people closer to feeling violent revolution and destruction of the state apparatus is in their best interest is ultimately good. The welfare state is just the state bribing poor people to not revolt and destroy it.

Do you understand basic economics? Basic supply and demand dictates that abolishing the minimum wage would increase employment (unless the wage "floor" is set too low for it to make any real difference ). Furthermore, corporations already [I]do pay as low a wage as possible; they strive to maximize their profits with utter disregard to the welfare of their employees. That's why our entire economic system works, in fact: we all seek to maximize our own personal profit at the expense of everyone else's (within the law, of course). That's why a perfectly competitive industry is both productively and allocatively efficient; because competition works for both the producer and the consumer. That's why companies can't pay a scientist the same amount they pay a garbage man. That's why the US is as affluent as it is. Please, pick up an economics textbook before espousing "doom-and-gloom" scenarios; they are ridiculous.

Wow. I demonstrated what your line of thinking leads to, and I get a 'go to economics school' rant. Tell me this one economics professor; why aren't there more economists clamouring for your ideal economic model?

I'm a capitalist. Transferring the highest tax burden to the majority of your consumer base strikes me as ill-advised.

Making money translates into marketing a desired skill of which there is not too much supply. However, I claimed that working hard translates into more money, not the other way around. If you are willing to dedicate yourself to your job, you will prosper.

I'm sure there are sweatshop workers prospering even as we speak.

It's their fault.

Yer a funny fella.

Here's a quote from a real capitalist for you:

There is one rule for industrialists and that is: make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.

Your whole argument seems to run along the lines of work hard and get rich, anybody can do it. If EVERYBODY worked hard and got rich then? I'll tell you what, it wouldn't happen, because to get rich you need to do it at someone elses expense.

That is not true. For examine, let's examine the case of worker productivity. Say that all of a sudden, every single worker became more dedicated to his job, toiled harder, and was able to be more productive. This would correspond to a rightward shift in the marginal revenue product; in turn, this would both increase employment and the wage rate. Additionally, this would not occur at the expense of anybody. This is, of course, only one example of a method by which many people could simultaneously increase their wealth.

Wealth and money are not some sort of infinite resource, they are fixed and finite.

Have you ever taken a course in economics? Do you understand the principle of inflation? In fact, money is an infinite resource and can be created when banks lend money; the side-effect, of course, is inflation. Several decades ago, prices were 10 times lower. How do you think we'd be able to afford anything if we had the same amount of money as they did? We wouldn't; luckily, wages have increased faster than prices have, and we can afford more because we have more money.

All of your taxes, except the Fair (tax), is based on income I assume. Well that and the None. I don't believe in Income Taxes period.

I guess I'm old-school U.S. Constitution on how I think taxes should be done. Direct Taxes, which must be apportioned and Indirect Taxes. Though it's my personal belief that half the things that are taxed, don't need to be. It's high time to cut the size of our Federal Government to loosen it's belt and give more control of the States to, well the States and to let the local governments run the local stuff. Who better to create laws for your village/town/city/county than the people who live there and know best what the people want?

Have you ever taken a course in economics? Do you understand the principle of inflation? In fact, money is an infinite resource and can be created when banks lend money; the side-effect, of course, is inflation. Several decades ago, prices were 10 times lower. How do you think we'd be able to afford anything if we had the same amount of money as they did? We wouldn't; luckily, wages have increased faster than prices have, and we can afford more because we have more money.

Firstly no they havn't. Try looking outside your corner of the planet.

Secondly please don't lecture me. I know what inflation is - it is where the value of money and goods changes over a period of time. People in the first world have got richer over the past decades whilst the people of the third world have got progressively poorer.

The scenario you gave will simply not happen. If all workers increased their productivity this would simply put a glut of produce on the market, meaning falling prices for said prudcts, less demand, less available work. Economics is not simply about high and low, right and wrong, for capitalism to work there needs to be a fine balancing act. Not everybody can be a boss. there have to be worker bees, and they will never be as rich as the boss, otherwise whats the point of being the boss?

immigrants have children these children (who aren't immigrants hope your following) can't get out of the slums because there is no way to achieve this beyond some extraordinary feat of luck

I generally wouldn't call applied labor and a strong work ethic an "extraordinary feat of luck." Almost everybody has the capacity to diligently apply themselves to a particular task.

beleive it or not France has a strong economy and is doing fine

You're joking, right? France has an astoundingly high level of unemployment and its economic growth is negligible. In fact, Sarkozy won the election and obtained a sweeping mandate for reform because the populace is incredibly dissatisfied with dysfunctional socialist models.

For a while, I believed that a flat tax was the optimal method of taxation, given that the successful are not required to send a greater portion of their earnings to the government than are others. Recently, however, I realized that progressive taxation is preferable; although a flat tax does not favor anybody who earns a particular level of income, it has several problems associated with it that progressive taxation does not. The most glaring fault is the way in which it treats the poor.

The poor are coddled and treated as the equals of the rich and successful; they have to pay the same percentage of their income in tax money as do their superiors. This reduces the incentive for them to move up the ladder; no matter how much money they bring in, they know that the same percentage will go to the federal government. Thus, their productivity will suffer as they will be less determined to toil in order to attain a promotion. Consequently, the country's wealth will also be reduced.

Another problem is more philosophical in nature. Generally, rigorous labor is rewarded; those who devote their time and energy to a project receive something in return, whether it be a pat on the back, a raise, or the chance to keep more of their hard-earned money for themselves. In today's culture, this type of labor is punished; those who tirelessly apply themselves to a task are slapped with ever-increasing levels of taxation. This stands against traditional American ideals and the very American Dream itself; our current system of taxation is inherently anti-American. We need to completely reverse it by allowing the rich to pay less of their income in taxes. I envision a tax situation as is outlined below.

$0 - $30,000: 25%
$30,000 - $55,000: 20%
$55,000 - $100,000: 15%
$100,000+: 10%

What type of tax situation do you prefer? Poll coming.
One missed one very critical issue. Except for math majors and some scientists, people do not think in percents; they think in whole numbers. So even with your marginally improved system, you are still pay more as you move up the ladder: your efforts are still penalized. When you get that big raise you worked so hard for, you still pay more in taxes even though you do more for your nation's economy. 20% of $42,500 ($8,500) is still less than 15% of $77,500 ($11,625). Is that fair? No. Is that a way to promote growth? No. Is that holding the country back? Yes, very much so.

What I propose is that a person pays a tax based on the inverse of their income. ie:

tax = k/income

were k is a constant determined by how much the government thinks it can take from us. If k were to be say 361,250,000, that person who made $42,500 is going to pay $8,500, bit that person who made $77,500 is going to pay only $4,661 as a reward for their hard work. Is this fair? I believe so. Is this going to promote economic growth? You bet your ass it will.

Tell me this one economics professor; why aren't there more economists clamouring for your ideal economic model?

Because it will not fall on receptive ears; the bulk of the country would reject it out of hand because they don't wish to work hard. That's why most economists stick to a fair tax or a flat tax system because it is a realistic goal; see Milton Friedman for an example of a genial economist whose flat tax model produced excellent results in Estonia, where economic growth is surging ahead.

Transferring the highest tax burden to the majority of your consumer base strikes me as ill-advised.

Nobody said anything about a "majority." Given the current income distribution in the US, the top 25% of the populace would still be paying most of the taxes.

I'm sure there are sweatshop workers prospering even as we speak.

In undeveloped countries, they choose to work in sweat-shops because such employment is preferable to not having a source of income at all.

Here's a quote from a real capitalist for you:

When it doubt, quote an ardent anti-Semite, eh?

When it doubt, quote an ardent anti-Semite, eh?

And exactly what does that fact have to do with your argument MTAE?

25% tax on $0 :confused:

*hides my belly button lint*

for those with no income, tax will be paid in body organs. :D

I was too lazy to read all the posts but felt like being a smart@ss, so...

I think the poll question is worded incorrectly. What type of tax system do I prefer? The obvious answer is no tax. I would rather not be taxed at all. So, that's what I put.

Okay, enough of my being a smart@ss, just wanted to know what people thought of the following statement:

"Taxation is evil because it at its core it is nothing more than the use of force (through police power) to take what is owned by somebody else."

I guess it may be a necessary evil, but that doesn't make it any less an evil, does it?

If all workers increased their productivity this would simply put a glut of produce on the market, meaning falling prices for said products, less demand, less available work.

First of all, neither supply nor price has the power to increase or decrease demand (ie, the amount a consumer wishes to purchase at a particular price level). Furthermore, lower prices would increase the quantity demanded of a good, so I really don't see your point. It is hard to accurately depict a firm's production graph without resorting to images, so sorry if what I say is unclear. Let's say MC intersects MR at a point Q1, corresponding to price P1. Increases in productivity will lead to a rightward shift in the MC curve. This corresponds to a quantity produced of Q2 and a price of P2. Depending on the slope of the MR curve and the amount by which the MC shifts, Q2 and P2 may vary. However, the following will hold true in all cases:

Q2 > Q1
P2 <= P1

Also, given that a firm always produces at a point on the demand curve, there will not be a surplus of the good. Look at the 1990s for an example of how huge strides forward in productivity boosted employment (in fact, unemployment actually went below its natural rate for a brief period of time). This is an accepted economic fact; it's not open to debate.

Because it will not fall on receptive ears; the bulk of the country would reject it out of hand because they don't wish to work hard. That's why most economists stick to a fair tax or a flat tax system because it is a realistic goal; see Milton Friedman for an example of a genial economist whose flat tax model produced excellent results in Estonia, where economic growth is surging ahead.

Milton Friedman also proposed a negative income tax model to go hand in hand with a flat tax model that rarely gets mentioned. Whether or not it's the tax model being used in Eastern Europe or the fact that they are a low-wage new-capitalist economy is up to debate. The net benefit to everyone in Eastern Europe is also still up for debate.

Nobody said anything about a "majority." Given the current income distribution in the US, the top 25% of the populace would still be paying most of the taxes.

How do you suppose that abolishing minimum wage would keep that income distribution the same? Regardless of the percentage of the market that is affected, heavier taxation on the bottom end of the wage pool (particularly one with no minimum wage) can only damage the purchasing power of a large sector of the economy.

In undeveloped countries, they choose to work in sweat-shops because such employment is preferable to not having a source of income at all.

Nice sidestep. How is their hard work turning them into the next Carnegie?

When it doubt, quote an ardent anti-Semite, eh?

ROFL! You caught me! I'm a raging Jew-hater! :rolleyes:

How about the point that one of America's most succesful capitalists succeeded by doubling what his employees were making. The Wage Incentive? (Granted, later on he was the most anti-union, but I'm not necessarily pro-union.) This goes directly against your proposed notion that the rich will 'always' pay the least possible.

Secondly please don't lecture me. I know what inflation is - it is where the value of money and goods changes over a period of time.

I always thought Inflation was the overproduction of a nations money based on its gross GDP.

I always thought Inflation was the overproduction of a nations money based on its gross GDP.

Inflation is basically too much money chasing too few goods. As a way to correct for this, the value of money naturally decreases so that just the right amount of money chase the right amount of goods. It does not necessarily have anything to do with the overproduction of a nation's money; in the modern day US, this never happens. It might happen in undeveloped nations or historically (Germany during the 1910s), but many nations no longer no print money that doesn't already exist. Money is only "created" by bank loans.

First of all, neither supply nor price has the power to increase or decrease demand (ie, the amount a consumer wishes to purchase at a particular price level). Furthermore, lower prices would increase the quantity demanded of a good, so I really don't see your point. It is hard to accurately depict a firm's production graph without resorting to images, so sorry if what I say is unclear. Let's say MC intersects MR at a point Q1, corresponding to price P1. Increases in productivity will lead to a rightward shift in the MC curve. This corresponds to a quantity produced of Q2 and a price of P2. Depending on the slope of the MR curve and the amount by which the MC shifts, Q2 and P2 may vary. However, the following will hold true in all cases:

Q2 > Q1
P2 <= P1

Also, given that a firm always produces at a point on the demand curve, there will not be a surplus of the good. Look at the 1990s for an example of how huge strides forward in productivity boosted employment (in fact, unemployment actually went below its natural rate for a brief period of time). This is an accepted economic fact; it's not open to debate.

Oh its open for debate.

Firstly supply and price has a direct affect on demand. If a product is cheaper more people will want it. That is very simple economics. If it wasn't true stores wouldn't have sales. If there is more of a product then it becomes cheaper. Again very simple. Why arn't you grasping that?

Secondly firms do not ALWAYS produce at a point on the demand curve. How the hell do they do that. Business would have to be managed so exactly for that to happen. Business runs on many other basis than just demand.

Please explain your graph. Without knowing what MC and MR represent it is just gobbldeygook (which I suspect it to be anyway).

Now try addressing what everyone hear is trying to say to you but you are ignoring, How can EVERYBODY be wealthy? It doesn't work does it? There will always be someone who pays for your wealth. At the moment that is the third world. Go on deny it MTAE I'd love to see you try.

I always thought Inflation was the overproduction of a nations money based on its gross GDP.

Whixh casues the change in the value of money and goods.

We can probably solve this problem by eating all children after they are around a year to a year and a half old. They stew well, and no doubt would taste just as fine, toasted on pancakes, or baked into a hunk of cabbage; so FreedomAndGlory my American friend tells me. In doing so, not only do the poor gain and save more money which we can tax, but we decrease the amount of the poor folk. This way, we tax the increasing rich less and the decreasing poor more, establishing an undeniably stable base of income with which to build a scaffold and hang ourselves in effigy.

Whatever, it's still progressive, just in the opposite direction.Or in other words, it's the opposite of progressive.

Whixh casues the change in the value of money and goods.

However, inflation generally has nothing to do with the overproduction of money.

Why does FreedomAndGlory seem so much liek MeansToAnEnd?

Ooh, brave call.
The development of the OP's thesis is kind of familiar. The tendency to reply to inflammatory posts by preference to the most reasonable is too.

Misused the word "coddled" though.
Let's take a look into your future ...

Yeah, I realized that there was a better term for it when I was trying to differentiate between a positive and a negative progression in the tax rates for the poll, but I didn't bother to change it in the original post. Whatever, it's still progressive, just in the opposite direction.

MTAE wouldn't make that mistake I think. If he'd made a mistake like that, I don't think he'd mention it.

*snip*

Have you ever taken a course in economics? Do you understand the principle of inflation? In fact, money is an infinite resource and can be created when banks lend money; the side-effect, of course, is inflation. Several decades ago, prices were 10 times lower. How do you think we'd be able to afford anything if we had the same amount of money as they did? We wouldn't; luckily, wages have increased faster than prices have, and we can afford more because we have more money.

Hmm. Mesoriya had a similar tack, asking rhetorically for others' qualifications but offering none of his own. Patronizing, too. There's the same brand of HS economics there, but definitely improving.

Heck, it's only a guess. I say FreedomAndGlory and Mesoriya are the same person. FAG has an earlier join date, so that's no great breakthrough if true.

Not MTAE.
*gavel*

EDIT (1): lol for Widfarend! But you have the pancakes wrong: they're for fattening up the baby.
EDIT (2): Same birthday given on both user profiles. FAG = Mesoriya. Quick study, quite batshit, a real keeper.

immigrants have children these children (who aren't immigrants hope your following) can't get out of the slums because there is no way to achieve this beyond some extraordinary feat of luck

thus no the slums where not made of unskilled immigrants as you stated this is over many many years these where Americans who where stuck where they where lucky to keep there already slave wage (funny how the US still has those)



The above statement as it applies to the US is false. Anyone and I mean anyone has a chance to achieve success in America. There are many stories of people pulling themselves up. As far as unskilled and uneducated people in the slums. For the most part those are the people that live there. Some are immigrants and some are regular born in the USA folks. Believe it or not if you do apply yourself you can do what you want in this nation if you motivate yourself to do so.

I grew up poor and not to brag but I am fairly well off today. I paid for my school through military service. Got a degree which I really didn't need by the way. Started several different types of business over the years and finally found a couple that I could make a good living at. The only obstacle that I had was myself.

As far as France it doesn't seem to me as a country doing everything right at the moment. Time will tell with this new leader but we will see.

The above statement as it applies to the US is false. Anyone and I mean anyone has a chance to achieve success in America.
There are no cats in America, and the streets are paved with cheese!

Given, I don't really know what a lot of what this in tells. But IF there HAS to be taxes.. It should be for what you buy/use... Sales Tax. Social Security helps a little, but usually it is Not enough for the over 65,, 69 etc to not worry about their bills. So.. with that.. it is a freakin scam. Since the money we are putting towards it in taxes, isnt going to be enough .. why do it. Put it this way.. if you work your entire life.. making just enough to cover your bills etc.. while all along paying SS. At the end of that.. no matter how much you paid in.. you will get a check that will totally piss you off.

If I am not mistaken there is a cut off.

I was thinking the other day...how about we choose what we pay taxes for?

At the start of the year, the government could send you a list of the stuff they do. So there could be "public healthcare", "roads", "unemployment benefits", and so on and so forth.

You pick the boxes you want, and pay the fee when you pay your taxes at the end of the year.

If you don't tick the box, you won't be eligible for use. So if you want to drive, then paying for road building and maintenance is necessary for your license and car registration to be valid. There'd of course some externalities that one doesn't pay for, but their value should be fairly small so the distortion won't be huge.

A few things, like the military, courts and police, of course can't make it on that list, they'd be your basic fee that everyone pays. But one would think that you could charge everyone a fixed maximum amount, with those who can't afford that amount paying only a percentage.

You'd get a much easier user pays sort of system and the government would have the money to do the things people actually want. There'd be no more programs introduced that the taxpayer wouldn't want to pay for, like farming subsidies for example.

I was thinking the other day...how about we choose what we pay taxes for?

At the start of the year, the government could send you a list of the stuff they do. So there could be "public healthcare", "roads", "unemployment benefits", and so on and so forth.

You pick the boxes you want, and pay the fee when you pay your taxes at the end of the year.

If you don't tick the box, you won't be eligible for use. So if you want to drive, then paying for road building and maintenance is necessary for your license and car registration to be valid. There'd of course some externalities that one doesn't pay for, but their value should be fairly small so the distortion won't be huge.

A few things, like the military, courts and police, of course can't make it on that list, they'd be your basic fee that everyone pays. But one would think that you could charge everyone a fixed maximum amount, with those who can't afford that amount paying only a percentage.

You'd get a much easier user pays sort of system and the government would have the money to do the things people actually want. There'd be no more programs introduced that the taxpayer wouldn't want to pay for, like farming subsidies for example.

Oh, oh! Can I join? :fluffle:

The entire "consent of the governed" argument seems to fit here.

I heard a comedian- maybe George Carlin- once suggest that a registered voter only has to pay income taxes if most of their desired candidates win their races. :rolleyes:

The entire "consent of the governed" argument seems to fit here.

I heard a comedian- maybe George Carlin- once suggest that a registered voter only has to pay income taxes if most of their desired candidates win their races. :rolleyes:

haha it would be like betting, I'll try to vote for the guy I think will lose

I was thinking the other day...how about we choose what we pay taxes for?

At the start of the year, the government could send you a list of the stuff they do. So there could be "public healthcare", "roads", "unemployment benefits", and so on and so forth.

You pick the boxes you want, and pay the fee when you pay your taxes at the end of the year.

If you don't tick the box, you won't be eligible for use. So if you want to drive, then paying for road building and maintenance is necessary for your license and car registration to be valid. There'd of course some externalities that one doesn't pay for, but their value should be fairly small so the distortion won't be huge.

A few things, like the military, courts and police, of course can't make it on that list, they'd be your basic fee that everyone pays. But one would think that you could charge everyone a fixed maximum amount, with those who can't afford that amount paying only a percentage.

You'd get a much easier user pays sort of system and the government would have the money to do the things people actually want. There'd be no more programs introduced that the taxpayer wouldn't want to pay for, like farming subsidies for example.

...Okay..No offense, but this is a stupid plan.

Do you honestly think at every start of the year, the government could honestly record what every American is paying for and not paying for that year? We can't even conduct a nation-wide election...

Y'know what? Pay your taxes, stop complaining, and thank God that you live in America.

Y'know what? Pay your taxes, stop complaining, and thank God that you live in America.

Yeah Leonstein! Sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up! This is America, we're a democracy, and you'll do as you're told!

I'm generally very much in favour of taxes and taxation, but why should there be taxes in the USA? If USA would withdraw from all the random acts of terror they participate in, the taxes would become excessive. I mean, what else are they for, but the funding of war? The US government would never ever fund anything as trivial as healthcare or education.




;)

I would prefer flat taxation of 15 % in here nowadays, because it's the most rightful variant. As the taxes depend on individual economic situation in each state, we can't just say, what's the best.

Progressive one is demotivating economical growth (it is not better to earn more - paradox) and brings more shadow economy.

Regressive one would bring about riots of "the poor" and national budget would loose an important income.

And constant? "The poor" would have problems to pay it, while "the rich" wouldn't even spot it.

Very low taxes or none ->
1) very liberal and capitalistic economy. Government corporations would have to give sufficient income to budget. The less government-owned corporations (lower income) the more restrictions of state functions ( support of social welfare, state education, healt care). In the extreme, anarcho-capitalistic could develop :)

2) corporativistic society, where all the corporations belong to state. In that case shouldn't be need for any taxes, too, as the state should have sufficient income. (it could be right-wing or left-wing, e.g. fascist Italy (right) or Soviet Union (left))

Progressive one is demotivating economical growth (it is not better to earn more - paradox) and brings more shadow economy.


Income of $30,000, less 10% taxes = $27,000 net
Income of $100,000, less 25% taxes = $75,000 net

I'd think it's better to earn $75,000.

I would prefer flat taxation of 15 % in here nowadays, because it's the most rightful variant. As the taxes depend on individual economic situation in each state, we can't just say, what's the best.


I think most would argue that a so-called "flat tax" is essentially regressive; although the rate would be the same for all citizens, the impact felt by that rate would put an overwhelmingly larger proportional burden on those who can least afford it.

I think most would argue that a so-called "flat tax" is essentially regressive; although the rate would be the same for all citizens, the impact felt by that rate would put an overwhelmingly larger proportional burden on those who can least afford it.

Those who argue in this way are perhaps insane or they aren't able to count :) The more you earn, the higher is you taxation, but it isn't demotivating.

Example: one earns $100 (the poor) and another $1000 (the rich)
The poor one pays $15 and the rich one $150 - i.e. the rich earns 10 times more and pays 10 times more. It's not "so called" ;) It's essentially right.

ad proportional burden - if you would be free from taxation cause of low income, would you be interest in "earning more", while you would be taxed and given similar salary? (and the more your endeavour is, the higher you're taxed)
In other words - endeavour has to be rewarded, not penalizated. Both, progressive and degressive taxes, are Evil (tm)

...Okay..No offense, but this is a stupid plan.
Well, at least you're not opposed on a moral level, which is a start.

Do you honestly think at every start of the year, the government could honestly record what every American is paying for and not paying for that year? We can't even conduct a nation-wide election...
Governments are useless at almost everything. The only thing they are really, really, really good at is keeping track of the money they can get from us.

So America or not, I think that if the IRS can manage to work through hundreds of millions of tax returns every year, they should be able to set up a database that puts a tick next to something for every taxpayer, if so chosen.

Y'know what? Pay your taxes, stop complaining, and thank God that you live in America.
*points at location*

:p

we're a democracy, and you'll do as you're told!

oh, the ironing!

I was thinking the other day...how about we choose what we pay taxes for?

At the start of the year, the government could send you a list of the stuff they do. So there could be "public healthcare", "roads", "unemployment benefits", and so on and so forth.

You pick the boxes you want, and pay the fee when you pay your taxes at the end of the year.

If you don't tick the box, you won't be eligible for use. So if you want to drive, then paying for road building and maintenance is necessary for your license and car registration to be valid. There'd of course some externalities that one doesn't pay for, but their value should be fairly small so the distortion won't be huge.

A few things, like the military, courts and police, of course can't make it on that list, they'd be your basic fee that everyone pays. But one would think that you could charge everyone a fixed maximum amount, with those who can't afford that amount paying only a percentage.

You'd get a much easier user pays sort of system and the government would have the money to do the things people actually want. There'd be no more programs introduced that the taxpayer wouldn't want to pay for, like farming subsidies for example.
How Thoreau-esque. Income redistribution would be a lot harder to accomplish at the scale we do it now...

I think most would argue that a so-called "flat tax" is essentially regressive; although the rate would be the same for all citizens, the impact felt by that rate would put an overwhelmingly larger proportional burden on those who can least afford it.
That's what makes the FairTax such a great system. All of you have completely ignored federal taxes other than income tax. The FairTax would completely eliminate any federal tax burden on those that spend up to the amount calculated for the basic necessities. Let me repeat -- it eliminates _any_ tax burden on the poor.

I don't see why liberals don't flock to the plan for that reason alone.

I was thinking the other day...how about we choose what we pay taxes for?

Our government is already supposed to be doing that, at least with Direct Taxes. All Direct Taxes (of which income is a Direct Tax), are to be apportioned.

When it comes to local taxes, you tend to have a say in where your money is spent, but the higher the level of government you go to, the less and less say you seem to have a say.

Yeah Leonstein! Sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up! This is America, we're a democracy, and you'll do as you're told!

Actually America is a Democratic Republic, not a straight up Democracy.

How Thoreau-esque.
In some things the man was very right.

Income redistribution would be a lot harder to accomplish at the scale we do it now...
All that would tell us is that most people don't care enough about it to pay for it. So we can then disagree with that and call it morally wrong, but we'd have to take our argument to the taxpayer, not some politician.

Not that I'd bother.

Only Progressive taxation will work with, any other system and the country will go broke :sniper:

Tax the rich. Tax them High:cool:

EDIT (2): Same birthday given on both user profiles. FAG = Mesoriya. Quick study, quite batshit, a real keeper.

November 30 is the default birthday for those that don't put one. Half the people on this board probably have that listed.

Only Progressive taxation will work with, any other system and the country will go broke

That would have to be the least intelligent comment I have seen on this thread. How would the country go broke if the government plundered the private sector less?

Tax the rich. Tax them High

I take back what I just said, this is the least intelligent comment I have seen on this thread.

FAG = Mesoriya. Quick study, quite batshit, a real keeper.

Bollocks. And your definition of "batshit" seems to be "anyone who disagrees".

I always thought Inflation was the overproduction of a nations money based on its gross GDP.

Most of the "normal" definitions of inflation I've seen revolve around indexes, and price increases across the economy. Now, the only thing that can cause a price increase of roughly the same level across the whole economy is an increase in the money supply relative to the production of goods and services.

And I still can't believe there are T's on Ferenginar.

Tax the rich. Tax them High:cool:

Come on baby, eat the rich,
Put the bite on the son of a bitch,
Don't mess around, don't give me no switch,
C'mon baby eat the rich
C'mon baby eat the rich


[/Motörhead quote]

Example: one earns $100 (the poor) and another $1000 (the rich)
The poor one pays $15 and the rich one $150 - i.e. the rich earns 10 times more and pays 10 times more. It's not "so called" ;) It's essentially right.And what if the cost of living is $90?

And what if the cost of living is $90?

then maybe you need to make more money. ;)

Wow. Only on the internet...

Progressive taxes is essentially what allows the U.S. Government to possess such overwhelming global military supremacy.

If any other system of taxes was implemented, barring high rates, the majority of the population would pay more taxes and there would be less to spend defending freedom.

How can you rationalise that, sacrificing U.S. National Security so that a few individuals can reduce their burden?

Can you ever imagine a long-term electoral situation, let alone stratego-military, whereby anything other than progressive taxes comes into being? The short answer is no.

When it was stated somewhere the other day, that 'libertarianism is "institutionalised selfishness"' - I have to agree - there is no better way to describe it. Perhaps, if we could quantify liberty, libertarians are those who seek the utmost liberty for themselves, and given that liberty is not infinite, as resources and attributes to supply liberty are so, libertarians seek personal liberty at the expense of others liberty.

In society there are two types of people, those who are wage earners and those who pay wage earners - essentially the poor work for the [asset] rich, and the [sic] rich own the means of production. The means of production is however useless without the workers, thereby labour is sought to give value to the production. The owners of the means of production may or may not have come into ownership through their own merit and work ethic. Even how successful their operation is, is triflingly related to their own personal attributes.

How many Western democracies have anything other than progressive tax systems? When the Iron Curtain collapsed, were Eastern Europeans seeking democracy or capitalism? Capitalism is firmly entrenched in Eastern Europe, yet democracy is not.

Admitedly I have a rather limited understanding of economics, but like that ever stopped anyone posting anything before.

Why does the government tax us?
Because the government needs money to run the country.

So, what happens when the majority of the tax burden falls on the rich people?
Well, chances are the government gets all the taxes it needs, because if anyone is going to have money in your country it's rich people. Though this could go differently if there are very few rich people.

And if the majority of the tax burden is on poor people?
See, they don't have much money. That's kinda what makes them poor. So they're not going to be able to afford to pay much in taxes. So you're going to be stuck with a rather large deficeit and a pretty shit country unless you have huge amounts of poor people in your country.

[QUOTE=Mesoriya;12651745]
I take back what I just said, this is the least intelligent comment I have seen on this thread.

[QUOTE]

You say this like I should care what your opinion is?:D

then maybe you need to make more money. ;)What if the unemployment rate renders this impossible to do by legal means?

I was thinking the other day...how about we choose what we pay taxes for?

Abso-fucking-lutely! I'm not ticking the "national defence" box. No party I know of gives me that option, so already your proposal is looking more democratic than our representational system.

At the start of the year, the government could send you a list of the stuff they do. So there could be "public healthcare", "roads", "unemployment benefits", and so on and so forth.

You pick the boxes you want, and pay the fee when you pay your taxes at the end of the year.

If you don't tick the box, you won't be eligible for use. So if you want to drive, then paying for road building and maintenance is necessary for your license and car registration to be valid. There'd of course some externalities that one doesn't pay for, but their value should be fairly small so the distortion won't be huge.

A few things, like the military, courts and police, of course can't make it on that list, they'd be your basic fee that everyone pays. But one would think that you could charge everyone a fixed maximum amount, with those who can't afford that amount paying only a percentage.

Oh well, you had me for fifteen seconds.
Roads are mostly a state concern here, but I appreciate the option to leave that box empty.
You will very shortly be screaming that I have the benefit of cheap road transport (goods in my local supermarket for starters) but aren't paying for it. Whatever, I'm screaming about funding an imperialistic occupation for which I had no option.

You'd get a much easier user pays sort of system and the government would have the money to do the things people actually want. There'd be no more programs introduced that the taxpayer wouldn't want to pay for, like farming subsidies for example.

Now look. I hate filling out a tax-return (tax orifice owes me thousands) and I know a lot of other people hate that too. This is the tax-return horror, squared. Citizens will be held to their decisions (for a year?) even if their circumstances change ...

eg. A twenty-five year old labourer with no dependents. Wants to make surfboards for a living but needs capital to rent a shop near the surf and buy equipment and materials, a bit of local advertising. Say $40K. This year he's going to work his butt off in the building trade, get that money quick. He ticks only roads: getting ticketed for using the roads without paying would lose him the job.

Two weeks into the financial year, he falls through a hole in the second-storey floor. Sort of his fault, but he was in a hurry. He breaks his thigh-bone (heck, both legs as well.)
No sickness benefit (didn't tick it.)
No unemployment benefit (")
No public healthcare (")
No legal aid to seek compensation for an unsafe workplace (no tickee)

Our protagonist can appeal to the decency of his employer. He can go home to live with mom while he gets mobile. Or if both those fail, he can go take a flying fuck at the moon. Please, please don't say "well there are charities."

I chose that example rather cynically, simply because I think it's plausible and strong. I could choose the example of a woman who worked a very high-paying job, with great prospects, but suffered a mental illness at the age of 35. She gets the pension, payed out of the taxes of every other pensioner (go figure.) I could choose the farmer who ticked "roads" and "drought relief" and "wheat subsidies" but only got his money back on the last two. The road to his place gets five-hundred metres out of town, actually to the church which payed more.

It's actually an interesting idea. I simply haven't slept in 42 hours and have turned shithead. Carry on.

What if the unemployment rate renders this impossible to do by legal means?

then he's shit out of luck isn't he? maybe he should cut down his cost of living, or hit up the church.

then he's shit out of luck isn't he? maybe he should cut down his cost of living, or hit up the church.Perhaps, but my point was that the government shouldn't set tax rates such that they put people below the cost of living. If someone makes less than the cost of living, that's one thing, but in the specific example it was the tax rate that made it so that the person was unable to afford to live.

Perhaps, but my point was that the government shouldn't set tax rates such that they put people below the cost of living. If someone makes less than the cost of living, that's one thing, but in the specific example it was the tax rate that made it so that the person was unable to afford to live.

well, I personally don't think taxes should be paid by people who are less than 20% above the cost of living.... but that's not the situation put forth in this thread.

well, I personally don't think taxes should be paid by people who are less than 20% above the cost of living.... but that's not the situation put forth in this thread.True, but someone else suggested a flat tax without a negative income tax, and I said that such a thing would result in people who are made unable to afford to live because of the taxes.

True, but someone else suggested a flat tax without a negative income tax, and I said that such a thing would result in people who are made unable to afford to live because of the taxes.

I would do a flat tax that started taxing above a certain threshold, that way nobody pays on their base income. I can't figure numbers without a lot of research, but say like a single man wouldn't pay any tax on his first 20K and then after that he would pay a flat rate.

then he's shit out of luck isn't he?

How very compassionate of you....

I would do a flat tax that started taxing above a certain threshold, that way nobody pays on their base income. I can't figure numbers without a lot of research, but say like a single man wouldn't pay any tax on his first 20K and then after that he would pay a flat rate.That seems reasonable. At the very least, in your proposal there is a threshold, whereas in the poster I was replying to, there wasn't.

How very compassionate of you....
hey, the world sucks sometimes. I was being honest.
That seems reasonable. At the very least, in your proposal there is a threshold, whereas in the poster I was replying to, there wasn't.
there would def. be a threshold in my "perfect tax structure" because people who are hungry and cold, and desperate.......don't produce well. I think if you can pay your rent, feed your kids, and pay your heating bill, then surely life will be just a little bit easier. right?

there would def. be a threshold in my "perfect tax structure" because people who are hungry and cold, and desperate.......don't produce well. I think if you can pay your rent, feed your kids, and pay your heating bill, then surely life will be just a little bit easier. right?

Which is something I think a lot of people who don't like welfare don't get. Which is to say, a degree of social welfare HELPS the economy, by keeping people afloat to the point where they can stablize their lives.

Which is something I think a lot of people who don't like welfare don't get. Which is to say, a degree of social welfare HELPS the economy, by keeping people afloat to the point where they can stablize their lives.

I don't have a problem with helping people, I have a problem with the welfare state.

I don't see the government being very good at helping people anyway.

I don't have a problem with helping people, I have a problem with the welfare state.

The problem is as always shown, if you leave helping people soley in the hands of the private sector, it will not happen. Frankly I find the statement "I want to help people, but I don't want a welfare state" an extraordinary oxymoron. If you want to help people, to the point where that help will truly make a difference, institutionalized welfare systems are the only way that this is going to happen.

If anyone TRULY wants to help people the best, then they should by necessity favor social welfare systems, because otherwise those people simply will not get helped.

Frankly speaking "compassionate conservative" is untenable. one can not be functionally compassionate, and functionally conservative at the same time, when it comes to social welfare. Private sectory welfare systems simply do not work.

I don't see the government being very good at helping people anyway.

Far, far better than the private sector, to be sure. Either way, that's, at best, an efficiency argument, and efficiency can be improved.

I would do a flat tax that started taxing above a certain threshold, that way nobody pays on their base income. I can't figure numbers without a lot of research, but say like a single man wouldn't pay any tax on his first 20K and then after that he would pay a flat rate.

There's something similar in the UK.

Basically, your first £5,225 (what's that...$10,500?) of income doesn't get taxed. That's your personal allowance.

So you've five grand tax free; if you earn less than that then you don't pay any, if you earn more than that, then you take five grand off your income and then you work out what bracket you're in.

Now, there are two brackets (not quite a flat tax, but almost, I suppose).

Those making between £0-£34,600 above their personal allowance pay 20% on that additional income.

Those making more than £34,600 above their personal allowance pay 40% on that additional income.


It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the basics of it.

Those making between £0-£34,600 above their personal allowance pay 20% on that additional income.

Those making more than £34,600 above their personal allowance pay 40% on that additional income.


It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the basics of it.

I would believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that those making over 34,600 pay 20% of the first 34,600 and 40% on everything above.

Otherwise someone making 44,600 a year would take home less than someone making 34,600 a year....

There's something similar in the UK.

Basically, your first £5,225 (what's that...$10,500?) of income doesn't get taxed. That's your personal allowance.

So you've five grand tax free; if you earn less than that then you don't pay any, if you earn more than that, then you take five grand off your income and then you work out what bracket you're in.

Now, there are two brackets (not quite a flat tax, but almost, I suppose).

Those making between £0-£34,600 above their personal allowance pay 20% on that additional income.

Those making more than £34,600 above their personal allowance pay 40% on that additional income.


It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the basics of it.
we have standard deductions and exemptions here

so say you made $10,000 and you are single, you get to take 5,150 standard deduction and 3,050 exemption so your first 8,200 is not taxed.

if you are married with 2 kids and you make $46,000 (that's actually the median income in my state for married couples) you get to take $10,300 in standard deduction and $12,200 in exemptions which means you are only taxed on about half of what you made, and that tax can be reduced with tax credits, like the child tax credit and the retirement savings credit and a whole bunch of other ones.

It's not really that bad of a system, if it weren't so complicated (which actually keeps me in a job.....but that's another story)

I don't have a problem with helping people, I have a problem with the welfare state.

I don't see the government being very good at helping people anyway.

I thought you left the general forum. From the old fart. :)

I would believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that those making over 34,600 pay 20% of the first 34,600 and 40% on everything above.

Otherwise someone making 44,600 a year would take home less than someone making 34,600 a year....

Sorry, yes, as far as I know that's how it works.

Sorry, yes, as far as I know that's how it works.

pretty typical of brackets. They do it that way to ensure you never end up in the wierd state of making more but keeping less.

pretty typical of brackets. They do it that way to ensure you never end up in the weird state of making more but keeping less.
That's the beauty of my proposal: the more you make the less you pay, so you keep even more.

That's the beauty of my proposal: the more you make the less you pay, so you keep even more.

HA!

A slightly progressive system, introduce a minimum level at which people making a lesser amount don't have to pay, but keep everything above that flat.

Mix that with a sales tax that can be refunded to those who make under that minimum as well.

I think a flat or fair tax will work just fine, if the government cuts back funding on some things.

I hope no one reads the OP and mistakenly thinks FreedomAndGlory is representative of capitalists. He's only representative of trolls. And he's either MTAE, or so similar that it doesn't matter.

I hope no one reads the OP and mistakenly thinks FreedomAndGlory is representative of capitalists. He's only representative of trolls. And he's either MTAE, or so similar that it doesn't matter.

I think he is Posi in disguise.

That's the beauty of my proposal: the more you make the less you pay, so you keep even more.

YOUR proposal? Did we forget to clear our cache FAG?

I think he is Posi in disguise.

Yeah, that's pretty clear. Looks like he got caught.

-OP Snip-
Although you probably didn't know it, we already (kind of) have that in the UK, in the form of National Insurance.
http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/salaries/ni.shtml

Yeah, that's pretty clear. Looks like he got caught.

by me! I accomplished something today! :D

by me! I accomplished something today! :D
Well done, you'll work out whether Eve Online is Deep Kimchi or not next...

Well done, you'll work out whether Eve Online is Deep Kimchi or not next...

he is, he is also someone else.

he is, he is also someone else.

really? How did you do that? Did you perhaps...perceive him from a great distance?

really? How did you do that? Did you perhaps...perceive him from a great distance?

Well, Remote Observer is DK, he's admitted it. I'm not sure whether or not Eve Online has admitted it, but it's fairly obvious.

he is, he is also someone else.
I missed that memo.:eek:

None, and no government.

I think he is Posi in disguise.

He most certainly is not, and you can get a mod to verify that.

He most certainly is not, and you can get a mod to verify that.

Never mind, I don't want to deny it any longer. I am, in fact, Posi by another name.

Never mind, I don’t want to deny it any longer. I am, in fact, Posi by another name.
Crash and burn....

Never mind, I don't want to deny it any longer. I am, in fact, Posi by another name.
Smartass.
<.<

Crash and burn....
Like I said, ask the mods. They will tell you that we have two different IP addresses from two different parts of the world.
This forum requires that you wait 30 seconds between posts. Please try again in 41 seconds.

Now try addressing what everyone hear is trying to say to you but you are ignoring, How can EVERYBODY be wealthy? It doesn't work does it? There will always be someone who pays for your wealth. At the moment that is the third world. Go on deny it MTAE I'd love to see you try.

In case you missed the memo, I'm Posi, not MTaE. However, I will gladly answer your query. First, we must define "wealth"; I deem it to be the monetary value of one's possessions. Thus, everybody can be wealthier (note that there is no absolute) if there is an increase in global productivity. Furthermore, as more and more people become increasingly skilled, there will be an increase in the amount of people capable of performing highly specialized tasks, and the wage in those areas will decline somewhat. However, there will be a lower supply of people willing to do less skilled jobs; consequently, the wage rate in that sector will increase. What you will begin to see is a bridging of the gulf between the pay that unskilled workers receive and that which skilled workers receive. Everyone will be better off, but the poor would benefit the most. For example, if everyone is sufficiently talented to be an excellent CEO, the pay grade of a CEO will decline; what you will achieve is greater equality in terms of wealth distribution, no communist action required. Of course, this is all assuming that people are willing to work and not lazy.

Like I said, ask the mods. They will tell you that we have two different IP addresses from two different parts of the world.How do you know what part of the world FAG is from?

How do you know what part of the world FAG is from?
Odds. I live in a town of 70,000 that is 4 hours away from the next town. I would literally shit myself if he turned out to live here.

Odds. I live in a town of 70,000 that is 4 hours away from the next town. I would literally shit myself if he turned out to live here.Fair enough. ;)

Odds. I live in a town of 70,000 that is 4 hours away from the next town. I would literally shit myself if he turned out to live here.

Australia isn't that big of a place; we're bound to bump into each other sometime.

Australia isn't that big of a place; we're bound to bump into each other sometime.
Ouch, couldn't even get the country right.

Think great white north.

Ouch, couldn't even get the country right.

Think great white north.

is it fun talking to yourself? (you know the mods never confirm or deny who is who with what unless you get banned and then they still won't)

is it fun talking to yourself? (you know the mods never confirm or deny who is who with what unless you get banned and then they still won't)
Not as fun as that night I spammed this place with my puppet. Jesus is Hawt IIRC.

Please elaborate upon this assertion. Why do you believe it's stupid? Are you repelled by the idea that success should be rewarded? Do you detest the American Dream? Are you a communist?

This has nothing to do with rewarding "success". Your system rewards only the most unscrupulous and ruthless in our society. Any system that punishes people for being born into poverty, and then kicks out all the legs they have to stand on is a crime against humanity.

I detest this nightmare you call the American Dream. A belief that you can get anywhere based solely on merit is so absurd that it is rightly called a dream; you have to be asleep to believe it.

You would require the poor to pay the bulk of the cost of the very system that enforces the property rights that create differentials of wealth and power. This is serfdom-writ large.

As a matter of fact, I am a communist. Red-baiting won't get you anywhere on this program. I must second fassigen's objection to your plan.

is it fun talking to yourself?

I am a bit of an attention whore, so I love talking to myself; there's nothing more enjoyable than engaging in a rambling discourse with one's "alter ego." Or maybe the Australian heat is getting to me.

Not as fun as that night I spammed this place with my puppet. Jesus is Hawt IIRC.

yeah. :rolleyes: you just wait until my puppet becomes known......every knee shall bow. :cool:

yeah. :rolleyes: you just wait until my puppet becomes known......every knee shall bow. :cool:

;)

I am a bit of an attention whore, so I love talking to myself; there's nothing more enjoyable than engaging in a rambling discourse with one's "alter ego." Or maybe the Australian heat is getting to me.

Isn't it winter in Australia?

There will, however, be a 36% Troll Tax. :)

NS will be bankrupt within the week! :(

*loots the Jolt treasury and flees*

yeah. :rolleyes: you just wait until my puppet becomes known......every knee shall bow. :cool:

My puppet was deated. I forgot to login with it after the night I made it.

Isn't it winter in Australia?

Yeah, the lack of heat might be getting to me. What's your point? Oh, wait, I already know. ;)

yeah. :rolleyes: you just wait until my puppet becomes known......every knee shall bow. :cool:
:eek:

Smunkee=Posi=FreedomAndGlory=Eve Online=Deep Kimchi=[violet]=Jesus!!!1

:eek:

Smunkee=Posi=FreedomAndGlory=Eve Online=Deep Kimchi=[violet]=Jesus!!!1

:D I'll never tell.

:eek:

Smunkee==Posi==FreedomAndGlory==Eve Online==Deep Kimchi==[violet]==Jesus!!!1

And [violet] == max.

And [violet] == max.
Yeah, but everyone knows Max is just a front for The Lord, Our Saviour.

:D I'll never tell.

Will a cookie change your mind? :)

oh, the ironing!

:D

I was thinking the other day...how about we choose what we pay taxes for?

At the start of the year, the government could send you a list of the stuff they do. So there could be "public healthcare", "roads", "unemployment benefits", and so on and so forth.

You pick the boxes you want, and pay the fee when you pay your taxes at the end of the year.

If you don't tick the box, you won't be eligible for use. So if you want to drive, then paying for road building and maintenance is necessary for your license and car registration to be valid. There'd of course some externalities that one doesn't pay for, but their value should be fairly small so the distortion won't be huge.

A few things, like the military, courts and police, of course can't make it on that list, they'd be your basic fee that everyone pays. But one would think that you could charge everyone a fixed maximum amount, with those who can't afford that amount paying only a percentage.

You'd get a much easier user pays sort of system and the government would have the money to do the things people actually want. There'd be no more programs introduced that the taxpayer wouldn't want to pay for, like farming subsidies for example.

I've thought along these lines before, although I think that this particular method would make governing increasingly difficult, if not impossible.Rather, I would send out a list to each tax payer upon return of taxes what their tax dollars are being spent on, (on a percentage basis). For example, if 10% of the government budget is spent on the Department of Defense, and the tax payer paid out $100 in taxes to the government, then it would read 'Department of Defense: $10'.

I would rather highlight the issue of where tax dollars are being spent, so that voters can become more cognizant of this come election time.

I've thought along these lines before, although I think that this particular method would make governing increasingly difficult, if not impossible.
Oh, noez! :eek:

It wouldn't make it any more difficult to do the things people want to pay for. Whether it should be easy for anyone to spend money people don't want to spend eludes me though.

I would rather highlight the issue of where tax dollars are being spent, so that voters can become more cognizant of this come election time.
And you'd still end up with the majority deciding for you, and deciding on some collection of spending rather than individual items. You wouldn't be solving the problem.

Neo L; I re-read your post and noticed the caveat that the decision is made at the beginninig of the fiscal year. Makes a difference in where I was coming from. But my main point is that government, or any spending body, can perform its task better with predictable and workable budgets, which a one-year variable on the whim of the electorate seems untenable to me.

No taxes.

*...*
Bollocks. And your definition of "batshit" seems to be "anyone who disagrees".

OK, I was wrong. You know it's perfectly permissible to have more than one account? Just don't fake a debate using puppets and you're fine.

You probably should hear it from someone you respect more than me, but please use the 'quote' button! Without the semicolon and post number in the quote brackets, your quotes don't have a link. The quote immediately after mine in the post I'm replying to (#12651745) has no name at all, anyone but the actual author would assume it was mine ... and that's not just cosmetic.

*...*
EDIT (2): Same birthday given on both user profiles. FAG = Mesoriya. November 30 is the default birthday for those that don't put one. Half the people on this board probably have that listed.

Interesting.
Hey, why be half-right when with very little effort you can be completely wrong?
*honks like goose*

EDIT (2): For the record, I've never posted anywhere on NS under any other name. I'm not saying I never will, but for now I'll keep wearing the albatross.
Sometimes I lurk under another name.

I am a bit of an attention whore, so I love talking to myself; there's nothing more enjoyable than engaging in a rambling discourse with one's "alter ego." Or maybe the Australian heat is getting to me.

"All ossie are wankar!" - grafitti in Sydney train.

But really, you shouldn't. It's spamming.

Hey, why be half-right when with very little effort you can be completely wrong?

The simple fact is that he's right, I simply couldn't be bothered telling everyone my birthday. Too many people know it as it is.

The simple fact is that he's right, I simply couldn't be bothered telling everyone my birthday. Too many people know it as it is.

OK, I see I wasn't clear. I assumed that everyone would recognize that "honking like a goose" would be an admission that I AM A GOOSE. And that geese are very silly and undignified creatures.

*sigh*

Simply then: I was wrong. I was completely wrong. I was not even half-right.

EDIT: And I apologize. I'm sorry. Sorry to Darknovae too: your guess was better than mine.