|
Post by Azan on Apr 1, 2005 20:29:01 GMT -5
exactly
|
|
|
Post by GamerMan on Apr 2, 2005 2:39:35 GMT -5
Not paying for nationional security doesn't really hurt anyone... we have, right now, the same defence budget as the next 12 nations put together, so unless the next 12 largest nations all allied against us simontaniously, no one stands a threat to us. Plus to say that the homeless dieing is less important than the privilaged and well to do dieing is against the entire ideals of democracy, and would be playing into a backwords world of fudalism.
Hong kong has few restrictions, and has prospered, taiwan has many restrictions and has prospered. To each his own way. I dont think it should be regulated heaviliy, esspecially not to enter a market, but anti monopoly laws can be ok if it has been shown that they have been running an empire with goal of maximizing supplyer's surplus rather than going for market clearing price. And European left wingers, (democractic socialist parties) have done a good job when in power (national socialist arn't socialist, they are the opposite of socialist), and, you will find, that rules and regulations reached an all time high under regan... a conservative, because he pressed for enforcement of chrstian values into laws, and many things of the like. Liberals just choose to fund their government groupes (DNR for example), and to prevent those who's actions are truely worst towards the whole in the long term (enviorment and debt come to mind), [liberals are almost always considered the socially free side of the spectrum] and manpower has never been the problem in enforcing regulations, in fact the only problem with not enough workers has been the first responders, who have had problems when conservatives are in power. And to let those who fall onto poor luck to just fall into permament collapse, is to becon onto another great depression, and to let risk and luck determine the fate of the US rahter than the skill of the people
|
|
|
Post by GamerMan on Apr 3, 2005 19:39:07 GMT -5
ohh correction, first responders and teachers, and the problem with not enough teachers is strongre under conservative administartions
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Apr 4, 2005 22:22:18 GMT -5
Okay... I think we're all getting a little too specific. Can't we all go back to the main issues between Liberals and Conservatives and argue about them?
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Apr 4, 2005 22:23:04 GMT -5
I think the homeless issue has been over-debated and still no conclusion has been agreed on.
|
|
|
Post by Umbrafire on Apr 5, 2005 12:57:23 GMT -5
i agree. gamerman, would you care to start us off in a round of debate?
|
|
|
Post by GamerMan on Apr 12, 2005 19:58:56 GMT -5
Ok then, elevated taxation policies:
a few points... Economic reason: those with money tend to save a larger % of their money than those in the lower classes, thus redistribution sends a larger % of our money into the market place, where it can help in the creation of an improved economy (a view supported by John Maynard Keynes, brillian ecnomisist in early 1900's who's economic theorom dominated from 1940-1980, and who's views are still quite strong today)
Normative Reason: Those who are rich have the opertunity to, and often do, use their power over the lower, directly dependent, classes to keep them from receiving whats fair in earnings (the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer). thus, keeping this helps redistribute wealth down to the lower, disenfrancized persons.
Affordance Reason: Those who are middle and lower classes pay a higher % of their money to payment of debt, standard bills, food clothing and shelter, thus leaving them with a smaller % of their money as disposable income. Thus someone who makes 2x as much money, has disposable incomethat are over 2x as large, thus can afford to pay higher tax rates in relation to disposible and nondisposible income combined.
Moral Obligation Reason: those who have done well and flurished in the market economy owe something back to the system that made it possible, thus they should pay higher taxes out of obligation to the system that made it possible (this view has been supported by Turner, Gates, and Kamprad, amongst many other billionaires and millionaires.)
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Apr 12, 2005 22:13:26 GMT -5
That's all well and good. In the future, I recommend clearly stating your thoughts on the subject before getting into the details, but I believe you are in favor of higher taxes on the rich? I am also in favor of higher taxes on the rich, but I think that the rich should pay at the same rate as every other class, i.e. if a person earned $10,000 per year and payed (for the purposes of the argument) $1,000 in taxes, then a person earning $100,000 per year should pay only $10,000 in taxes. It other words, I propose a flat income tax fee, in this example it was 10%. This would make everything a hell of a lot simpler, and keep the government out of it.
You said in you're first example that the redistribution of the money throughout the economy was important, but I am positive that you don't need to alter any taxes to do this. If a rich person so chooses, he/she can start a business with the money, creating more jobs and creating more revenue that is taxable by the state which strengthens the economy. It's called the trickle down effect, and it helps the economy without discriminating against those who are rich.
Finally, you said that those who benefit from the system owe something to the system that helped to make them who they are. That is true, but they owe nothing more than what a poor person owes to the system for making them who they are. That is why the poor and rich aren't taxed a flat fee, but are taxed based on income. A poor person doesn't pay nearly as much as a rich person in taxes BECAUSE they owe less to the system. What you said about the rich owing anything extra beside what they already pay is essentially financial discrimination turned upsidedown.
|
|
|
Post by GamerMan on Apr 13, 2005 15:37:51 GMT -5
im for higher % tax rates for the rich, not same % or lower %. thus middle class 20%, upper something like 30%. the problem with trickle down redistribution is that it rarely distribues downwards. the waltons are an excellent example, they pay their employes minimum wage, and treat 28 hours as full time, thus many many people are being paid minimum wage while underemployed. Mean while the rich tend to exploit the dependent working classes, and tend to save in higher % than the poor do, thus removing more money from the market economy who are rich. A look at real GDP indicates no corolation between tax rate for the rich, and Real GDP growth. median Income levels are also independent of how much the rich get taxed, and finally unemployment, and again there seems to be no corolation between them www.faireconomy.org/research/TrickleDown.html just because it works in theory doesn't mean it accually works. And the world's wealthiest people all think they owe more to the system that made them wealthy in the first place (more not based on income, but a higher percentage)
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Apr 13, 2005 16:31:15 GMT -5
Where did you hear that? Did Donald Trump walk up to you and say he owes a higher percentage of his own income to the rest of society? I doubt it. He wouldn't use those exact words. He would probably say he owed more to society (as in a higher percentage) and even if he did say it, it would probably only be as a sign of good faith to those less fortunate. He wouldn't actually mean it. Also, if people are being treated unfairly (like if they are only being paid min. wage) then they can always organize a union and go on strike. If not, they can also quit and find a new job. Nobody is forcing them to work at minimum wage. Once they quit, the company will be forced to rehire them with better wages or face losing business.
|
|
|
Post by Umbrafire on Apr 13, 2005 16:46:59 GMT -5
That's all well and good. In the future, I recommend clearly stating your thoughts on the subject before getting into the details, but I believe you are in favor of higher taxes on the rich? I am also in favor of higher taxes on the rich, but I think that the rich should pay at the same rate as every other class, i.e. if a person earned $10,000 per year and payed (for the purposes of the argument) $1,000 in taxes, then a person earning $100,000 per year should pay only $10,000 in taxes. It other words, I propose a flat income tax fee, in this example it was 10%. This would make everything a hell of a lot simpler, and keep the government out of it. i agree with this, and I think that the rich should not get taxed more, they worked harder! sure, you might say that the poor were born into their poverty, but it's obiously possible for them to work harder and get a job! plus, in the society that we live in, you just can't please everyone
|
|
|
Post by GamerMan on Apr 13, 2005 17:05:02 GMT -5
so you think a 10 hour/day worker per day who makes minimum wage works alot less hard than paris hilton or alex rodreguez
|
|
|
Post by Umbrafire on Apr 13, 2005 17:07:34 GMT -5
hmm... good point no, I don't believe that, but there ARE some cases where people honestly earn their money, and should be able to keep it
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Apr 13, 2005 17:14:19 GMT -5
so you think a 10 hour/day worker per day who makes minimum wage works alot less hard than paris hilton or alex rodreguez No, I don't believe that. And that's my point exactly. If a person works 10 hours a day at minimum wage (which should be even lower) then they have more reason to form a union, or quit and get a new job. How hard is that to understand? See, Paris Hilton and Alex Rodriguez have better jobs than the 10 hour a day figurative worker, so they don't work as hard and earn a lot more money. See how that works? Better job= Higher salary+Less effort. Also whe else voted for conservatives?
|
|
|
Post by GamerMan on Apr 13, 2005 22:04:17 GMT -5
labor unions have had problems getting thigns done in US in the past 50 years, esspecially the unskilled labor unions, since there are plenty of unemployed who would take a minimum wage job in an instant just to put some sorta food in their mouth. and the people who make more money do keep most of it. really it is only the richest 10% that would pay a particularly high rate, and when they do get taxed for it, A: It supports the society that made it possible, and B. They can afford it without a large change in living conditions, and finally C. it promotes consumerism, rather than storing the money, which takes money out of the marketplace and harms everyone.
living wages is considered 7,500 by low estimates. with the graduated system right now income under 600 is not taxed, and up to 8000 after that is 10%. So minimum wage gets you 11,000, so the poor would pay 1250 in taxes, leaveing 2,250 for disposible income (to buy better food or better housing or a standard luxury...)
if it was evenly taxed, it would be 26%, or 2,860 in taxes, leaving 640 for disposible income.
if someone works 2x as hard, they make 22,000 under ideal conditions... under current conditions... they would pay 3,600 in taxes , which woudl leave 10.9 in disposible income (over 4x as much for just 2x the work).
under a flat tax rate, however, they would pay 5,720... leaving only 8,800 in disposible income.. on top of that thats 14x as good living conditions for 2x the "work" (which is usually, as I stated earlier, not always, or even usually, just harder work, but rather, luck)...,
So minimum wage doesn't benifit, lowerclass doesn't, and if you continue, the middle and mid-upper ones don't either, the only poeple who do pay are the millionaires
Arod 25.2 mill a year, 16.38 after taxes, but almost all that is disposable unlike with middle class which accually has a smaller % of their income disposible (58% rather than 65%)... if flat tax rates... 25.2 million 18.6 mill after taxes (74% disposible) vs 26,600 after taxes (53% disposible)
as you can see, flat taxes allows uneven disposible income percentages...
|
|