Taxation, and your views on what people should pay.
366 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;25123009]Tax the shit out of it? That would hinder the performance of the tax, and will keep the business still conducted off the books.
Its like this, sell a pencil for 25cents or sell it for a dollar. You'll gain more 1 pencil for a dollar, however your client base will decline or will seek other alternatives. Sell it for a low price, you'll see a increase in client base, a smaller but more progressive income and people won't seek for alternatives, because they are happy. This applies to tax as well.
Cigarettes used to pull in about $6B in taxes (in my state). But people are getting fed up, and are seeking alternatives. Either by quitting, loopholes, or purchasing out of state.
Tetracycline;
You never answered my question. If you're becoming a doctor, you are doing this for this for the noble profession, or for greed?
[editline]10:17PM[/editline]
:raise:[/QUOTE]
I'd like to apologize for what I said earlier, I was in a bad mood because i fucking hate Spanish class (lol)
But I was going to say "well I guess a doctor can live well knowing he's more useful than a basement dwelling game coder" at some point, but i didn't
Also, I am of the [i]studied[/i] (if I may say so myself) opinion that power in the hands of private industry can do much greater harm than power entrusted to (albeit less competent) public officials.
In other news, this thread was complete bait for everyone who disagreed with the OP. OP, you should be ashamed.
[QUOTE=s0beit;25123170]It would be a tinfoil hat situation if we didn't face things like race-based laws, censorship of television, internet and radio and didn't have to constantly keep them off our backs all the time.
Remember that majority in this country is only temporary, all of those resources will be available to the next hitler, the next stalin, and don't think for one fucking second that can't be your country because you'd be fucking stupid.[/QUOTE]
i realize this completely, but i highly doubt it will ever happen on that level again, mostly due to the internet or and whatever.
[QUOTE=Bletotum;25123154]but thanks for your opinion, you've helped the conversation immensely[/QUOTE]
you're welcome, bro, anytime
wanna make out?
Well I'm sorry that you strongly disagree with me <akdjlname>, the way I see it I was just looking for people to discuss this with.
Graduated tax, poor pay the least percentage, or none, rich pay the most
[QUOTE=5tolognadriS;25123193]Also, I am of the [i]studied[/i] (if I may say so myself) opinion that power in the hands of private industry can do much greater harm than power entrusted to (albeit less competent) public officials.
[/QUOTE]
Really, can you show me the last time a private industry directly murdered millions of people?
Just a death toll, that's all i ask.
[QUOTE=Luuper;25123237]Graduated tax, poor pay the least percentage, or none, rich pay the most[/QUOTE]
Really, every thread like this is a demonstration of the outcomes of internet debates:
Both parties participate in the discussion with the notion that they'll sweep in and "win" the argument in a matter of several posts; however, this being the case, no party is willing to budge from their original position, nor should they, and thus we just become more entrenched in our initial beliefs.
[QUOTE=s0beit;25123262]Really, can you show me the last time a private industry directly murdered millions of people?
Just a death toll, that's all i ask.[/QUOTE]
early 20th century capitalism. not quite dead, but thats only because dead people cant go to work.
[QUOTE=Kybalt;25123283]early 20th century capitalism. not quite dead, but thats only because dead people cant go to work.[/QUOTE]
Oh right, excuse me, being dead is clearly superior.
[QUOTE=s0beit;25123262]Really, can you show me the last time a private industry directly murdered millions of people?
Just a death toll, that's all i ask.[/QUOTE]
East India Company, India, 1800s, somewhere upwards of 10 million.
[editline]11:34PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=5tolognadriS;25123302]East India Company, India, 1800s, somewhere upwards of 10 million.[/QUOTE]
Regardless, this is an at-best tangentially related issue of state power vs. private power, and although party lines [i]do[/i] dictate a staunch correlation between this and our ORIGINAL topic (flat tax vs. graduated tax), the issue of tax rates is really more a question of what's fair.
[QUOTE=s0beit;25123296]Oh right, excuse me, being dead is clearly superior.[/QUOTE]
because being poor living paycheck to paycheck working in conditions where a false step could lose you an arm and then just get you fired for it is much better
[QUOTE=s0beit;25123296]Oh right, excuse me, being dead is clearly superior.[/QUOTE]
False choice:
live in a pure-capitalist society and be poor, or live in a radical communist society and be dead
Please don't bring the discussion in polarizing directions like this.
Hitler:
[quote]
Between five and six million Jews
More than three million Soviet prisoners of war
More than two million Soviet civilians
More than one million Polish civilians
More than one million Yugoslav civilians
About 70,000 men, women and children with mental and physical handicaps
More than 200,000 gipsies
Unknown numbers of political prisoners, resistance fighters, homosexuals and deportees[/quote]
Stalin:
[quote](1) The death toll for Stalin turns out not to be as high as believed in 1990 -- more like 10-20 million than 20-30 million. The 1929-1933 Collectivization was terrible (6-11 million dead), but the 1936-38 purge seems to have had a lower death toll than earlier believed ("only" 700,000 shot and perhaps 2 million later deaths in camps). After WW II (1941-45), despite continuing heavy repression, the era of mass killings (over 100,000 a year) was over.[/quote]
These are only the most extreme examples, and by the way it's nice to note that the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company]East India Company had plenty of government help[/url].
I didn't note the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide]Armenian genocide[/url], among other things.
Hitler is seen as worse because of the way of which he killed the people, and the fact that he killed people based on racial reasons
[QUOTE=Bletotum;25122757]Again that's my point. When your quality of life increases faster as more money is gained, you've earned that money. You're saying to take more away besides a percentage, for the sake of evening it out. To even it out, that's what isn't fair.
edit
I should also point out the meaning of earn. Some random sweatshop worker isn't earning more than a CEO. To earn is to get something. The CEO is earning more money because he is acquiring that money. The way it comes down to is that the CEO isn't stealing the money, people have agreed to give it to him. The ceo certainly knows some things, to be able to get himself into that position. He had to put much more effort into becoming CEO than a bum to be a cheap replace-able worker.[/QUOTE]
Right, but when those people have much less disposable income, or count their disposable income as something to buy extra food with, and when the rich typically have much higher amounts of disposable income (who can easily adjust their standard of living to correlate to the given tax rating, which is much easier than if you're at the bottom rung) why isn't it fair that they should be taxed more in order to not become an unnecessary burden to the poor?
[QUOTE=s0beit;25123365]
These are only the most extreme examples, and by the way it's nice to note that the East India Company had plenty of government help.
[/QUOTE]
Both of those states (Nazi Germany and the USSR) were effectively fascists (in the Nazi's case, they weren't even ACTING like they weren't fascist), which as you may know is a union of industrial and political power.
It's when governments control industry, but act with the [i]impunity[/i] of private corporations that humanity ends up in risky territory, but in the case of the United States, it's a long way off.
[editline]11:41PM[/editline]
Really, here's the argument [i]against[/i] a graduated tax:
"[i]Just because I'm wealthier doesn't mean I should pay a higher percentage of taxes."[/i]
The argument [i]for[/i] a graduated tax?
"[i]Yes. You. [b]Should."[/b][/i]
[QUOTE=5tolognadriS;25123422]Both of those states (Nazi Germany and the USSR) were effectively fascists (in the Nazi's case, they weren't even ACTING like they weren't fascist), which as you may know is a union of industrial and political power.
It's when governments control industry, but act with the [i]impunity[/i] of private corporations that humanity ends up in risky territory, but in the case of the United States, it's a long way off.[/QUOTE]
That's a pretty laughable argument... so you're saying that because the government acts like typical murderous capitalists that capitalists deserve to be punished? Even when the government is in control?
There is plenty of examples, too, of nations which don't control their trade killing thousands of not millions of people... care for me to dig them up?
You can't blame companies for the faults of government, you see, they hold the cards in that situation.
If the government decides to, oh i dunno, hire Wakenhut or Blackwater to genocide a few thousand Muslims that doesn't mean its Wakenhut or Blackwater's fault, it means it's the government's fault. Nice try though.
[QUOTE=s0beit;25123482]That's a pretty laughable argument... so you're saying that because the government acts like typical murderous capitalists that capitalists deserve to be punished? Even when the government is in control?
[/QUOTE]
Stop putting words in my mouth.
You asked me to give examples of private industries killing millions of people. I did. My real argument is that a graduated tax is fairer than a flat-rate, and this talk of radical governments and their atrocities is doing nothing but detracting from the integrity of the discussion.
[QUOTE=s0beit;25123482]If the government decides to, oh i dunno, hire Wakenhut or Blackwater to genocide a few thousand Muslims that doesn't mean its Wakenhut or Blackwater's fault, it means it's the government's fault. Nice try though.[/QUOTE]
when did this happen and why wasn't i informed
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;25123384]Hitler is seen as worse because of the way of which he killed the people, and the fact that he killed people based on racial reasons[/QUOTE]
The way he carried it out was well documented and photographed of the massacres.
Plus, the jews aren't generally "quiet" people and will make a fuss.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;25123535]Plus, the jews aren't generally "quiet" people and will make a fuss.[/QUOTE]
Whoa whoa whoa whoa
What the fuck is this?!
[QUOTE=5tolognadriS;25123516]Stop putting words in my mouth.
You asked me to give examples of private industries killing millions of people. I did. My real argument is that a graduated tax is fairer than a flat-rate, and this talk of radical governments and their atrocities is doing nothing but detracting from the integrity of the discussion.[/QUOTE]
I think it is very integral to the discussion.
You guys seem to think government is holier then thou and that they deserve all of the hard earned money they can get because they are looking out for our best interests.
I humbly disagree.
They are more often then not, not out for our best interests.
I love scrolling through pages, the more blue you see, the more pissed people are.
[QUOTE=that1dude24;25123402]why isn't it fair that they should be taxed more in order to not become an unnecessary burden to the poor?[/QUOTE]
Because it's their money? They earned it, end of story.
How the fuck is someone having money being a burden to those who don't? Envy?
[QUOTE=s0beit;25123553]I think it is very integral to the discussion.
You guys seem to think government is holier then thou and that they deserve all of the hard earned money they can get because they are looking out for our best interests.
I humbly disagree.
They are more often then not, not out for our best interests.[/QUOTE]
If "we" are the upper-class, then I'd have to agree with you. There are more lower- and middle-class voters than upper-class voters, and this will always be the case. Thus, they tend to enact policies that benefit lower and middle-class voters, which to upper-class voters like us, tends to seem unfair.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;25121900]no it's not. somalia is a anarchist country.[/QUOTE]
Not really, opposing militias are always claiming power, sure it's not a cut and dry government, but it's definitely not a complete free-for all.
Then again it is the lowest known country on the human development index. (And when I say known, I mean we haven't got an HDI reading for North Korea and such)
Anyways, I say tax people based on income, with the rich paying a large percentage and the poor paying a lesser tax. Universal healthcare ftw :toot:
I should also mentioned you yourself entered yourself into this part of the debate, i had nothing to do with it.
You are [i]studied[/i] and you did proclaim privateers are the devil, after all.
Flat tax is the stupidest concept ever devised and anybody who supports it clearly has not thought their opinions through.
In many cities today you need to make at least 40,000 gross to scrape by living expenses, unless you are living in your own shit. Lets say There's flat tax at 20% of gross income:
Man/Woman is single, has 2 children and makes 50,000 gross. He/She is left with 40,000 dollars after taxes. With that 40,000 he/she must pay $1500 in rent every month, he/she must spend $800 a month on food, and $500 in bills, insurance and gasoline every month. After that, he/she is left with $7000 a year to spend on his/her children's well being, including clothing and entertainment.
Man/Woman is married, and makes 500,000 gross a year as a VP for a sizable company. His/Her partner makes 300,000 a year. The both of them are left with is left with a total of 720,000 after taxes. They live in a very high rent neighborhood with a low crime-rate an excellent standard of living. He/She must spend a [B]minimum of[/B] $4000 a month on mortgage, $800 a month on food, and $500 in bills, insurance and gasoline every month. That number is likely higher, because they can afford better food, better cars, and are likely much more wasteful in terms of electricity and water. After the bare minimum expense, they are left with $684,000 to spend as they please. That money likely goes into a lavish house, very expensive clothing, hiring maids/gardeners/servants, and putting their kids through private school and a high-end college or university.
Do you see where I'm going with this...
[QUOTE=Bletotum;25123565]Because it's their money? They earned it, end of story.
How the fuck is someone having money being a burden to those who don't? Envy?[/QUOTE]
Because the only way for a rich guy to GET lots of money is to, by some method, take it from someone else.
To borrow a tired expression, it doesn't grow on trees, bro.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.