[QUOTE=Ridge;29160861]Why not a flat tax? Or a VAT?[/QUOTE]
Flat tax is horrible because a guy with ten dollars probably can't afford to give one dollar but a guy with a thousand dollars can probably afford to give more than one hundred.
[QUOTE=Glaber;29160232]Why, there's still time to try to fix the Federal Government's SPENDING Problem. Or are you still trying to apply socialist views on my country?[/QUOTE]
The education system is socialist, I don't see you crusading to remove it.
Well, in hindsight you actually are, considering you favor cutting education funding rather than military funding
[QUOTE=Ridge;29160792]
Actually, other tax payers pick up the bill for those people.[/QUOTE]
Are you really trying to say that an elaborate government-run ponzi scheme isn't socialist?
[editline]14th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Goberfish;29160897]Flat tax is horrible because a guy with ten dollars probably can't afford to give one dollar but a guy with a thousand dollars can probably afford to give more than one hundred.[/QUOTE]
The guy with ten dollars probably blew his money on cigarettes and booze, and is too lazy and stupid to work hard, like the man with a $1,000.
Why should we steal from hard-working Americans who have realized their dreams?
Is the American dream now to pay for the welfare of an entire class of lazy and poor people?
I feel as though a big issue with this whole debate are the extreme sides. For some reason people believe that taxing the rich would solve the issue entirely, which just isn't true. The really rich have various ways of keeping their money, and even if the situation was ideal, the revenue gained would not nearly be enough to put any substantial dent in the issue. There are also big issues with large firings, no hirings, and rich people leaving the country after tax increases, but again: let's assume an ideal situation. I'm not opposed to raising taxes, but I am very opposed to the idea that it is the best action we can take because the outcome people are portraying from it just isn't realistic.
Take the other extreme of that and they say that there should be no tax increase at all because it is simply a spending problem, not a revenue problem. This issue I have with this is that it states a truth about the issue being created from a spending problem, but that does not somehow justify no increase in taxes.
To make an analogy, imagine you were in dept because you were spending more than you had. It makes sense to cut your spending to help solve the problem. But it also makes sense to create more revenue by getting a second job. You need a balance between spending and revenue. There isn't just one solution to the problem. You need to address both problems. If you don't address your spending problem you are only going to need to get a third job later down the road.
Assumptions and what if's are pointless. But $1,000 is not rich at all. I work 40 hour work weeks and bring home only about $2,300 a month after taxes. Then I have to pay $600 a month rent for a shitty 1 room apartment, $100 for car insurance, $400-500 a month for food.
[QUOTE=Contag;29160766]How about we remove all forms of socialism from America?
Get rid of social security, medicare and medicaid, budget problems fixed.
Really, if the sick can't get healthy without government assistance, do they really deserve to live? Maybe they should have worked harder, instead of just being welfare leeches.
And social security, don't get me started there. Why should the government have to pick up the bill of these people who obviously lacked the intelligence necessary to invest earlier in life? Okay, I'll admit that we shouldn't entirely cut pensions, but we could at least make the system more efficient, by concentrating the elderly in camps, and having them produce goods (and, you know, contribute to the society which gives them food and housing).
It's sink or swim guys, and some people just sink, no matter what.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't go far enough, I think you have some socialistic tendencies. What needs to be done is disbanding the federal government entirely. Actually that's still not far enough. Disband state government too. Instead, turn over all power to municipal governments. You can change the name to "The United City-States of America".
[QUOTE=Contag;29160905]Are you really trying to say that an elaborate government-run ponzi scheme isn't socialist?
[editline]14th April 2011[/editline]
The guy with ten dollars probably blew his money on cigarettes and booze, and is too lazy and stupid to work hard, like the man with a $1,000.
Why should we steal from hard-working Americans who have realized their dreams?
Is the American dream now to pay for the welfare of an entire class of lazy and poor people?[/QUOTE]
You don't deserve to make decisions if you decide based on probabilities that you pulled out of your ass.
[QUOTE=Sparkwire;29160976]You don't deserve to make decisions if you decide based on probabilities that you pulled out of your ass.[/QUOTE]
You'd rather the government to make decisions for you, huh?
That's exactly what a socialist would say.
[img]http://www.nndb.com/people/490/000051337/joseph_mccarthy.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Sparkwire;29160903]The education system is socialist, I don't see you crusading to remove it.
Well, in hindsight you actually are, considering you favor cutting education funding rather than military funding[/QUOTE]
This graph demonstrates that throwing money at a problem does not fix it.
[IMG]http://i55.tinypic.com/2v3r6mc.gif[/IMG]
Good luck justifying a department who's only gain is the amount of money they spend.
[QUOTE=Sparkwire;29160976]You don't deserve to make decisions if you decide based on probabilities that you pulled out of your ass.[/QUOTE]
I fear you may have totally missed the joke.
Like... entirely.
Like, you took a shot at it, and killed the guy standing next to you.
ha, yea nice one.
Wow, We're in debt by a lot...
...has this ever stopped us before?
[QUOTE=Contag;29161054]You'd rather the government to make decisions for you, huh?
That's exactly what a socialist would say.
[img_thumb]http://www.nndb.com/people/490/000051337/joseph_mccarthy.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
This is a time when we all need to take a step back and ask ourselves... what would Ronald Reagan do?
Huge image, displaying him in all his Conservative glory.
[media]http://content.answcdn.com/main/content/img/getty/2/0/3208020.jpg[/media]
I voted in 2000 to put him on the dollar.
[QUOTE=Ridge;29160969]Assumptions and what if's are pointless. But $1,000 is not rich at all. I work 40 hour work weeks and bring home only about $2,300 a month after taxes. Then I have to pay $600 a month rent for a shitty 1 room apartment, $100 for car insurance, $400-500 a month for food.[/QUOTE]
I'm just throwing random numbers out because I'm not very well aware about income averages, but the principle remains the same- to use you as an example, you can probably handle (let's just throw out a random number) 15% tax, but someone much richer than you can (let's say another random number) have a 30% tax and still live well (and richly). So why not tax that richer guy 30% instead of 15%?
[QUOTE=Pepin;29161060]This graph demonstrates that throwing money at a problem does not fix it.
[img_thumb]http://i55.tinypic.com/2v3r6mc.gif[/img_thumb]
Good luck justifying a department who's only gain is the amount of money they spend.[/QUOTE]
How bout they get rid of the silly creationism argument.
[QUOTE=Goberfish;29161252]I'm just throwing random numbers out because I'm not very well aware about income averages, but the principle remains the same- to use you as an example, you can probably handle (let's just throw out a random number) 15% tax, but someone much richer than you can (let's say another random number) have a 30% tax and still live well (and richly). So why not tax that richer guy 30% instead of 15%?[/QUOTE]
Because it is punishing him for being successful?
Why not just go with a straight VAT? No income tax, no breaks. Food stamps and things like that are exempt. Any hard currency transactions involve a VAT. Then taxes are based entirely on expenses. The more you spend, the more you pay.
[editline]13th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lizard Of Guilt;29161328]How bout they get rid of the silly creationism argument.[/QUOTE]
Where did this comment even come from? This is READING LEVELS.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;29161162]
I voted in 2000 to put him on the dollar.[/QUOTE]
I crossed out the name of the candidates, and wrote his in the 2008 election.
[QUOTE=Ridge;29161372]
Where did this comment even come from?[/QUOTE]
Out of nowhere
[QUOTE=Glaber;29160232]Why, there's still time to try to fix the Federal Government's SPENDING Problem. Or are you still trying to apply socialist views on my country?[/QUOTE]
glaber you're such an amazing distorter of the truth
you should get a job at fox news
[QUOTE=Lizard Of Guilt;29161328]How bout they get rid of the silly creationism argument.[/QUOTE]
Someone shows you that money is being wasted, and you skip over to some completely unrelated point [likely] aimed at Republicans. That line of thinking no sense. Where did I mention Republicans? If you are going to provide a response, how about you talk about The Department of Education and the money they are spending? The least you could have done was say that the source was biased.
[QUOTE=Pepin;29161060]This graph demonstrates that throwing money at a problem does not fix it.
[img_thumb]http://i55.tinypic.com/2v3r6mc.gif[/img_thumb]
Good luck justifying a department who's only gain is the amount of money they spend.[/QUOTE]
Damn, that looks bad.
[QUOTE=Goberfish;29161252]I'm just throwing random numbers out because I'm not very well aware about income averages, but the principle remains the same- to use you as an example, you can probably handle (let's just throw out a random number) 15% tax, but someone much richer than you can (let's say another random number) have a 30% tax and still live well (and richly). So why not tax that richer guy 30% instead of 15%?[/QUOTE]
If I were to answer the question directly, I would say that it makes sense to tax the richer guy more, but it would not at all be fair. Answering the question indirectly would lead me to say that I don't think that a person's income should be taxed at all.
[QUOTE=Zedicus Mann;29161155]Wow, We're in debt by a lot...
...has this ever stopped us before?[/QUOTE]
No because it's never been this bad.
[QUOTE=Miskav;29160358]Everytime you make socialism out to be a bad thing, you just look like a fool.
Do you even bother trying to sound like you know what you're talking about?[/QUOTE]
Do you? Socialism in theory works. Communism in theory works. Both have been proven to fail due to human greed and corruption. neither of which are ever accounted for as seen with the Former USSR and Germany. If Socialism worked, there would still be a USSR.
You know what, how about you read this?:
[quote=Why Socialism MUST Become Totalitarian]
Why Socialism produces poverty.
Many of the things that are refered to as "capitalist" are not free enterprise, but are monopolist. Communism is a state monopoly; which is not unlike the monopoly robber barrons. Communism is just a BIGGER monopoly.
"Protectionism, Socialism, and Communism are the same plant, in three stages of development." Frederick Bastiat
A communist is just a socialist; who is in a hurry. Socialism MUST ultimately be totalitarian.
The basic premise of Socialism is:
"To each according to his need. From each according to his ability".
Giving to each according to his need cannot be accomplished without getting from each according to his ability.
Getting from each according to his ability cannot be accomplished without one of two incentives:
There are two types of incentives: Reward or punishment.
Very rarely, is it possible to provide psychological rewards that will replace material rewards. The exception would be among people of strong religious faith.
"To each according to his need" usually implies that material rewards cannot exist. More or better work does NOT bring more or better rewards. Workers are rewarded in accordance with their NEED; which is not greater because they have been more productive, or more creative.
This is why every form of socialism MUST be totalitarian.
WITHOUT THE ENTICEMENT OF SPIRITUAL REWARD IT CANNOT BE ANY OTHER WAY.
Force is needed to require labor from people; who are not allowed to keep the fruits of their own labor. Even with forced work quotas, productivity is minimal.
Free societies have millions of salesmen trying to market the excess.
Socialist societies have millions of ration clerks trying to divide up the shortages.
The cliché is that social economies are based on two pretenses:
The people pretend to work and the government pretends to pay them.
Which countries GIVE foreign aid, and which countries RECEIVE foreign aid?
Where is the "bread basket of the world"?
Socialism has its greatest impact on creativity. Creativity cannot be forced.
In what country was the telephone invented?
In what country was the airplane invented?
In what country was the light bulb invented?
In what country was the cotton gin invented?
In what country was the computer invented?
In what country was the automobile invented?
Do your own Google search.
It is possible to find HUNDREDS of inventions listed, along with the date, and the country where the invention occured. Try to find an invention that was invented under Socialism.
The only time that you will find an invention, that was invented under Socialism, will be when the invention serves to needs of the state (weapons of war etc.)
In what country was electricity discovered?
In what country was atomic energy discovered?
What made "the Dark Ages" so dark?
There was an absence of liberty; world wide.
If you think that Socialism is our future, study up on the dark ages.
Poverty is solved by only one means: increasing productivity.
Redistribution of wealth does not decrease poverty.
Redistribution of wealth increases poverty.
Redistribution of wealth removes the incentive for productivity;
both from those who receive without working,
and also from those who work without receiving.
Redistribution of wealth makes everyone equally poor.
John Perna[/quote]
[url]http://targetfreedom.typepad.com/targetfreedom/2010/04/socialismtotalitarian.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Chevron;29160378]You are an idiot every democratic government that looks after the people is some part socialist.
[B]Or are you one of those people that think a trickle down economy has worked for the past 25 years.[/B][/QUOTE]
See bold. Oh and just to let you know, the trickle down theory also works for negative effects too.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;29160437]It's my fucking country too you entitled fool.[/QUOTE]
Name one thing you think I think I'm entitled too.
[QUOTE=Generic.Monk;29161540]glaber you're such an amazing distorter of the truth
you should get a job at fox news[/QUOTE]
Got a application link? I could use the job.
[quote]The only time that you will find an invention, that was invented under Socialism, will be when the invention serves to needs of the state[/quote]
First one that comes to mind is tokamaks, which ended up being superior to the American Stellarators.
[QUOTE=crackberry;29160549]I know that our debts are so high. But I mean, the people we owe the money to, can they actually make America pay it back if they even tried to?[/QUOTE]
They never would try. It would be futile.
[quote]What made "the Dark Ages" so dark?
There was an absence of liberty; [B]world wide[/B].[/quote]
Considering the dark ages only applied to Europe, and the Arab/Indian world was flourishing (thanks for the numerical system guys), I'm not even going to bother refuting the rest of it.
[editline]14th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Explosions;29162511]They never would try. It would be futile.[/QUOTE]
Not to mention that even if American did its best to pay back the debt (crippling the country in the process), it would significantly impact the economies of the states which have loaned the money (hello People's Republic of China)
[QUOTE=Glaber;29162374]Why Socialism produces poverty.
Many of the things that are refered to as "capitalist" are not free enterprise, but are monopolist. Communism is a state monopoly; which is not unlike the monopoly robber barrons. Communism is just a BIGGER monopoly.
"Protectionism, Socialism, and Communism are the same plant, in three stages of development." Frederick Bastiat
A communist is just a socialist; who is in a hurry. Socialism MUST ultimately be totalitarian.
The basic premise of Socialism is:
"To each according to his need. From each according to his ability".
Giving to each according to his need cannot be accomplished without getting from each according to his ability.
Getting from each according to his ability cannot be accomplished without one of two incentives:
There are two types of incentives: Reward or punishment.
Very rarely, is it possible to provide psychological rewards that will replace material rewards. The exception would be among people of strong religious faith.
"To each according to his need" usually implies that material rewards cannot exist. More or better work does NOT bring more or better rewards. Workers are rewarded in accordance with their NEED; which is not greater because they have been more productive, or more creative.
This is why every form of socialism MUST be totalitarian.
WITHOUT THE ENTICEMENT OF SPIRITUAL REWARD IT CANNOT BE ANY OTHER WAY.
Force is needed to require labor from people; who are not allowed to keep the fruits of their own labor. Even with forced work quotas, productivity is minimal.
Free societies have millions of salesmen trying to market the excess.
Socialist societies have millions of ration clerks trying to divide up the shortages.
The cliché is that social economies are based on two pretenses:
The people pretend to work and the government pretends to pay them.
Which countries GIVE foreign aid, and which countries RECEIVE foreign aid?
Where is the "bread basket of the world"?
Socialism has its greatest impact on creativity. Creativity cannot be forced.
In what country was the telephone invented?
In what country was the airplane invented?
In what country was the light bulb invented?
In what country was the cotton gin invented?
In what country was the computer invented?
In what country was the automobile invented?
Do your own Google search.
It is possible to find HUNDREDS of inventions listed, along with the date, and the country where the invention occured. Try to find an invention that was invented under Socialism.
The only time that you will find an invention, that was invented under Socialism, will be when the invention serves to needs of the state (weapons of war etc.)
In what country was electricity discovered?
In what country was atomic energy discovered?
What made "the Dark Ages" so dark?
There was an absence of liberty; world wide.
If you think that Socialism is our future, study up on the dark ages.
Poverty is solved by only one means: increasing productivity.
Redistribution of wealth does not decrease poverty.
Redistribution of wealth increases poverty.
Redistribution of wealth removes the incentive for productivity;
both from those who receive without working,
and also from those who work without receiving.
Redistribution of wealth makes everyone equally poor.
John Perna[/QUOTE]
I hate to say it, but Glaber actually hit the nail on the head. This is why capitalism with socialist aspects may be our best hope for a ideal government.
[editline]13th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Contag;29162533]Considering the dark ages only applied to Europe, and the Arab/Indian world was flourishing (thanks for the numerical system guys), I'm not even going to bother refuting the rest of it.[/QUOTE]
And there was much more liberty in those areas, sometimes verging on anarchy, especially in the Middle East.
Disagree with the second part, but agree with the third way being best for western society at the moment.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
