A Dilemma for Humanity: Stark Inequality or Total War - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51586802]in real life if you tax them just the right amount (not enough that they think its worth their time to move it all out) then the downsides of them moving money out will be outweighed by the revenue brought in i.e it's possible to raise taxes (up to a point) and not worry much about the money moving out because the positives outweigh the negatives[/QUOTE] which is why i'd like taxes to be lower than they are now technically our flat corporation tax is higher than just about all of europe(which causes them to avoid taxation)

[QUOTE=space1;51586813]which is why i'd like taxes to be lower than they are now technically our flat corporation tax is higher than just about all of europe(which causes them to avoid taxation)[/QUOTE] although loopholes make this basically nonexistent because they don't pay taxes regardless if you lower it, then remove loopholes at the same time so they're actually paying something or something more sensible could be done like nationalizing healthcare in america and cutting out loads of bullshit middlemen

[QUOTE=space1;51586813]which is why i'd like taxes to be lower than they are now technically our flat corporation tax is higher than just about all of europe(which causes them to avoid taxation)[/QUOTE] You realize that taxes are so low in the US that it's actually considered a tax haven by many right? And that's been working so well for us...

[QUOTE=space1;51586781]but my point is that it encourages them to do so, not that it objectively 100% is the reason that they move out. look at it this way; you've got joe shmoe car insurance that gives you a rate of say, 60$, but jane doe's car insurance would be charged at a rate of 50$. you may prefer the benefits of joe shmoe's and stay with them solely because of that. but everytime that rate goes up, the idea of switching to jane doe's would be more tempting. it may have a similar affect when it comes to tax rates. of course, car insurance is a lot less difficult to change than your country you're based in, but the potential profits in switching are also much bigger numbers to business leaders. you understand my point better now?[/quote] But that implies taxing the rich to a certain extent. Not taxing them at all necessarily gives a worse result. [Quote]it is my personal belief that the most effective goverrnment is one that has as few governmental programs as possible, as they force me to pay for other people and to me that isn't fair.[/quote] Lmao, because you think it's fair to either live in utter poverty or with a silver spoon up your ass depending on the family you were born in? Some extent of redistribution of wealth [I]is[/I] fair. Or are you implying that what you're born as is something people have control over? [Quote]i know plenty of people who refuse a raise because they can't get foodstamps or collect other benefits anymore here in the US. so yes, abuse is a factor. to deny that as a possibility is just ludicrous[/QUOTE] If getting a raise leaves them worse off than refusing it, I don't see why they would accept it lol. It's more a case of your welfare system being poorly thought out than it is people wanting to commit fraud out of malice. The question of fraud is a non-issue anyway, there are a lot more people who would be eligible for benefits but aren't aware of it/feel to ashamed to collect them. Would you rather no fraud occured and anybody eligible asked for it, which would raise taxes on your end? Something tells me your selfish ass wouldn't.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51586743]rich people don't just move money out because of taxation they move money out regardless - this happened even in eras when loads of myriad taxes on the rich didn't exist they have a public healthcare system considered one of the best in the world also other public services which range in quality but have the recurring theme of "you pay less and get more" than in america plus american wealth is extremely inequal and concentrated at the top - most gains in economic growth and development go primarily to the rich[/QUOTE] Yes indeed, most big issues like drug addiction and health in general always has a cheap solution in Spain, even during the crisis. Why would anyone give a shit about the GDP if most of it is useless for a big chunk of the population? Our constitution literally states that: 1. All the wealth of the country in its different forms and whatever its ownership is subordinate to the general interest.

[QUOTE=eirexe;51586972]1. All the wealth of the country in its different forms and whatever its ownership is subordinate to the general interest.[/QUOTE] Sounds like communism to me. Then again, that would explain your unemployment rate.

[QUOTE=Adrian Veidt;51587189]Sounds like communism to me. Then again, that would explain your unemployment rate.[/QUOTE] This means that while you are of course allowed to acumulate wealth you also accept that in case it's needed it can be used for the common good, I don't think this is new in any part of the world. Also it can't be communist considering the consitution literally was built by mostly right wing people.

[QUOTE=Zezibesh;51585137]Then you'll probably end up dead or learn to fend for yourself the hard way, that's how it always goes[/QUOTE] Why would anyone (not in a beneficial position) want to live in a world like that? Wouldn't it just be better to opt-out?