By the people, for the people

Minimum moderation and heated debates.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

By the people, for the people

Postby Ragorn » Thu Apr 21, 2011 2:36 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... aphic.html

The people want to tax the rich, not cut spending on important social programs.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm
Location: Miami, FL

Re: By the people, for the people

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:58 pm

Ragorn wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/most-support-budget-deal-but-oppose-cuts-to-major-programs/2011/04/19/AFK5077D_graphic.html

The people want to tax the rich, not cut spending on important social programs.


"The people" = the 1,000 sampled. WaPo heh.
"There is one big rule in life - the things you worry about never happen, and the things that happen are never the ones you expect." - John Bellairs
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: By the people, for the people

Postby Ragorn » Thu Apr 21, 2011 7:07 pm

1,000 is a large enough sample size to achieve statistical significance :)

Please form an orderly queue to complain about the source or make suppositions about the methodology behind the study :)
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: By the people, for the people

Postby Sarvis » Thu Apr 21, 2011 7:14 pm

Ragorn wrote:1,000 is a large enough sample size to achieve statistical significance :)

Please form an orderly queue to complain about the source or make suppositions about the methodology behind the study :)


Where's the line to complain about bias in the media? Conspiracy against Christians/Conservatives?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: By the people, for the people

Postby Corth » Thu Apr 21, 2011 7:39 pm

It's always easy to say that someone else should make the necessary sacrifices or contributions. Whether that is the best course of action is another story. How much exactly do you tax 'the rich'? There is a point when it is obviously counterproductive. I respect politicians who will do the right thing even when the right thing is unpopular. Am I supposed to respect the Dems who pander for votes from the 50+% of the population who make little or no contribution? With half of the households in this country not paying Federal income tax, it seems self evident that expanding the tax base should be one of the priorities in any future tax increases. Everyone should be making SOME contribution - even if it's a very small one.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-ha ... l?x=0&.v=1
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: By the people, for the people

Postby Ragorn » Thu Apr 21, 2011 7:47 pm

Does that include, say, General Electric? :)
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: By the people, for the people

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Thu Apr 21, 2011 8:42 pm

And when the people find that they can vote themselves more money, the end of the Republic will be announced.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: By the people, for the people

Postby Corth » Thu Apr 21, 2011 8:44 pm

Ragorn wrote:Does that include, say, General Electric? :)


You would have to ask Obama. He's the one who is all cushy with GE's CEO.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/jef ... 36837.html
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: By the people, for the people

Postby kiryan » Thu Apr 21, 2011 8:56 pm

If 72% think we should raise taxes on the rich... I wouldn't support it, but I'd be willing to stay out of that fight.

I'd like to see more polls on it though to make sure support is actually that high. I'd also like to see a question that says what flat rate % do you think people over 250k should pay between state and federal taxes. I suspect people want rich to pay taxes, but don't realize how much they already pay in taxes.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: By the people, for the people

Postby Sarvis » Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:17 pm

Corth wrote:It's always easy to say that someone else should make the necessary sacrifices or contributions. Whether that is the best course of action is another story. How much exactly do you tax 'the rich'? There is a point when it is obviously counterproductive.


Is there? What point is that? This guy makes a pretty good case for a 90% tax rate.

Now, I'm betting you're in that "rich" demographic, or are expecting to be at some point. So when you say taxes should be raised on lower income people well... I think we can just look back at how you started this post.

Personally, though, I think there's a world of difference between you and, say, Donald Trump. It's kind of silly that the tax code just stops it's leveling at $373k. Taking 90% of that in taxes leaves someone with a pretty small income. Whereas if you tax Donald Trump's $44,000,000/year at 90% he's still left with more money than most people will ever see.

I respect politicians who will do the right thing even when the right thing is unpopular. Am I supposed to respect the Dems who pander for votes from the 50+% of the population who make little or no contribution?


50% of the population makes "little or no contribution" because 1% of the population isn't providing jobs. Giving them a tax break hasn't changed that, and that's completely unsurprising. I know, it's not their responsibility to create jobs... but the argument for lower taxes on the wealthy is that they will use the extra cash to create jobs. That is clearly not working.

With half of the households in this country not paying Federal income tax, it seems self evident that expanding the tax base should be one of the priorities in any future tax increases. Everyone should be making SOME contribution - even if it's a very small one.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-ha ... l?x=0&.v=1


Expanding the tax base means people getting jobs that pay more than enough to live on, not increasing taxes on those who already have nothing.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Vigis
Sojourner
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: By the people, for the people

Postby Vigis » Thu Apr 21, 2011 11:14 pm

Corth wrote:It's always easy to say that someone else should make the necessary sacrifices or contributions. Whether that is the best course of action is another story. How much exactly do you tax 'the rich'? There is a point when it is obviously counterproductive. I respect politicians who will do the right thing even when the right thing is unpopular. Am I supposed to respect the Dems who pander for votes from the 50+% of the population who make little or no contribution? With half of the households in this country not paying Federal income tax, it seems self evident that expanding the tax base should be one of the priorities in any future tax increases. Everyone should be making SOME contribution - even if it's a very small one.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-ha ... l?x=0&.v=1



I agree with this. I am tired of seeing people get back more money in a tax refund than they paid in - that should be impossible. IMHO, refunds should be capped at $50 less than you paid into taxes.

Personally, I am not sure how I feel about my US taxes this year. Because I have been in AU for the entire year, I will get 100% of my US taxes back; it just doesn't seem fair to me. However, I have absolutely no intention of giving it back to our bloated and inefficient government.

Instead, I am going to wait until the idiotic political parties bring the stock market to its knees again because of their pandering and desire to get reelected over the debt ceiling. Then, I am going to put it all into the stock market.

As a side note, I have to be thankful that I have the ability to invest and the US culture and some of its programs helped me get to this point. When I was younger, I actually ate government cheese, I thought my parents had a stamp collection, and we got excited when my father's social security came in the mail because it meant we could afford our once a month treat of take and bake pizza.

Years ago, more people were on an even footing and could excel on grit and intelligence; that is no longer the case. The gap between the classes has grown so wide that Evil Knievel wouldn't even be able to jump it. Social programs build a bridge, it may be rickety, but you can use it to cross.

Eliminate loopholes, cap refunds, cut defense spending by 1/3 then direct 1/2 of that spending to other R&D efforts (including military R&D), start passing clean bills rather than sausage full of pork, eliminate congress' pension plan, then make federal prison mandatory for anybody caught taking gifts or money from lobbyists.
Nerox tells you 'Good deal, the other tanks I have don't wanna do it, and since your my special suicidal tank i figure you don't mind one bit!'

Alurissi tells you 'aren't you susposed to get sick or something and not beable to make tia so i can go? :P'
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: By the people, for the people

Postby kiryan » Fri Apr 22, 2011 12:16 am

90% holy shit sarvis... you might as well be a communist. Why don't we just set an arbitrary # say 150k a year and take 100% of what anyone makes above that? Then next year we can make it 125k 100k 75k, the poverty level until we achieve a fair redistribution of wealth... cuz really who needs more than what everyone else has.

I could support the rich paying a % of taxes = or even somewhat greater than the portion of the national income is... If taxes are 20% of GDP and 1% make 69% of the $$ then they can pay 69% of the taxes (which is different than a 69% tax rate). but never could I support 90% tax rate on anyone... you're suggesting that they get to keep less than 1/10th of their labor... with such a powerful demotivator like that would you expect them to work harder or less?

and technically the 1% isn't "creating jobs", what they are doing is providing money through investments for companies that create jobs. Its really the whole concept of the stock market. If you want to see how misguided the policy of forcing companies to create jobs and then taxing them to hell if they fail to invest/create jobs, you can look back at the great depression.

I don't know which president it was, but basically he said stop hoarding cash make jobs. The next year he set a burdensome tax rate to punish companies hoarding cash so they spent it. The next year a new round of bankruptcies ensued further depressing the economy and destroying jobs.

This whole attitude of the rich are supposed to take care of the poor or companies are supposed to give us jobs that allow us to live whatever lifestyle we want is crazy. If you want to create jobs... then you really need to look at what stops people from creating jobs.

forget taxes, look at regulations. I posted an article recently that said regulation costs 1.7 trillion a year. To create my company last year, I had to pay 1k for insurance and $300 in fees. Additionally, I have to file all sorts of complicated taxes which costs a minimum of $500 per year. On top of that, is any accounting necessary (fortunately, my accounting is neglibible)... why do I have to do all this accounting? Because I have to expense away my profit to avoid paying taxes on it. And this is in a relatively unregulated industry. Imagine if you were trying to start a home building busisness or a bar, restraurant, nail shop or even a convenience store. The hoops hurdles and fees you have to pay are crazy... and thats before you start dealing with customers.

forget reugulations, go back to depression era climate. Why would a business choose to invest right now in expansion in such an uncertain business climate. Not only is the economy experiencing a challenging environment, you have an uncertain political environment that has for 2 years been hell bent on controlling and regulating everything.

They decided that card swipe fees would be reduced by 83 percent. Imagine if they came in and said you had to charge 83% less on your sales? The EPA is trying to regulate carbon emissions and the legislation was trying to setup a carbon exchange. No one knows how much energy prices are going to go up or how their industry would be affected... well except coal industries because Obama said you can build a coal power plant but we'll bankrupt you with fees. Then there is talk about eliminating tax "loop holes" for businesses with foreign operations... would you start a multinational corporation not knowing whether you'll be paying foreign taxes on foreign income and US taxes on taht same foreign income? Then lets talk unions, card check, equal pay women's law... really, who wants to build or expand a business in this environment. Its all risk and if you make any profit, someone will be there to say you only deserve to keep 10% of it.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: By the people, for the people

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Apr 22, 2011 3:08 am

Sarvis believes in slavery up to 90%. You could say he's a soft slave driver.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: By the people, for the people

Postby Sarvis » Fri Apr 22, 2011 3:46 am

kiryan wrote:90% holy shit sarvis... you might as well be a communist.


I take it that, even after me posting it twice, you don't realize that was the highest tax rate during some of the wealthiest periods in our country's history? And that you didn't read the article which gives arguments about why it would be a good idea? And didn't listen to how I think it should be graduated as you go more and more above 300K?

Yeah, that would require you to read AND understand what you read. So of course not.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: By the people, for the people

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Apr 22, 2011 1:07 pm

No, he's still right, you're still a communist.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: By the people, for the people

Postby kiryan » Fri Apr 22, 2011 5:15 pm

Sarvis wrote:
kiryan wrote:90% holy shit sarvis... you might as well be a communist.


I take it that, even after me posting it twice, you don't realize that was the highest tax rate during some of the wealthiest periods in our country's history? And that you didn't read the article which gives arguments about why it would be a good idea? And didn't listen to how I think it should be graduated as you go more and more above 300K?

Yeah, that would require you to read AND understand what you read. So of course not.


I do realize that the tax rate has been as high as 90% in the past. I believe that was during/after wwII?

Where is this article you refer to? It doesn't seem to be in your post... I do recall looking for the referenced article but didn't see it. I have read a similar article I believe from the huffingtonpost, but I didn't think it made a very persuasive case.

The point is you believe there is a certain amount of money that after that no one should need or have and you're willing to confiscate it through taxes. If Bill Gates creates the software that become the tools of the trade for the entire world... you think he's only entitled to X$ because no one needs more money than X. If someone invents cold fusion and provides power to the entire world at 1/10th the cost today... simultaneously saving the planet and saving people around the world trillions of dollars, he is only entitled to X million a year because its more money than any one person should have. Anything beyond X million should be confiscated for the greater good or at least taxed at 90%.

Its a very dangerous thing for you to decide how much money one is allowed and to be willing to confiscate the rest. Someday someone might decide how much of something you are allowed to have beacuse no one should have more than X.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: By the people, for the people

Postby Sarvis » Fri Apr 22, 2011 5:27 pm

kiryan wrote:I do realize that the tax rate has been as high as 90% in the past. I believe that was during/after wwII?

Where is this article you refer to? It doesn't seem to be in your post... I do recall looking for the referenced article but didn't see it. I have read a similar article I believe from the huffingtonpost, but I didn't think it
made a very persuasive case.


May be the same article. I posted it your "Taxing the rich won't help" thread as well, guess I forgot to actually put the link in my previous post. Sorry, here it is:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-john ... 51802.html

The point is you believe there is a certain amount of money that after that no one should need or have and you're willing to confiscate it through taxes. If Bill Gates creates the software that become the tools of the trade for the entire world... you think he's only entitled to X$ because no one needs more money than X. If someone invents cold fusion and provides power to the entire world at 1/10th the cost today... simultaneously saving the planet and saving people around the world trillions of dollars, he is only entitled to X million a year because its more money than any one person should have. Anything beyond X million should be confiscated for the greater good or at least taxed at 90%.


Even Bill Gates decided he had too much money and gave it to charity. Realistically Kiryan, how much money can you spend in a lifetime? At a certain point money is only used to obtain more money. Meanwhile your Cold Fusion guy is probably going to get his funding cut and never make the invention, just so we can ensure Paris Hilton doesn't pay too much in taxes.

Its a very dangerous thing for you to decide how much money one is allowed and to be willing to confiscate the rest. Someday someone might decide how much of something you are allowed to have beacuse no one should have more than X.


Management decides that every year.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: By the people, for the people

Postby kiryan » Fri Apr 22, 2011 6:51 pm

So what your saying is that bill gates shouldn't be able to make more money than he can use... and that even though he decided to give it to charity thats just more proof that the government should take his money and decide how to use it for "charity" instead?

Working is a voluntary activity and you have the freedom to go somewhere else. You don't really have the freedom to escape the government. Furthermore, management has the final say on what you make, but certainly doesn't arbitrarily decide that. What you're paid is based on your market value and the company's ability to pay and your willingness to accept that pay. If you don't like it you can go somewhere else and get paid differently.

From the article... it has some interesting points before it descends into weak pandering and class warfare.

1) It makes it take longer to end up with a fortune. In fact it makes people build and earn a fortune, instead of shooting for quick windfalls.

== Ok thats something to think about... but surely there is a better way of doing this. If there's not you still need to consider whether the government should be engaged in engineering us to their design. Herd of cattle anyone?

2) It gets rid of the quick-buck-scheme business model.

== Same point as #1, its worthy of consideration. but there are always unintended consequences and I'd almost bet that it wouldn't get rid of th quick-buck-scheme business model but instead they'd just find another way to achieve it.

3) It will lower the executive crime rate.

== maybe... or it might increase the rate as people find more creative and even illegal ways to escape the 90% tax rate.

4) Combined with badly-needed cuts in military spending - we spend more on military than all other countries on earth combined - taxing the wealthy ends budget deficits and starts paying off the massive Reagan/Bush debt

== I'm interested in cutting the military... drastically and scaling back our foreign policy / intervention. Unfortunately, I know it won't happen. The liberals who were against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are the architects of the Libya action because their boy is in charge. No we are apparently doomed to intervene and reducing our military may result in less interventions or it may just result in more problems when we do intervene. Being stretched too thin or facing huge deficits certainly didn't stop obama from dropping 600 million and counting on Libya (btw I wonder how many teachers 600 million would fund from point 14).

5) It will bring in revenue to pay for improvements in infrastructure that then cause the economy to explode for the better

== building bridges to no where also build infrastructure and benefit well connected people. Running fiber 100 miles to a dieing town of 250 people builds infrastructure that is pointless. This is classic misallocation of capital... the market will allocate capital and infrastructure where it needs to be, government is notoriously bad for it.

6) (related) It will bring in revenue for improving our schools, colleges and universities.

== I'm certainly not convinced this is a good thing. education is already 50% of most state budgets... how much more should we spend? Does my autistic daughter really need to go to college and take art classes?

7) It will boost economic growth and rebuild a strong middle class.

== how. i'm very skeptical especially when you undersatnd that whem Dems talk about the middle class they are talkign about unionized workers. Auto workers, public workers these are supposed to be the so called middle class.

8) It is good for business because increased revenue will enable increasing government spending for the benefit of regular people. This recirculates money into the economy more productively than the current system of putting huge fortunes into a few hands and hoping for a resulting consumption of high-end goods.

== later he proposes we use the money to pay down the deficit, here he suggests we use it to benefit "regular" people and plays class warfare accusing the rich of just consuming high end goods. i dont see how the government having more money translates into poor people having more money to spend. poor people don't pay taxes already, so where does htis extra money come from?

9) It protects working people. Exploiting workers with long hours, low pay or lack of pay increases, lack of worker protections, firing union organizers and schemes that call employees "contractors" will no longer pay off as it does today

== How does raising taxes cause this to happen? because if they only get to keep 10% of the money they screw the exploited working people out of they will suddenly just decide to be more generous? Business owners don't hate unions because they raise costs, they hate unions because they raise costs and make it more difficult to run their business. Its lose lose. Contractors are a result of an uncertain business climate + escaping the government mandated costs for having employees. maybe you should just eliminate the crap that is causing businesses to hire contractors instead.

10) It redistributes income and wealth in ways that help all of us. Currently a few people receive most of the income and own most of everything. A very high top tax rate reduces this concentration of wealth.

== why is it a bad thing for a few to own most of everything. the point of capitalism is to put capital in the hands of those who can and do produce. Should we redistribute the money buffet has to invest so more people can be investors or should we leave it in the hands of someone who is adept at investing in good companies?

== oh and last time I checked... it was America that owns all the wealth of the world. You sure you want to walk down this road?

11) It fights the political instability that results from concentration of wealth. Great inequality in a society and the resulting loss of opportunity results in political instability that can lead to extreme ideologies, rebellion, etc. We are seeing all the signs of a resurgence of these problems today.

== ... we'd have a lot less political instability if Democrats hadn't pushed through healthcare reform. so I call bullshit. Oh and turned a popular war into an upopular one with muck racking politics.

12) It will help rebuild our sense of democracy and belief in equality. As we have seen and are seeing, when too much is in the hands of too few, they have too much power and influence and use it to get even more.

== who do they use their power and influence on to get even more? thats right the government. Government power in picking winners and losers is at least half of the problem.

13) It will strengthen the government that We, the People have worked hard to build, and strengthen its ability to enforce the laws and regulations that protect all of us and the resources we hold in common. It will increase its ability to provide all of us equally with the benefits of our joint efforts and our economy.

== I dont want to strength the government that we have, I want it weakened so I can have liberty. again with the equality thing, if you don't contribute equally, you are not entitled to an equal share. You may be entitled to the basics, but not an equal share.

14) Finally, for good measure, increasing top tax rates will cause those affected to work harder to make up the difference. The Ayn Randians claim the very rich are the "producers" and all the rest of us are just parasites and slackers who feed off their "work." So it will be very good for our economy to get them working harder by taxing them at 90%! You may have heard about those 25 hedge fund managers who brought in an average of $1 billion each last year - an amount that would have paid for 658,000 teachers -- while the rest of the country suffered through a terrible economy. If we had a top tax rate of 90% they would "only" take home $100 million or so each - in a single year. And we could have 658,000 more teachers. So it's a win-win.

== wow this is a piece of work. all i can say is people aren't stupid and aren't going to give up what they earn. Again with the teachers... how much of the economy should we dedicate to education. Its already 50% of state taxes. And why should we invest in something that has YEAR AFTER YEAR failed... even in years where they got more money. The cost keeps goign up and the benefits keep declining and that is the way with all things government and the biggest reason we need government to do less.


Taxes are how we all pitch in to enjoy the benefits and protections of modern society. Those benefits and protections are what enable people to become wealthy, and we ask that they give some back so others can prosper as well.

== no taxes are how 50% of us pitch in and really how 5% or less of us carry the lions share of the burden. If people are able to amass huge fortunes in a single life time, then society is conducive to other people prospering as well. Except you do't mean prosper, you mean live a high standard of living on someone else's prosperous hard work.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: By the people, for the people

Postby Corth » Fri Apr 22, 2011 7:31 pm

The crux of the issue, and the basic disagreement I have with Sarvis, is what weight we give to private property. Sarvis' mentality is that there is a certain amount of wealth which at it's core is owned by society at large, and it should be distributed equitably. The implication is that people don't really have individual wealth, just permissable use of it. I would disagree and say that private property is indeed private property. That wealth is created by private individuals who are providing goods and services to other private individuals, and that such transactions should fall outside the scope of government. As far as I'm concerned, government's primary role should be to create an even playing field so that these types of interactions can occur in an enforceable manner, and without violence. Not to consciously decide who gets to have what.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: By the people, for the people

Postby Sarvis » Fri Apr 22, 2011 7:58 pm

Corth wrote:The crux of the issue, and the basic disagreement I have with Sarvis, is what weight we give to private property. Sarvis' mentality is that there is a certain amount of wealth which at it's core is owned by society at large, and it should be distributed equitably. The implication is that people don't really have individual wealth, just permissable use of it. I would disagree and say that private property is indeed private property. That wealth is created by private individuals who are providing goods and services to other private individuals, and that such transactions should fall outside the scope of government. As far as I'm concerned, government's primary role should be to create an even playing field so that these types of interactions can occur in an enforceable manner, and without violence. Not to consciously decide who gets to have what.


That's a slight mischaracterization of my position. More to the point, I think that money is power and concentration of power is dangerous. I also think that we should pay into taxes _fairly_ and if 1% of the population is earning 90% of the money, it's fair for 90% of the taxes to come from them.

We've looked at the numbers before, and right now while the top 1% do pay a significant share of taxes, they have an even higher percentage of the income so I'd say they are underpaying.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: By the people, for the people

Postby Corth » Sat Apr 23, 2011 4:40 am

I'm fine with that Sarvis. I agree everyone should pay a proportionate share of taxes. A flat tax rate would accomplish that nicely.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: By the people, for the people

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Sun Apr 24, 2011 3:37 am

I propose a flat percentage tax based on income (all income, including estate transfers [yes, the death tax, F your children and beneficiaries]), plus a flat tax rebate (a specific dollar amount that neutralizes income taxes paid by the lower half of the population).

Essentially, everyone sends 15% to the feds and 5% to their state. Then everyone gets $10k from the feds and $5k from the state (spread into monthly payments across all days of the month).

Furthermore, I propose a spending limit that will secure a surplus most years to go into a general fund for emergency expenditures. The national government would be forbidden from entering into any further public debt without a congressional declaration of war.

With this, Federal full time staffing must be cut down, with the majority of Federal workforce manhours coming from flexible contractors that can be hired or fired as needed.

This is the government we actually need.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)

Return to “Current Events & Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest