Santorum Drops Out - Page 7

Baneblade · 2012-04-13, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by Sirisian

You realize that would mean switching from a progressive tax system to a regressive tax system. Poor people aren't taxed currently so the change would basically just tax them more while removing current taxes on the wealthy (since their investments wouldn't be taxed. Only their purchases).

The taxes on everyone would be less. The same stuff that states don't sales tax would still not be taxed with a national sales tax. Poor people are1 taxed, they just have minimal to no tax liability, which means they get 95%+ returns... but they only get those returns annually. Under my system, that money would never leave their hands... till they bought something they don't really need.

Wealth redistribution is not what the government does, at least not in the sense that people think of when wealth is redistributed. So take less money from everyone.

This allows the wealthy to accrue wealth more easily.

It always has been, always is, and always will be easier to make money with money. Most people could be relatively wealthy, if they had some discipline, knowledge, and less money stolen from them by the government.

Basically your stance on this depends on if you think wealthy people are being held back by a progressive tax and could do more for the economy. A lot of conservatives believe that.

Costs trickle down. Taxes are costs. Who pays the taxes in a business situation? Customers and Employees. Customers are the obvious ones, but employees tend to be overlooked. There are two ways to bring up profits fast in the typical business situation, presuming consistent sales: Cut overhead (employees are the first cuts usually) and raise prices (customers pay more). Employee wages are determined based on the big picture of the business. The more it costs to do business, the less an employee can expect to be paid (whether per hour or total hours).

So really, lowering the tax burden on everyone is a massive stimulus to businesses and consumers. The dollar's inflation would plateau and possibly reverse course. You can't stop a wealthy class from existing without going full on down the socialist/communist path.

It's a very complex subject so I'd recommend for you to read up on it.

I'm always open to more learning on the subject, but Social Economics, Social Engineering, Sociology, and Business Administration were all areas I had intended to focus on for a Masters and eventually a PhD.

Anyway, progressive tax systems are designed to fix a flaw that is social and not economic.

Under my system, the rich would still have a significantly larger tax burden (by percentage) than the less than wealthy or the 'poor'. It just wouldn't be an income tax.

My system would tax wealthy individuals that don't have an income.

Figment · 2012-04-14, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Ignored because it isn't relevant. Community things are funded by communities and states, not the federal government. People who want to contribute to community stuff are free to donate that to whatever charity organization they want. They can also donate to the state if they have strong convictions - the state won't refuse a donation from a citizen.

And like states won't refuse, neither will the federal government. If Buffet wants to donate his money to the government he's welcome to.

But he doesn't.

He puts his money in the Gates Foundation.

And you keep yapping on about being "Fair" - fair is voluntary donations to the government and flat taxes. Forcing people to do anything is not fair at all.

You have a strange concept of fairness thinking that other people are entitled to my stuff simply because I have more stuff.

Well then, let's abolish taxes all together and trust on the egocentrism of people to do the right thing and allow them to decide just how much money they hand over to the government or to community projects. Regardless of how much money they have.

If you truly believe that works, you have absolutely no sense of judgement of people. Though that's quite apparant anyway.

Shanesan · 2012-04-15, 01:13 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Well then, let's abolish taxes all together and trust on the egocentrism of people to do the right thing and allow them to decide just how much money they hand over to the government or to community projects. Regardless of how much money they have.

If you truly believe that works, you have absolutely no sense of judgement of people. Though that's quite apparant anyway.

I don't think you read that Malorn has belief that there should be SMALL government - not NO government.

So you can adjust your judgement and accusations that direction.

Secondly,

while also ignoring that centralised government makes for a smaller government as state governments have everything double, where you prefer over 50 same job departments over one with subsidiaries for proper execution on a state level.

A smaller government, huh? Okay, let's assume that you're correct (when you're not). If the accountability goes to the lower denominator - the states, where people actually live where these laws are passed... By all means I would pay more temporarily to hold people accountable in my own state and get the Federal bureaucracy out of it.

Do you realize what you're saying? You're saying you want one big government. One big government that is centralized. One place where all the decisions are made. One place where the religious right can try to trounce on the rights of all people. One place where Monsanto can slime their way in to get their crops ignored by the nations Food and Drug Administration. One place where they can ruin our children's future with something like No Child Left Behind. One place where those in power can strip ALL of our rights one by one and have a force so vast and fortresses so tall that you can't say boo about it.

Is that what you want? If you separate where and how laws are passed, it makes it harder for these groups to come and take over the country. They would have to take it over state by state instead.

Divided we fall, together we suffocate. Work as a team, stay separate, and we prosper. They're treading all over us and you're grinning and asking for more.

Red Beard · 2012-04-15, 01:38 AM

I am all for the separation of powers in government. Without a counterbalance you will eventually come to a monopoly, just as you do in the markets. Separation of power turns selfish ends against itself (to a degree) through accountability...(not to dig up a dead body), but back when Americans were actually free to do what they wanted as long as they had consent of the parties involved (pre-social insurance/federal reserve/income tax era), I suspect that was the reason for the 2nd ammendment; counter-balance of power from a government disregarding the will of the people.

**Malorn** · 2012-04-15, 01:46 AM

Meh.

Red Beard · 2012-04-15, 01:57 AM

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered"

Love that quote; and I think most people don't realize how true it is; given that HJR 192 (1933) Rendered everyone bankrupt; (banruptcy trust where everyone agreed not to demand payment in gold/silver, and instead would accept promises to pay); not able to hold a perfected title on property thus creating a feudal system so large, there's no contrast for most people to perceive it. And as some of you guys may know, the deed to your house has you listed as the 'tenant', even if you've actually "paid for" (discharged in reality") your house, just as Jefferson predicted...

**Malorn** · 2012-04-15, 04:58 AM

Meh.

Figment · 2012-04-16, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by Shanesan

I don't think you read that Malorn has belief that there should be SMALL government - not NO government.

So you can adjust your judgement and accusations that direction.

Understand sarcasm in the context of his quote. He claims that if people want to give money away they can right now. The argument comes down to him saying there is no need to make people pay taxes, because they would pay the government anyway. He doesn't understand that taxes for ALL people intead of relying on philantropy is actually fair as it makes sure everyone contributes their bit, especially if they've got an overabundance of money.

He's deliberately ignoring the point or pretending he doesn't get it as he is continuously replying to and with a stupidity, as usual.

Secondly, A smaller government, huh? Okay, let's assume that you're correct (when you're not).

By default, I am correct as one government body for general things is smaller than 52 who all have their own administration sections, their own template and form design, etc, etc, etc. You're doing things over 50 times now which could easily be done by one body.

If the accountability goes to the lower denominator - the states, where people actually live where these laws are passed... By all means I would pay more temporarily to hold people accountable in my own state and get the Federal bureaucracy out of it.

Do you realize what you're saying? You're saying you want one big government. One big government that is centralized. One place where all the decisions are made. One place where the religious right can try to trounce on the rights of all people. One place where Monsanto can slime their way in to get their crops ignored by the nations Food and Drug Administration. One place where they can ruin our children's future with something like No Child Left Behind. One place where those in power can strip ALL of our rights one by one and have a force so vast and fortresses so tall that you can't say boo about it.

Do you realise what I'm saying? No, you don't as you think from your current republican federal state of being. I'm thinking from a democracy point of view.

Consider that I would suggest a government of actual percentile representation. The religious extremist would be a stupidly small group to consider then. You know, where your vote goes to the person you voted for and not to that of the other party because they got more locals rooting for them and politically applied district lines do not matter AT ALL in determining the outcome of elections.

Is that what you want? If you separate where and how laws are passed, it makes it harder for these groups to come and take over the country. They would have to take it over state by state instead.

No, in my setup they would have to take over the populace of the entire nation at once, where they could not gain control over the state ("province level") of most parts of the nation, nor the nation itself, because they'd be a non-factor in the overall elections.

Divided we fall, together we suffocate. Work as a team, stay separate, and we prosper. They're treading all over us and you're grinning and asking for more.

Do you know the saying: Divide and conquer? The main reason the religious extreme bothers you so much is because you ARE divided as a nation.

Figment · 2012-04-16, 08:55 AM

Malorn, you do realise that absolute capitalism gave rise to communism as a counter-force because it created an exploitation of workforce?

Strange concept as it may sound to you, but having a bit more social responsible free market economy prevents communism from getting strong support.

Taking care of your fellow countrymen when able to is actually not just fair, it's a moral responsibility and a tool to improve the economy and the effectiveness of your employees. And in the end you, your economy and your company benefit greatly from motivated, wealthy employees who feel appreciated, secure and are not stressed because of job insecurity, healthcare issues, having to lick the higher up's arses (meaning bad decision making is questioned) and that people aren't exploited for their money - like your whole banking system which is the exact opposite and resulted in great economic and social malpractice.

Pure, unbridled capitalism corrupts. The current economic poor climate has been created in the USA by banking systems that are completely capitalist in setup without any remorse or concern for selling bad products to people using lies.

Your ideal society is ran by Goldman & Sachs? Because with a free market without any regulation to prevent excesses and exploitation, you will run into these situations.

What do you think for instance of hatch funds that buy up companies just to make a short term profit by selling all their assets individualy to the highest bidder? The companies, employees and social impact of the destruction of these companies for short term gains is not beneficial to society or the economy. The only ones profiting from this are the hatch funds and they don't contribute much to the economy. Hatch funds, a product of unregulated free market stock exchange, are counter to the "American Dream" where you can make it if you just work hard: you will be bought and sold out whenever the opportunity arises. That is NOT what good business is all about and it is not rewarding for those people who worked hard to get that company to the point it becomes interesting to split it up and get as much money out of the real estate et all as possible. Companies are not created with the intend to be cut into pieces at the first opportunity to make short term gains for the elite few.

A world that only thinks in individualist ways without regards for the bigger picture will end up destroying itself. Freedom for the individual is great, but it should not cost every other individual. Because if you didn't realise it yet, society is made up of individuals that form groups, peoples, nations and economies, together.

Natir · 2012-04-16, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

The national sales tax could literally be 0.1% and generate more than enough revenue for the federal government to do its Constitutionally required duties.

Also, politicians should not be paid more than minimum wage equivalent to a 40 hour work week.

Our government could just do some major tax reform. But sadly, that is not good in an election year. I mean, look at our dumb republicans who signed that stupid Grover Norquist pledge to not raise taxes on anyone (businesses and people) back when the committee for deficit reduction was formed. You want to change the tax code, something is in the thousands of pages, that pledge makes it very difficult. Now, looking at our federal budget, it is obvious something needs to give. We cant just raise taxes and we can't just cut all our programs. When you have people like that douche who is just a lobbyist able to wield that much power, I tend to loose hope in our government.

Commenting on your thing about congress, I like what Rick Perry wanted to do with them. Granted I think he was a general idiot, but I liked his idea of what he wanted congress to be. Congress was never supposed to be a full time job with endless lucrative benefits and a damn nice pay. You were meant to be an expert in whatever field you were in and serve your government and provide advice when needed and then go back to your job and let someone else get in. Now we have a ton of really old guys who are stubborn and wont die or leave office to a new face (regardless of political affiliation).

**Malorn** · 2012-04-16, 12:09 PM

Meh.

Vecha · 2012-04-16, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

The pledge to not raise taxes is fine; the pledge to not remove loopholes was pretty retarded. That's creating a problem for Republicans now. They could lower taxes but close loopholes but then their opponents could claim they broke their pledge. The net gain could still be lower taxes or revenue-neutral but a simpler or more fair tax code. But because of that dumb pledge it'll be difficult to get reform.

That is one thing that just infuriates the hell out of me when it comes to politics.

This last few years has just been an unbelievably fucked-up-stupid-nightmare. (I'm talking more about the banks and congress.)

Natir · 2012-04-16, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by Vecha

That is one thing that just infuriates the hell out of me when it comes to politics.

This last few years has just been an unbelievably fucked-up-stupid-nightmare. (I'm talking more about the banks and congress.)

Money corrupts. Money controls politics. Corporations and banks control the money. The individual means nothing. The individual is just there to vote for the lesser of two evils, or for the far right, whoever is more religious.

**Malorn** · 2012-04-16, 02:47 PM

Meh.

Natir · 2012-04-16, 03:41 PM

Here is the pledge in to what one signs:

http://www.atr.org/taxpayer-protection-pledge

US Senate/House Pledge:

ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax
rates for individuals and/or businesses; and
TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and
credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.

Governors Pledge:

that I will oppose and veto any and all efforts to increase taxes.

State representatives:

I will oppose and vote against
any and all efforts to increase taxes.

Any idiot knows that when you have a national debt as high as we do, cutting spending alone will not do the job. You have to raise taxes in one way or another so it makes a decent impact along with cutting programs and getting rid of waste.