quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Blindy. squealed:
Capitalism is a system for redistributing wealth upwards: while everyone (who works) generates the wealth, only the rich people get to take it home. The rest of the country just gets enough to pay the bills. In the last 30 years, rich people have been getting richer and everyone else has been making exactly the same amount of money once adjusted for inflation.But really, before we can change anything, the myth of America being a great meritocracy needs to die.
There's a great idea. 
We'll just divide the GDP by the number of citizens and write everyone a check. Rock on.
"The rich" is a myth. There is, in fact, quite a bit of mobility into and out of that class, as there is with the middle class.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Of course, this should not be some sort of shocking revelation, but it is rather the natural state of affairs. I'm sure that, if I were to suddenly become rich, I'd do everything in my power to stay that way. Despite folksy, homespun aphorisms to the contrary, life is easy and pretty awesome when money is no object.
But here's the kicker: I will never be rich. I was born into the lower end of the middle class, I am solidly middle class now, and I will hopefully end my life in the upper range of the middle class, haven been able to retire and live modestly, if not comfortably.
Because of this fact, I will never support anything that facilitates the rich staying rich without effort. I will not begrudge rich people for doing this, because I'm sure I'd do the same thing in their shoes, but I will not help them. If I have to bust my ass to stay in the middle class, so should they have to labor to retain their wealth.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Did someone say Bloodsage:
There's a great idea.
We'll just divide the GDP by the number of citizens and write everyone a check. Rock on.
"The rich" is a myth. There is, in fact, quite a bit of mobility into and out of that class, as there is with the middle class.
Not really. And if you broke the top 20% up (because there is a huge difference between the top 1%, the top 5% and the top 20% in terms of wealth), you would see that next to no one goes from the bottom 95% into the top 5% or vice versa.
Ideally, you should see 20% across the board in every category, assuming talent and motivation are randomly distributed, (which they aren't, sure), but the socialist success punishing hellhole of Denmark is much closer to enabling the american dream than America. Blindy. fucked around with this message on 06-08-2012 at 12:25 PM.
Also, why didn't you just buy the Lotrimin over the counter if it was $8?
quote:
The propaganda machine of Gadani's junta released this statement:
Also, why didn't you just buy the Lotrimin over the counter if it was $8?
Probably a prescription strength version.
Also, Maradon has karnajed more than I ever have. I think we need to swap accounts.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Karnaj absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
But here's the kicker: I will never be rich. I was born into the lower end of the middle class, I am solidly middle class now, and I will hopefully end my life in the upper range of the middle class, haven been able to retire and live modestly, if not comfortably.Because of this fact, I will never support anything that facilitates the rich staying rich without effort. I will not begrudge rich people for doing this, because I'm sure I'd do the same thing in their shoes, but I will not help them. If I have to bust my ass to stay in the middle class, so should they have to labor to retain their wealth.
And indeed it is the kicker, since it's just a vindictive effort to punish anyone who has things you don't. That's what's wrong with the entire "debate."
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
The propaganda machine of Bloodsage's junta released this statement:
And indeed it is the kicker, since it's just a vindictive effort to punish anyone who has things you don't. That's what's wrong with the entire "debate."
But there's no malice in the punishment. I don't hate the rich for being successful and seeking to remain that way, because I admit I'd do the same, if I were among them. It makes perfect sense for them to want to strengthen the control of their wealth, even at my expense. But since I'm not one of them, and further never will be, why would I support them in this goal?
I seek to punish their success because 1) the punishment still leaves them materially rich and comfortable, just slightly less so, and 2) the harm done to them by punishing their success is far less damaging that the harm done by allowing them to concentrate more and more wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people. They can still do their rich people things, but slightly less ostentatiously. I think they'll be OK.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Bloodsage came out of the closet to say:
And indeed it is the kicker, since it's just a vindictive effort to punish anyone who has things you don't. That's what's wrong with the entire "debate."
Taxes are not punishment. That's what's wrong with the debate.
The United States has one of the lowest personal tax rates among first world nations; and because they're being painted as punishment rather than a vital facet of a functioning nation, they're still being portrayed as being too high -- a viewpoint mostly being painted by people who are well off enough to not need the social support net and services that taxes pay for and sold to people by boiling the debate down to catchphrases.
There's nothing "vindictive" about it -- that's a myth pushed by those same people who want to discredit opposing viewpoints by painting them as being shallow, or even by evoking images of violence by calling it "class warfare". The fact of the matter is we're supposedly the world's greatest nation, and yet we have millions of people sick and unable to get treatment because our dysfunctional system can't provide basic human services because it's apparently an even worse crime against humanity that Paris Hilton only have a billion dollars when she could be inheriting three billion.
I'm still waiting to hear your reasons for why CEOs have become twenty times more valuable in the past 30 years. If taxes are punishment and so it's unfair to tax people with more money at a higher rate, obviously there must be some justification for why they should have that obscenely higher income in the first place. Drysart fucked around with this message on 06-08-2012 at 09:52 PM.
As it stands, progressive taxation is a very reasonable solution to a very real problem: Good government costs money. It turns out rich people have a lot of money. In fact, we can use some of the money that those rich people have, and they'll still be rich beyond the average person's wildest dreams.
But hey, we're punishing them. We're making people pariahs. They're basically our slaves at that point.
You know, slaves with the freedom to take their private jet to their private island in the Maldives.
How awful of us. Taeldian fucked around with this message on 06-08-2012 at 10:24 PM.
Frankly, the idea of Lloyd Blankfein's job-creating ass touching porcelain makes my stomach turn.
quote:
Drysart startled the peaceful upland Gorillas, blurting:
Taxes are not punishment. That's what's wrong with the debate.
Taxing one group simply because they have something you don't, while not applying the taxes equitably is punishment. That's what the whole debate is about: all the people who use public services most want others to pay for them.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage painfully thought these words up:
Taxing one group simply because they have something you don't, while not applying the taxes equitably is punishment. That's what the whole debate is about: all the people who use public services most want others to pay for them.
Your flat tax with a cutoff for extremely low incomes does the exact same thing; it bases tax rates on an individual's means.
Lower income households spend a greater portion of their income on the necessities of life, and it's thus a greater burden on them when you do this. A household with a $50,000 annual income cannot handle a higher tax rate as readily as a household with a $1,000,000 annual income.
This is about placing smaller burdens on those who have less ability to pay. We have to fund the government somehow, and it's reasonable to distribute that burden in a way which has the minimum impact.
quote:
Bloodsage came out of the closet to say:
Taxing one group simply because they have something you don't, while not applying the taxes equitably is punishment. That's what the whole debate is about: all the people who use public services most want others to pay for them.
But it's not about taxing one group "because they have something I don't". It's about taxing based on two factors: 1) capability to pay taxes, and 2) aiming to minimize the effect of tax on quality of life.
As we've already gone over, half the population doesn't meet the very basic bar of even having the capability to pay our current taxes. (This, by the way, is the very problem we're trying to fix. If you think it's unfair they don't pay taxes, then lets adopt some policies to give them enough income so they can be taxed. Maybe then they can even afford to see a doctor, and all our problems find a solution!) And as far as affecting quality of life, even someone making as little as $200,000 a year would see a significant dent in their quality of life from a 30% tax rate; but someone making a million a year would notice the effect of the tax far less. Once you get into multi-millions, they don't even notice it at all.
If you really hate taxes, why don't you support a policy that will minimize the pain of paying them on as many people as possible?
And you really need to get it out of your head that these policies are based in vengeance. It's a cheap tactic to make it easy to disregard them without having to think about the actual principles they're based upon. Come up with reasons as to why the policy itself is flawed, not attacks against the people proposing it. Drysart fucked around with this message on 06-09-2012 at 03:04 PM.
quote:
Razor had this to say about Duck Tales:
How about getting rid of the income tax, and placing a national sales tax. there are states that are doing well with only a sales tax, and the states doing the worst have the worst tax burdens using a personal income tax.
The sales tax would exclude unprocessed items (raw food, raw materials and the like) and exclude the sale of energy items (gas, electricity, water, etc), but charge around 11% on all durable property. Charge only 5.5% on resale goods.
And how would that mesh with the existing state sales taxes? You're talking about the sales tax (for the area I'm in) jumping up to almost 20% total (almost 14% on resale items)... Jumping from $1 per every $12.12 to almost $1 per $5.
It is an interesting idea, but being that radical a departure from what already exists it would require quite a bit of handling and research to put in place.
One other side benefit I can see to a flat tax rate to replace the tax system we have now that I haven't seen anyone mention: Once in place it should help cut some of the overhead in the IRS in general. Simplification and removal of "tax dodges" should require less people to handle verification and input of tax data. How much would that save in salary alone not to mention benefits and energy/real estate?
quote:
Random Insanity Generator impressed everyone with:
One other side benefit I can see to a flat tax rate to replace the tax system we have now that I haven't seen anyone mention: Once in place it should help cut some of the overhead in the IRS in general. Simplification and removal of "tax dodges" should require less people to handle verification and input of tax data. How much would that save in salary alone not to mention benefits and energy/real estate?
But with all the loopholes and tax dodges removed, think of the lost income tax from all the accountants that will be unemployed.
quote:
We were all impressed when Razor wrote:
How about getting rid of the income tax, and placing a national sales tax. there are states that are doing well with only a sales tax, and the states doing the worst have the worst tax burdens using a personal income tax.
The sales tax would exclude unprocessed items (raw food, raw materials and the like) and exclude the sale of energy items (gas, electricity, water, etc), but charge around 11% on all durable property. Charge only 5.5% on resale goods.
Taxing consumption seems counterproductive in an economy driven by consumers.
quote:
Random Insanity Generator had this to say about Duck Tales:
One other side benefit I can see to a flat tax rate to replace the tax system we have now that I haven't seen anyone mention: Once in place it should help cut some of the overhead in the IRS in general. Simplification and removal of "tax dodges" should require less people to handle verification and input of tax data. How much would that save in salary alone not to mention benefits and energy/real estate?
You can simplify the tax code without going to a flat tax.
Our tax system is absurdly complicated, but that has less to do with graduated tax rates, and more to do with a stupefying number of loopholes and tax credits.
It's easy to take your income and figure out your tax rate. It only gets complicated when you start adding in capital gains and tax credits for things like weatherizing your home.
quote:
Taeldian came out of the closet to say:
Taxing consumption seems counterproductive in an economy driven by consumers.
All taxing is counterproductive to economic activity, but it's a necessary evil because it provides the grease that keeps the system alive.
The problem with relying on a sales tax is that it does nothing to address the problem of excessive wealth accumulation or grossly uneven wealth distribution. It sounds like a good idea to most people though, since most people are used to the idea of spending most every dollar they make. At the top levels of income, that doesn't happen (their money goes into investment rather than purchasing), which makes it a somewhat regressive tax policy.
If you want to minimize the negative impact on consumers in the economy though, your best bet would be a tax policy that focuses on revenue derived from taxing corporate profits, and change capital gains from being levied on realization to a mark-to-market system. (Though in both cases you'd need to have the political power to see to it that they're both sealed tight against loopholes -- as corporations will funnel profits overseas to avoid taxation, and capital can be similarly held.)
quote:
Drysart wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
All taxing is counterproductive to economic activity, but it's a necessary evil because it provides the grease that keeps the system alive.
I'm mostly looking at this from the angle of our current economic situation.
The worst thing we can do is actively discourage people from consuming when we've already got persistently low demand.
They even tax you for dying.
No, I'm serious, they do. 
quote:
Mortious spewed forth this undeniable truth:
Come to England.They even tax you for dying.
No, I'm serious, they do.
So do we.
quote:
Blindy. had this to say about dark elf butts:
Pretty sure we got rid of that, but I'm not a billionaire so I don't care.
If your estate is over $1 million, they start the taxes up, IIRC it's around 20% but if the tax cuts go away, we'd be seeing 50% on any value over 1 million and there is a lower cutoff of $500k.
