[quote]njrusmc wrote:
I’ve read three articles and most of them are poorly disguised excuses for maintaining wealth redistribution and the “social safety net”. [/quote]
Oh the horror… :O[/quote]
Indeed.
You will be around 40 when it will all finally have broken down, shafting the “poor” in the process of course.
Would that change your mind or will it be just another example of “it could have worked if only the right people had been in power” ?[/quote]
hm a couple of things.
How do you know how things are going to be when I am fourty( 2026 ), are you a prophet now?
When we are talking about wealth redistribution, we are talking about a state that taxes people and uses that tax money as it sees fit right? ( asking to see if we are on the same page )
And third how is this system of “redistribution of wealth/taxation” going to cause the entire system to crash? Its allready been around for centurys( taxation ) and altough not a perfect system( does that even exist ) I cant see how it is going to crash. I can see however that in a system with a market-economy it has been necessary to establish a welfare state to ensure that the entire population has a minimum of a acceptable living standard. Please explain this further and some factual evidence to why to would be great if you where able to dig some up.
When you say “it could have worked if the right people did it” I guess you are refering to some conversion about socialism we had YEARS ago on this forum. Well to that I can respond that the only right group of people would be the people themself and not some small group of party-elite, bureacrats, junta etc. Socialism when it comes down to it is an system that can only work properly if the people themself set it up( trough revolution, reform, general strike etc ) and runs it. Any form of socialism where some form of “elite” are supposed to run it on behalf of the people is when it goes wrong( as in soviet russia as an example ) or they dont reach it( as the socialdemocratic party elite in scandinavia ).
[/quote]
I have a calculator and I am not afraid to use it.
Yup.
We never had a system where you would be punished for economic success and rewarded for economic failure.
We never had a system that attacked its very foundations, directly by destroying the social capital a free market built, by replacing all institutions of a free society that dealt with those problems thereby removing the know how from the public sphere and last but not least by even destroying the very demographic foundation it stands on.
I see, so it does not work. I am glad we agree.
Finally, that does not answer my question, when it will have collapsed, will that be enough or will you be one of the ones calling for the next round?
I have a calculator and I am not afraid to use it.
[/quote]
Explain how this makes you able to predict the future, not shure if I get what you are pointing at. Debt, costs?
If you are talking about progressive taxation, then nobody are punished or rewarded, but everybody pays a tax rate that are in correlation to their income.
Really? are we talking about the “liberal system” that is the pre-dominat in the west. How is it attacking its own foundation and how is it destroying the social capital( what do you mean with social-capital btw ) and what are this civil society institutions you talk about, the family?, the curch?, labour unions?( just had to ), guilds? and in the end what do you mean with its demographic foundation? ( Hope you arent going all sexmachine on me with this one )
I dont know if it work or doesnt, but I bet it has as good of a chance as your libertarian paradis
First of all I am not a liberal, so you cant pin the failures of the "liberal system on me, but if it fails( and if ) then the smartest thing to do would be to analyse without bias why it failed. It must offcourse fail before we can know offcourse.
Taxation has been around since the beginning of civilization and will remain until the end. The presence of absense of taxation was never the issue; please don’t create a strawman here.
Progressive taxation is the downfall of society. To this day, I cannot fathom why those who make more money as a result of their own successes, innovations, hard work, and self-betterment must pay comparatively more money to the government … presumably so it can be shelled out to those in society who contribute the absolute least. You can’t say that the rich aren’t punished and the poor aren’t rewarded in this instance. We are taught as children that heroes like Robin Hood take from the rich and give to the poor … as if, in reality, those rich individuals never earned it and don’t deserve to keep their earnings.
How many millionaires do you know who just woke up one day and were millionaires? Yes, I realize some people are born into it, but that’s a weak anecdotal argument for progressive taxation. A guy at my job makes under 100K a year but between his farm, his wife’s manufacturing company, and his property values, his family’s net work is 7.8M. After 30 years of hard work (his wife too), why should be pay tens of thousands in taxes each year? He paid almost his entire salary, from his full-time job, in income taxes last fiscal year.
Cain’s 9-9-9 plan was flawed but it was just at the core.
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
Taxation has been around since the beginning of civilization and will remain until the end. The presence of absense of taxation was never the issue; please don’t create a strawman here.
Progressive taxation is the downfall of society. To this day, I cannot fathom why those who make more money as a result of their own successes, innovations, hard work, and self-betterment must pay comparatively more money to the government … presumably so it can be shelled out to those in society who contribute the absolute least. You can’t say that the rich aren’t punished and the poor aren’t rewarded in this instance. We are taught as children that heroes like Robin Hood take from the rich and give to the poor … as if, in reality, those rich individuals never earned it and don’t deserve to keep their earnings.
How many millionaires do you know who just woke up one day and were millionaires? Yes, I realize some people are born into it, but that’s a weak anecdotal argument for progressive taxation. A guy at my job makes under 100K a year but between his farm, his wife’s manufacturing company, and his property values, his family’s net work is 7.8M. After 30 years of hard work (his wife too), why should be pay tens of thousands in taxes each year? He paid almost his entire salary, from his full-time job, in income taxes last fiscal year.
Cain’s 9-9-9 plan was flawed but it was just at the core.[/quote]
Great post!
The top 1% income earners (350-k and up) pay 37% of all taxes.
The top 10% (112-k) pay 70% of all taxes.
Therefore, I have to agree with President Obama on one thing. The rich are not paying their fair share - They are paying far more!
