Income Redistribution is a non-man gene. Man up.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
And how can such a simple act as cut all bs spending ( what is bs spending and whats not bs spending btw ) you suggest solve all the problems of america? this is not sarcasme, if you are able to explain this please do.
[/quote]
First of all, the US government gets 19% of the GDP max in the long run.
It was never able to get more, no matter what the tax rate. If they raise it tax evasion goes up, people work less and companies flee the country.
Then, they spend more money on their military than all other nations combined, run two unneccessary wars and spend more on education than almost, if not everyone, else with very little to show for it.
Then there is pork, subsidies, redundant organizations that exist on a federal and on a state level like the DOE…
[/quote]
- why does the us government only get 19% of GDP?( what does GDP stand for btw? ) Is it constitutional or is it based on some economic law? ps. doe you have any links wich explains it further?
sorry for my ignorance in economics, but what is tax evation?
I agree on the military spending, the empire should be shut down, but of other reasons than tax, but if it helps the governments money problem its a bonus.
education: If its the most expensive in the world, but doesnt give the best payback it must be for some reason. find the reason and solve the problem should be the obvious solution. Education is a long term investment that will help the society in the long turn. So I would say no cutting.
[/quote]
No matter what the marginal tax rate was, the US federal government never got more than 19% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
http://kansas.watchdog.org/5805/federal-tax-revenues-at-19-of-gdp-regardless-of-rate/
Tax evasion: It might be shocking for you, but if taxes are getting too high, some people refuse to pay them, Some even go so far as to lie to the government about how much money they made!
The reason why they get very little in return for their investment is pretty simple: socialiced education.
Catholic schools get better results with half the money.
[/quote]
Oh know I get the tax evasion point. Its actually a topic that are discussed alot in my country, but one argument for bringing evasion down is making the tax system more social. If regular workers who pay theire taxes see that the richest members of society get away with paying less taxes than them because of loopholes, generous tax cuts for top % of the population etc. The average citizen feels that the tax system is unfair. So this problem can be fixed by getting rid of loopholes and making the tax system more fair.
[/quote]
That is not tax-evasion, what Wesley Snipes did is tax-evasion. Finding loopholes is just part of the system, just not paying your taxes is what this is talking about.
[quote]
When it comes to socialised education, you might be right about the chatolic schools. But if the government terminated the public school system, kids would be without schools and commercial education corperations would take its place. This would not be cheaper if the federal and local state had to pay the corperations as they do with healthcare today, it would be more expensive. Remember that the healthcare in america are run by privat corperations and that it is more expensive than the 100% socialised healtcare in europa pr capita.[/quote]
No, healthcare is not run by private corporations, there are a lot of state hospitals, and they are by far the shittiest I have been in. If know a hospital is a state run hospital, I’ll request to go to the next one.
I don’t think you realise this, but public school is not free. You have to pay taxes for it, however, private schools (like Prep schools) are usually cheaper between not paying taxes and having scholarships to go to that school. Catholic schools usually get a lot of donations both from Catholic and non-Catholics because of the quality of education.
However, Americans are notorious for their lack of willingness to support public education. Take Sun City for example, has never had a bond passed to pay for local schools, they won’t have it. However, I was helping with a scholarship drive up in Sun City, in one Sunday three full scholarships and two partial scholarships were paid for. I think the old people have a good head when it comes to school, they know this bullshit America tries to pull off as school is merely a boring version of baby sitting for twelve years.[/quote]
I know loopholes are not tax evation, but a corrupt tax system like a one with loopholes cause tax evasion. I thougt I was clear in my post, but I where not I guess.
When it comes to privat vs public education or healthcare is a matter of opinion or perception if you will. I would prefer a 100% progressive tax to finance this institutions because its the most social way to finance it. I know you libertarians are against prog-tax of all your heart and I know you would prefer the same price for all, from your perception thats most fear or equal if you like and in some sense it is, but in some other sense its not, because it means the less cash you got the higher % of your income you pay.
Think about what I tell you now: In a capitalist country its logical for every individual to look after theire selfinterrest. From a rich persons perspectiv regressiv taxes are best for them and it is expected that they think that way. For a middleclass guy a flat tax is best. For a poor guy progressiv taxes are best. I choose to stand on the poor guys side, wich side are you on?
Politics are about interrests, not some flowery talk about morals and rights and shit, thats used by all sides to hid theire agenda, wich are more control over the cake of society. As I think ZEB said, life aint fear and try to take your share because nobody aint givin it to you. This goes for the working class to and to demand that they should be more modest than the burgeois classes are beyond hypocritical.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]benos4752 wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Move to Cuba Ryan. I hope you enjoy all of your freedom in CUBA - LOL[/quote]
I can’t move to Cuba. Thanks to my American “freedom,” I am legally prohibited from traveling there.
Thanks again for making my points for me.[/quote]
Now that’s bullshit right there and you know it. People go to Cuba all the time. If you honestly believed they were so great, you’d go there…and maybe you’ll survive the trip back on the raft in a couple years.[/quote]
“Contrary to common belief, it is legal to travel to Cuba. It is, however, illegal to travel to Cuba with the intention of spending money or receiving gifts during the visit without a license issued by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control. Longer than a one day visit is considered proof that money was spent, making unlicensed tourist visits basically a violation of U.S. law.”
http://www.travels.com/destinations/caribbean/us-citizen-instructions-traveling-cuba/
So no, it’s not bullshit. But, I’m glad you shot your mouth off before you knew what you were talking about.[/quote]
Umm, wow…talking to you is like talking with the handicapped…fucking retard…
How in the hell did I not know what I was talking about? You’re the one who said, ‘Thanks to my American “freedom,” I am legally prohibited from traveling there’
I say people go there all the time and no one is stopping you. You respond by confirming that you can go there, just not spend money.
And besides, dipshit, I wasn’t talking about getting a license or some shit, people go there all the time, from this country and others, to buy things there, or vacations etc. You just have to go through another country, like Mexico for example. Happens everyday.
And to top it off, none of us said to go visit there. Go move there. If it’s such a utopia, leave us alone to fail and go live in your communist heaven. Trust me, no one is going to stop you from moving there. Reading comprehension, use it little boy.
So, thank you for making yourself look like an idiot, once again.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Yup, it takes an idiot to say that the people doing the jobs should be paid well, instead of the people who profit from the job being done without actually doing it.[/quote]
So should the plow driver get paid the same as the snow shoveler?
A fisherman who catches only 10 fish only gets paid 10 fish. You cannot demand that he get paid 11 fish. We always get paid in proportion to what we produce of value. Try to fix wages above what is produced and the markets dissolve.[/quote]
No, the fisherman who catches 10 fish gets paid 2 fish, because the boss takes 2 fish and the government takes a fish and the bank takes 2 fish… well, you get the point.
And eventually the fisherman says fuck this, I’m sick of working hard to catch ten fish a day and only get two, I’ll let the government give me one fish and do nothing.[/quote]
No, no you are wrong. He only gives up his other fish if the capital goods he used to catch those fish belonged to someone else. For example, if he did not own the fishing pole. And besides, who is to say what wage is right that is negotiated between the fisherman and fishing pole owner?
And your solution is ludicrous. Why would everyone not work and let the government do the fishing if that were possible?[/quote]
My solution is exactly why more and more people are on some form of government assistance.
Its not that they’re stupid, or lazy, or feel “entitled” to anything. Its that they see something wrong with the profit from their work feeding everyone except them.[/quote]
Yes, and as a result in socialism everyone goes hungry because no one works.
See how awesome that idea is?
[/quote]
So maybe, just maybe, the answer is to change the values of our society away from making a few people very rich and towards seeing every worker make a comfortable living (please, dont start with the “define comfortable?!” stuff again).
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
I have no idea why my posts are not going through, but here is the summation of both my previous posts:
From experience I can say confidently, IT IS IN FACT 100% YOUR FUCKING FAULT IF YOU STAY POOR.[/quote]
rolls eyes[/quote]
This doesn’t make poor folks bad people by any stretch, but it does mean they are in the end responsible for their station. I am not saying everyone can given their circumstances be Rockefeller, but they can drastically improve their station in life.
I don’t want to retype my whole CV and parents CV, but suffice it to say my parent have been dirt poor and so have I. I had a child at 22 (wife 19) and know exactly what it feels like to support a family on one income. I work two jobs, 70-80 hours a week on average one white collar and the other manual. I have had a huge assortment of jobs ranging from construction and carpet cleaning to teaching. I have family members who have been on welfare. I have also seen first hand from my father someone create a business and work his ass off to make it a success and become one of these “wealthy fat cats” everybody on here wants to fleece so badly for “not working for his living”.
Suffice it to say I probably have more real world experience with all the situations people on this board THEORIZE about and I can, indeed, say with certainty that 99.99999999% of all cases of poverty are self inflicted and could be changed if the people really wanted to change it.
I know this upsets people but it is a cold brute fact. You get what you earn in life. Unless of course you vote it from someone else. But then once we start doing that, why would you want to work so damn hard? Does THAT sound like a sustainable system to anyone?
[/quote]
And that is the key, how badly do you want to change it, what does it mean to you.
Is it worth your extra effort.
Just like unemployment now, by extending it to those who have been on so long is only reinforcing the idea it will be there again next year. If they really want income they can find it. But if someone is willing to give you money borrowed for china that we can’t really pay for, why should you work for less.
[/quote]
I know of two guys I have played rugby with that actually admitted they refused to get a job at a grocery store because they would earn the same or nearly the same as they did on unemployment. One of them even had the audacity to complain about how hard it was to get his free money taken from someone else. Do some people need assistance? Sure. But the reality is tons of people out there do in fact turn down work because of unemployment benefits because the work they can get is “beneath” them. It’s nice they can have such high standards as a result of living off of someone else. Of course, only wealthy capitalist pigs can live off the labor of others right?[/quote]
The answer couldnt be making all jobs significantly more profitable than what is deemed a bare minimum to survive on, could it?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< The answer couldnt be making all jobs significantly more profitable than what is deemed a bare minimum to survive on, could it?[/quote]No it couldn’t. You really don’t understand how entirely untenable that is do you? Ya just gotta love these children who would trust politicians to engineer a society from top to bottom. Or bottom to top as the case may be.
How much does a doctor deserve to get paid?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< The answer couldnt be making all jobs significantly more profitable than what is deemed a bare minimum to survive on, could it?[/quote]No it couldn’t. You really don’t understand how entirely untenable that is do you? Ya just gotta love these children who would trust politicians to engineer a society from top to bottom. Or bottom to top as the case may be.
[/quote]
I would be interested to know who will ‘make’ this happen and how they would go about doing this as well. Just have the government dole out payments to people to top up their salaries to a deemed comfort point? Or simply mandate the minimum salary be set at $75,000 a year? In the latter case, how do we avoid the same job market issues that have plagued France in recent years where firms do everything in their power NOT to hire people under any circumstances due to the high cost of employeeing them and the inflexibility of the job market? Correct me if I am wrong, but haven’t they had chronic double digit unemployment for the better part of a decade or more? Aren’t they also one of the most highly socialized countries in Europe with one of the most rigid labor markets possible?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:Lolwut? Gates has no right to profit from the sale of M$ product?
k, so if a baker makes a loaf of bread he has no right to sell it for more then what he paid for the ingredients + power, etc?[/quote]
Exactly. Gates has no right to profit from the sale of Microsoft products. He of course has the right to a salary, compensation, even a very generous one, but after he finishes coding, he does nothing to earn money from the production, distribution, or sale of the product. Is that hard to understand? Just as you wouldn’t give the manufacturer of the actual discs containing the software any of Gates’ money he got for writing it, Gates shouldn’t expect any money from the actual sale.
And your analogy is wrong. The baker of course has a right to be paid for the bread he bakes, but you’re saying he has a right to license bread, and be paid for every loaf sold anywhere, whether he baked it or not, which I am disputing.
[/quote]
What if a renowned baker is asked for his “secret” recipe and the baker decides to sell it, but only if the buyer signs a non-disclosure agreement not to reveal the recipe to anyone else or bake more than enough of the recipe to feed his immediate family? What about contracts between individuals?
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]
Soooo we have to all believe in the same moral system (judging from your post I assume you mean religion here) for society to operate? Sounds reasonable enough.
But just in case we can’t get EVERYONE to agree to the same moral/religious code, again I ask you, at what point does the power of the majority over the minority stop? Does it stop? Or can anything be done to anyone if enough people deem it necessary? If not why? [/quote]
we don’t need to all believe in the same religion.
but we need traditions. (and probably even rituals, but it’s another story).
While I am a libertarian, I am not an anarchist. I agree that there is a likely need for a minimal state. But just because there is need for a small state, does not mean you have to have everything run by the government. Again I think America at its founding, barring the glaring inconsistency of slavery, was just about right in terms of government involvement in peoples lives. Enough to deter foreign powers without trying to dominate the world, and enough government at home to protect private property without taking away everyone’s rights.
A government in this proportion does not require involuntary taxes to run it. We managed to run our original government with excise taxes and lotteries all of which are at least to some degree voluntary (i.e. you don’t HAVE to buy tea if you do not wish, you only pay taxes when you interact in society and benefit from society). Property and income taxes are relatively recent developments only necessitated by war and empire building.
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< The answer couldnt be making all jobs significantly more profitable than what is deemed a bare minimum to survive on, could it?[/quote]No it couldn’t. You really don’t understand how entirely untenable that is do you? Ya just gotta love these children who would trust politicians to engineer a society from top to bottom. Or bottom to top as the case may be.
[/quote]
I would be interested to know who will ‘make’ this happen and how they would go about doing this as well. Just have the government dole out payments to people to top up their salaries to a deemed comfort point? Or simply mandate the minimum salary be set at $75,000 a year? In the latter case, how do we avoid the same job market issues that have plagued France in recent years where firms do everything in their power NOT to hire people under any circumstances due to the high cost of employeeing them and the inflexibility of the job market? Correct me if I am wrong, but haven’t they had chronic double digit unemployment for the better part of a decade or more? Aren’t they also one of the most highly socialized countries in Europe with one of the most rigid labor markets possible? [/quote]
Were you around back, in this thread, where I said regulation isnt the answer?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< The answer couldnt be making all jobs significantly more profitable than what is deemed a bare minimum to survive on, could it?[/quote]No it couldn’t. You really don’t understand how entirely untenable that is do you? Ya just gotta love these children who would trust politicians to engineer a society from top to bottom. Or bottom to top as the case may be.
[/quote]
Why is it untenable, Tiribulus?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< The answer couldnt be making all jobs significantly more profitable than what is deemed a bare minimum to survive on, could it?[/quote]No it couldn’t. You really don’t understand how entirely untenable that is do you? Ya just gotta love these children who would trust politicians to engineer a society from top to bottom. Or bottom to top as the case may be.
[/quote]
I would be interested to know who will ‘make’ this happen and how they would go about doing this as well. Just have the government dole out payments to people to top up their salaries to a deemed comfort point? Or simply mandate the minimum salary be set at $75,000 a year? In the latter case, how do we avoid the same job market issues that have plagued France in recent years where firms do everything in their power NOT to hire people under any circumstances due to the high cost of employeeing them and the inflexibility of the job market? Correct me if I am wrong, but haven’t they had chronic double digit unemployment for the better part of a decade or more? Aren’t they also one of the most highly socialized countries in Europe with one of the most rigid labor markets possible? [/quote]
Were you around back, in this thread, where I said regulation isnt the answer?[/quote]
I must have missed it. But regardless, I legitimately want to know how you feel like this can be ‘made’ to happen. What would this look like? How can we guarantee it would be a better scenario than our current profit/loss system (although in reality we do not live in a true free market profit/loss system)? People are people regardless of the system, so if people are corrupt bastards in a free market they will be corrupt bastards in a bureaucracy.
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< The answer couldnt be making all jobs significantly more profitable than what is deemed a bare minimum to survive on, could it?[/quote]No it couldn’t. You really don’t understand how entirely untenable that is do you? Ya just gotta love these children who would trust politicians to engineer a society from top to bottom. Or bottom to top as the case may be.
[/quote]
I would be interested to know who will ‘make’ this happen and how they would go about doing this as well. Just have the government dole out payments to people to top up their salaries to a deemed comfort point? Or simply mandate the minimum salary be set at $75,000 a year? In the latter case, how do we avoid the same job market issues that have plagued France in recent years where firms do everything in their power NOT to hire people under any circumstances due to the high cost of employeeing them and the inflexibility of the job market? Correct me if I am wrong, but haven’t they had chronic double digit unemployment for the better part of a decade or more? Aren’t they also one of the most highly socialized countries in Europe with one of the most rigid labor markets possible? [/quote]
Were you around back, in this thread, where I said regulation isnt the answer?[/quote]
I must have missed it. But regardless, I legitimately want to know how you feel like this can be ‘made’ to happen. What would this look like? How can we guarantee it would be a better scenario than our current profit/loss system (although in reality we do not live in a true free market profit/loss system)? People are people regardless of the system, so if people are corrupt bastards in a free market they will be corrupt bastards in a bureaucracy.[/quote]
Ah, you’re getting to the heart of the problem. My first suggestion was social condemnation of the super rich.
I know, I know, its not ever going to actually happen. But its a way to start without using regulation.
See, the heart of the problem is that our culture pushes the “Get more for less!” mantra so hard and so often its always taken to its conclusion: Get everything for nothing.
So the people at the top find ways to get money without working. The ones at the bottom find ways to get money without working.
Take a society where “Get more for less” is the motto and add in any system and it will be corrupted, abused, and exploited.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Everybody wants to be an investor, nobody wants to do any damn work.[/quote]
Investors get paid for taking a risk. As Orion points out: investors delay consumption in the hopes of turning a profit for their time. We call this interest.
Would you front your own money and not expect a return on it? If this is the case then you better not even have a savings account because you are profiting from NOT DOING ANY WORK.
In fact, any one who works or saves their money can be considered a capitalist – Ryan P. included!![/quote]
Indeed, it would be foolish not to play the rules of capitalism while you live within a capitalist system.
[/quote]
So I am a bit confused here. Are you not wrong for having a savings account? You are profiting off the work of others according to your previous arguments and this is unethical as you see things. But now it is ethical for you to exploit people because everyone else around you says it is okay to exploit people? So if it is okay to exploit people because everyone says it is okay, are the wealthy capitalists not doing anything wrong anymore? Is morality and ethics legislated by the majority? Are ethics only to be applied when they are convenient? I assume such a world view is possible given enough of a relativist view of ethics.
The heart of the problem is that the governments job should be preventing fraud, but instead it is readily invested in it.
I think, you could also argue that the interest you get on most savings account is so low that it simply maintains your moneys value.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
See, the heart of the problem is that our culture pushes the “Get more for less!” mantra so hard and so often its always taken to its conclusion: Get everything for nothing.
So the people at the top find ways to get money without working. The ones at the bottom find ways to get money without working.
Take a society where “Get more for less” is the motto and add in any system and it will be corrupted, abused, and exploited. [/quote]
So what are we to do according to this argument? If no system is better than another due to the input of human beings, are we then saying everyone must become angels? Seems a fairly nihilistic view, but to each his own in that regard. I would propose given demons all around not to give some demons legitimized authority over my own life, but perhaps that is preferable to some.
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]
So what cannot be justified by this line of thinking? Is this not in and of itself a tautology every bit as much as ethical egoism (which so many socialist and utilitarians would claim)? At what point does the want of the majority stop and why? Do individuals have any rights in the face of the majority? If so, why?[/quote]
yes, at some point, we need a absolute definiton of morality.
and if we don’t have one, we are lost. and it doesn’t matter if we are lost in a communist, capitalist or fascist system. we are just lost.
when they try to defend capitalism, (true) conservatives would be wise to not forget that it is by nature an utilitarian (ie : amoral) system. just like marxism. [/quote]
It can be, but teh utilitarian foundation of libertarianism is sp flawed that it cannot be salvaged.
The natural rights doctrine isnt.
To build a utilitarian foundaztion (the needs of “society”) with all the political structures hat implies and then “at some point” insist insist on “absolute values” that is not “autistic” but naive, if not moronic.