Fair Taxation

[Imran Siddiqui]

Assuming I'm willing to quit my job, which most people are unwilling to do. I can go work for someone else. And that's the only reason why you think that capitalism is better than feudalism.

That's hell of an important thing, Duncan. It's like saying, oh, I can do things I wouldn't be doing otherwise. And that's the only reason why you think that life is better than death .

I have to concur with choice, but add, much, much, much more social mobility, incredible technological progress, and a vastly improved standard of living.

[Devil's Advocate]

Originally posted by DuncanK
Goinginit and Berzerker,

The rich need the government to protect their property. Why the hell should we pay to protect their property? I don't want to protect their property. I want to take their property.

The truth comes out eh? Socialist scumbag, you think all rich people got that way by taking something from you? It's not that they took something from you, you just didn't do for yourself.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Mary-Ann


The truth comes out eh? Socialist scumbag, you think all rich people got that way by taking something from you? It's not that they took something from you, you just didn't do for yourself.

Oh, you mean I didn't take it from them. Ok then. I must be a scum bag then.

[Devil's Advocate]

Originally posted by DuncanK


Oh, you mean I didn't take it from them. Ok then. I must be a scum bag then.

No, I mean you're a lazy **** who thinks the world owes you a living. Are you unfamiliar with the concept of stealing?

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Duncan -

I know this is a foreign concept to you, but I don't think "government" magically transforms immoral acts into moral acts. Stealing is immoral regardless of whether I'm doing the stealing or some politician I've "elected".

Actually I agree with you all all of the above.

Originally posted by Berzerker
So it's not a matter of helping the poor, it's a matter of how and with whose money. I won't steal from others to help the poor, you do and accuse people of being selfish for not helping you steal. Fine, but let's not lose sight of what is really being done...

In so far as people are born into different classes in our society they should have no legitimate claim to to the wealth that they are given at birth. Since this was unfair in the first place. And in so far that people 'steal' in the first place, they should have no legitimate claim to what they have stolen. Stealing occurs and people obtain wealth that they did not work for. We should help the poor who have been placed in a position which grants them less opportinity to steal, and therefore have been less able to steal as priviledged people. Since opportunity is not equal the poor should have a right to have some things to help them survive.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Azazel -

Yes, we are extraordinary.

You think you have a right to be part of an elite class. But you are only able to be in that class by law. We want to change that law, because we don't think you are better than us.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Assuming I'm willing to quit my job, which most people are unwilling to do. I can go work for someone else. And that's the only reason why you think that capitalism is better than feudalism.

That's hell of an important thing, Duncan. It's like saying, oh, I can do things I wouldn't be doing otherwise. And that's the only reason why you think that life is better than death .

I have to concur with choice, but add, much, much, much more social mobility, incredible technological progress, and a vastly improved standard of living.

Ok Imran, I can quit my minimum wage job and get a job that pays 300 bucks an hour.

[Sava]

The Capitalist version of choice is: getting rid of the high paying jobs, and letting you choose between the low paying ones.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Berz -

Was the Great Depression a market failure or a failure of government? When your plumber asks to provide you with a service, does he threaten your life if you don't want his service? Nope, your analogy is askew, government is violence and the threat of violence and therefore is only morally allowed to confront others who are initiating violence (or threats thereof) or fraud. Telling the person who will be killed or caged if they don't hand over their money that you aren't really stealing from them works only on those conditioned to accept the theft as "legal". The rest of us know what it is and don't want to be killed, that's why the Mafia got away with stealing from people.

It was a market failure.

Here are the two elements of market failure

1. Monopolies
2. Externalities

The government did not prevent monopolies from forming. This led to increased costs for everyone. People were spending more and getting less. They cut back consumption, which led to a decrease in supply. Since people were speculating like crazy, when the stock market crashed, everyone who was playing it on credit lost it all. They couldnt pay back the creditors, so they went bankrupt. The creditors couldnt pay back the banks so they went bankrupt. The banks couldnt pay back its lendors, so they went bankrupt. the money supply was constricted and the Fed forgot to drop the interest rates.
Market Failure

Now lets see what happens when you buy something and you dont pay for it. You go to jail. Same with the government. You 'buy' services from the government and if you dont pay you go to jail. Sounds fair to me. And its equal because everyone who doesnt pay goes to jail.

Why isn't a 23% flat tax fair? First of all, total income is a bad way toview this situation. We must look at how much money this person has left after tax. THis is called disposable income. Now, lets say that Timmy makes $100 a year. At the end of being taxed, he has $77 left. Now lets compare Timmy to Bruce, who makes $1000 a year. At 23%, Bruce is left with $770.

Well thats fair, you say. Each of them have paid the same percentage, but Bruce has paid more absolutly. This way, rich people will still pay more for government. But, in fact, it isnt fair. Timmy can barely survive with $77 a year, and Bruce has more money then he can spend. So how do we make this fair? By changing the tax rates so that Timmy gets more disposable income to spend to fuel the economy.

Now lets say that we drop Timmy's tax rate to 0%. The total which the government took in from these two individuals before was $253. With 0% income tax, Timmy now has $100 to spend on himself. Bruce's income tax gets increased by 2.3%, to 25.3%. Bruces disposable income is now $747.

Both individuals now have enough money to live on, and the government is still making the same amount as before

For the Libs, it is not fair in the sense that the tax rates are different, but it is fair because the government is taking money which is less likely to be used and is giving money back to the people who are more likely to use it. This is fair in that both individuals now have enough money to live a decent life.

[David Floyd]

Well thats fair, you say. Each of them have paid the same percentage, but Bruce has paid more absolutly. This way, rich people will still pay more for government. But, in fact, it isnt fair. Timmy can barely survive with $77 a year, and Bruce has more money then he can spend. So how do we make this fair? By changing the tax rates so that Timmy gets more disposable income to spend to fuel the economy.

Now lets say that we drop Timmy's tax rate to 0%. The total which the government took in from these two individuals before was $253. With 0% income tax, Timmy now has $100 to spend on himself. Bruce's income tax gets increased by 2.3%, to 25.3%. Bruces disposable income is now $747.

Both individuals now have enough money to live on, and the government is still making the same amount as before

But that's not fair at all. The point is not that both people still have or don't have enough money to be comfortable with, the point is that one of them is being forced to give an infinitely higher percentage of his money to the armed robbers, I mean government - the poor person is paying 0%, and the rich person is paying 25.7%. That is monumentally unfair, and rather than spreading the tax burden equally, it is punishing the rich for accumulating wealth.

[DuncanK]

You guys are sick for wanting to tax the poor the way you want to

[Sava]

Originally posted by DuncanK
You guys are sick for wanting to tax the poor the way you want to

[Az]

No, I mean you're a lazy **** who thinks the world owes you a living. Are you unfamiliar with the concept of stealing?

Ok, it seems that the kiddy gloves should be off, and the flamethrower suit on.

Look, you little *****. one BILLION on this planet lives in on less than a dollar per day. There are tens of millions of people around the globe sick of HIV including the US, and when their pathetic worthless governments do try and help them, they're being threatened on the ground of intellectual property, WHILE MILLIONS HUMAN LIVES ARE AT STAKE. people dying from malnutrition, because their countrymen choose to plant coffee instread of food.
Kids all around the planet forced to go to ****ty schools, and to be humiliated by their friends because their father, something they had nothing to do with.

HOW DARE YOU CLAIM MORAL SUPERIORITY, while your basic law says "MINE IT'S ALL MINE", how dare you accuse of theft people that are trying to make more people happy.

You and your kind are an abomination of humankind, a twisted caricature of the progress of our great species.

[MRT144]

david, wealth and paying higher taxes is its own reward.

[DuncanK]

Go Azazel