...And taxes.

[MrktMkr1986]

Why?

To eliminate budget deficits and pay off the crippling national debt.

40% is a whole lot of money, especially when your upper tax bracket would probably be over a very large range of amounts of money. That is unless it was set to a very high starting point.

Perhaps. Consider this, though: The income tax rate at one point was more than double that for top-income earners.

Social Security on the other hand is a complete crap system and should be ridden of.

Until someone comes up with a viable solution, it's here to stay. Though this may sound ironic coming from me:

Handing the money over to Wall Street (err... privatization) is NOT the solution.

I am tired of donating 12.4% of my income--which right now I think I get most of back anyways since I only work in the summers at the moment, but that is not the point--to Social Security. It is money I will never see again, gone away to some imaginary land.

So you'd rather pay someone like me 12.4% to get back 9% (or less) on your investment? j/k

As I said before... unless someone can come up with a viable solution to the social security "problem" it is here to stay. I know of many people who would probably be homeless without social security. I for one would rather pay 12.4% of my income to help someone than to pay for this.

 

[Joey D]

To eliminate budget deficits and pay off the crippling national debt.

Best way to get rid of the debit is to quit giving foreign aid out and demand repayment of outstanding loans. Then we need to stay in America and not be the solutions to the world's problems.

 

[Brett]

Perhaps. Consider this, though: The income tax rate at one point was more than double that for top-income earners.

And at one point, there was also not an income tax.

So you'd rather pay someone like me 12.4% to get back 9% (or less) on your investment? j/k

As I said before... unless someone can come up with a viable solution to the social security "problem" it is here to stay. I know of many people who would probably be homeless without social security. I for one would rather pay 12.4% of my income to help someone than to pay for this.

How about a solution in which it is put onto the individual to put however much they want into their savings each month and then not ever spend it? Or better yet, why don't the said individuals make a seperate savings account for that money into? But then again, this is not viable because people can't keep track of their own money and take responsibility for putting money away for later in life. So instead, we get to put our money into Social Security and never get to see it again. I would much rather be responsible for myself and future monetary responsibilities than put my money into a system that will never be seen again by myself.

 

[Carl.]

I think I could live with a flat tax rate, but only from a certain amount of income. Taxing money that families with lower income would otherwise use for basic needs would be quite stupid and obviously have an higher social cost than having slightly higher taxes for higher income brackets.

I'm sorry, I don't buy the "no incentive to work harder" because you get more taxed rhetoric. Let's say an execs making over 10 times more than his secretary. who has barely enough to pay for the rent, food, utilities, insurance and transportation for her family. In Libertopia's "fair" world, the CEO could replace his S500 with an S600 while the secretary would only be closer to (if not having to) resort to charity for some of her basic family needs. How's that such a great thing? (oh, forgive me. "What a grrreat incentive to work harder!!")

I live in the most heavily taxed place in North America, and I've seen plenty of people with high income still being productive, and enjoying the high amount of wealth they've earned. If you're telling me that you'll stop trying to go to the top because then you'll have to pay more taxes, well, sorry, but if that was enough to stop you, it just means that you don't belong to the top.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Best way to get rid of the debit is to quit giving foreign aid out and demand repayment of outstanding loans.

I disagree. I say we forgive the loans and quit giving foreign military aid.

Then we need to stay in America and not be the solutions to the world's problems.

Staying in America sounds like a good idea -- which is why I proposed taxing excessive offshoring.

And at one point, there was also not an income tax.

Because there was no infrastructure. We need the money to pay for the government goods and services that we use everyday. So unless US citizens decide they want to live like people lived in 1912, income taxes are here to stay.

How about a solution in which it is put onto the individual to put however much they want into their savings each month and then not ever spend it?

Unless the savings rate outpaces inflation (and it almost never does), that's a bad idea.

Or better yet, why don't the said individuals make a seperate savings account for that money into? But then again, this is not viable because people can't keep track of their own money and take responsibility for putting money away for later in life.

For the most part.

So instead, we get to put our money into Social Security and never get to see it again. I would much rather be responsible for myself and future monetary responsibilities than put my money into a system that will never be seen again by myself.

Social Security is not going to disappear. This is a myth put out by the far right to scare people into losing faith in a system that has (time and again) worked despite their efforts to bring about its demise. Bush came VERY close to privatizing Social Security. Enough people exposed the attempt for what it was, and he backed down.

Rather than raising the taxes to finance social security, eliminating (or at the very least raising) the $90,000 cap will solve the issue of financing.

I'm sorry, I don't buy the "no incentive to work harder" because you get more taxed rhetoric. Let's say an execs making over 10 times more than his secretary. who has barely enough to pay for the rent, food, utilities, insurance and transportation for her family. In Libertopia's "fair" world, the CEO could replace his S500 with an S600 while the secretary would only be closer to (if not having to) resort to charity for some of her basic family needs. How's that such a great thing? (oh, forgive me. "What a grrreat incentive to work harder!!")

I live in the most heavily taxed place in North America, and I've seen plenty of people with high income still being productive, and enjoying the high amount of wealth they've earned. If you're telling me that you'll stop trying to go to the top because then you'll have to pay more taxes, well, sorry, but if that was enough to stop you, it just means that you don't belong to the top.

Well said. That's like me saying I'm going to stop investing because the capital gains tax increased.

 

[Sage]

Best way to get rid of the debit is to quit giving foreign aid out and demand repayment of outstanding loans.

Bingo. Right now the United States has a big sign over its head, saying “Take our money, please!” We need that sign torn down.

If you're telling me that you'll stop trying to go to the top because then you'll have to pay more taxes, well, sorry, but if that was enough to stop you, it just means that you don't belong to the top.

So you’re saying that I’d have no right to be pissed if my harder work resulted in the government stealing more money from me? It’s not an issue of whether rich people can live off of $700,000 a year versus $800,000 – it’s a moral issue. By having a progressive tax, we’re saying The more productive you are, the more we steal from you; the less productive you are, the more benefits you get.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Bingo. Right now the United States has a big sign over its head, saying “Take our money, please!” We need that sign torn down.

Not necessarily. We're giving our money away strategically.

So you’re saying that I’d have no right to be pissed if my harder work resulted in the government stealing more money from me?

Poor choice of words. Taxes are not theft. You're paying (for the most part) for goods/services provided by the government.

It’s not an issue of whether rich people can live off of $700,000 a year versus $800,000 – it’s a moral issue. By having a progressive tax, we’re saying The more productive you are, the more we steal from you; the less productive you are, the more benefits you get.

Or "the more productive you are, the more you've taken from the government".

 

[Joey D]

Not necessarily. We're giving our money away strategically.

We shouldn't be giving any of our money away, it should be spent on our own country.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

We shouldn't be giving any of our money away, it should be spent on our own country.

Not going to happen thanks to globalization.

We need to maintain a presence in other countries if we're going to stay on top. However (and I think you'd agree), that's not where my tax money should be spent.

 

[Brett]

We shouldn't be giving any of our money away, it should be spent on our own country.

And it should be freely spent by the citizens, not sent to the government through taxes.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

And it should be freely spent by the citizens, not sent to the government through taxes.

So basically you're saying we should privatize all government goods and services?

 

[Joey D]

Actually I think my tax dollars are wasted a lot in my own country as well. Welfare being the biggest waste in my mind. Also I don't really think NASA is all that stellar, well current NASA I should say. There are other programs I think are a waste as well. I think my tax dollars should be spent in education, medical, military, roads, police, fire, stuff like that.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Actually I think my tax dollars are wasted a lot in my own country as well. Welfare being the biggest waste in my mind. Also I don't really think NASA is all that stellar, well current NASA I should say. There are other programs I think are a waste as well. I think my tax dollars should be spent in education, medical, military, roads, police, fire, stuff like that.

I agree with everything you said except:

Military spending should be cut; individual welfare spending should increase. Corporate welfare is the biggest waste.

 

[Brett]

So basically you're saying we should privatize all government goods and services?

Yep, both government size and overview have become too large. They seem to think they need to have their nose in everything.

 

[Carl.]

So you’re saying that I’d have no right to be pissed if my harder work resulted in the government stealing more money from me? It’s not an issue of whether rich people can live off of $700,000 a year versus $800,000 – it’s a moral issue. By having a progressive tax, we’re saying The more productive you are, the more we steal from you; the less productive you are, the more benefits you get.

I don't agree with the libertarian principle that taxation is theft. A bit like if I wanted to get rid of our police force. After all, it's a coercive force that works against my freedom!!

You also do not get more benefits by being less productive. Again, I live in the most heavily taxed place in North America, yet the benefits I gain from working harder, or being more productive easily offset any benefits I can gain from the government, regardless of my productivity. For that, benefits have to remain safety nets, not confort zones though.

 

[Joey D]

I agree with everything you said except:

Military spending should be cut; individual welfare spending should increase. Corporate welfare is the biggest waste.

Personal welfare is a waste of my money, you shouldn't be able to sit around and get money while I bust my ass to make it. Main reason I don't give to charity, it goes to all the wrong people.

Military spending is what keeps our country safe. Military men and women aren't paid enough for what they do.

 

[Brett]

I don't agree with the libertarian principle that taxation is theft.

The libertarian principle is not that taxation is theft. You might want to look up what Libertarians platform stands for before you just go throwing stuff around.

Here is a link for you: The Libertarians' View on Taxation

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Personal welfare is a waste of my money, you shouldn't be able to sit around and get money while I bust my ass to make it.

In an economy that has to have a 4-6% unemployment rate, you should be thankful that welfare exists. Think of it as insurance; welfare is not enough to live on.

Main reason I don't give to charity, it goes to all the wrong people.

I'm selective about the charities I give to. But most charities are in the business of making money for themselves (70-75% administrative costs!!!).

"People Welfare" is a nothing payment... ~$118 billion (AFDC alone = ~$9 billion).

Corporate welfare = ~$400-800 billion.

Military spending is what keeps our country safe. Military men and women aren't paid enough for what they do.

Military spending is what causes wars. Military men and women should be paid more -- to do the right thing.

The libertarian principle is not that taxation is theft. You might want to look up what Libertarians platform stands for before you just go throwing stuff around.

Here is a link for you: The Libertarians' View on Taxation

That should read:

"The Libertarian Party is working every day to cut your services."

VTS, I need to ask you:

1. What services do you want to cut? (You can't just cut taxes and expect to pay for everything)

2. Who benefits from said tax cut? Who gets shafted?

3. Who makes up for the difference if services are not cut? (Since the rich pay less and the poor can't afford to give more)

4. How much money did you calculate you would have saved with a "flat-tax" or zero income tax?

5. In the 1950s (when we had record growth and prosperity in the US) the marginal rate of income tax was 90%. Now, can you explain to me how high taxes discourages investment?

 

[Zardoz]

...Main reason I don't give to charity, it goes to all the wrong people...

Who are the "right" people?

 

[Joey D]

In an economy that has to have a 4-6% unemployment rate, you should be thankful that welfare exists. Think of it as insurance; welfare is not enough to live on.

Why would I be thankful, they can get off their ass and go get a job at McDonald's or something. I'm a hard working person who works 40 hours a week and goes to school full time. I don't have a problem.

I'm selective about the charities I give to. But most charities are in the business of making money for themselves (70-75% administrative costs!!!).

"People Welfare" is a nothing payment... ~$118 billion (AFDC alone = ~$9 billion).

Corporate welfare = ~$400-800 billion.

It should all be done away with, corporate & personal.

Military spending is what causes wars. Military men and women should be paid more -- to do the right thing.

Sometimes war is needed, this is were military comes in. You won't ever change my mind about the military, they are some of the best people I know and deserve more then we give them. They do the right thing, they go out and do their job.

Who are the "right" people?

Red Cross is about it, only place I give to and most of the time its my blood.

 

[Famine]

("Voluntarily"? Does Paris "volunteer" to pay the VAT on her Bentleys? Do you "volunteer" to pay it on all your purchases?)

Yes. VAT is not levied on necessities. Last I checked, no-one NEEDED a Bentley.

Income tax should be graduated:

15% for the first "x" dollars of income, 25% for the next "y" dollars of income, and 40% for income above "y" (at the federal level) -- no exceptions.

Sounds like you'd love to live in the UK. First £4,600 tax free, next £5,500 at 10%, next £35,000 at 22% and everything over £42,000 at 40%.

And it doesn't work here either.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

they can get off their ass and go get a job at McDonald's or something. I'm a hard working person who works 40 hours a week and goes to school full time. I don't have a problem.

I'm glad to hear you're not having any problems. However, to make the assumption that everyone who has the ability to work can work is absurd. Can you point to a single (advanced) economy that has 0% unemployment?

Sometimes war is needed, this is were military comes in. You won't ever change my mind about the military, they are some of the best people I know and deserve more then we give them. They do the right thing, they go out and do their job.

I know people in the military too... however, I disagree with many of the reasons given to go a particular war. The military's only job (along with the other public authorities) should be to DEFEND the United States and it's MILITARY interests abroad. Not start a war over economics.

Sounds like you'd love to live in the UK. First £4,600 tax free, next £5,500 at 10%, next £35,000 at 22% and everything over £42,000 at 40%.

And it doesn't work here either.

Care to explain why? I'd consider living in the UK. Preferably as close to the City of London as possible. Exchange Square.

 

[Joey D]

I'm glad to hear you're not having any problems. However, to make the assumption that everyone who has the ability to work can work is absurd. Can you point to a single (advanced) economy that has 0% unemployment?

Everyone over the age of 16 who isn't medically incapiable can work, and even some people who have illnesses can still work and I would encourage them to. People with mental illnesses work at a lot of stores and I commend the store for doing that, these people deserve the chance to live normal lives.

I had my first job when I was 16 and I come from an extremely wealthy family. I had a job because my parents didn't give me anything. As it should be.

But I would say all but >1% of the workable population could work. Many choose not to.

I know people in the military too... however, I disagree with many of the reasons given to go a particular war. The military's only job (along with the other public authorities) should be to DEFEND the United States and it's MILITARY interests abroad. Not start a war over economics.

Defending sometimes means pre-emptive strike. Which is the reason we are in the Middle East. I think we should say screw the world and be concerned with ourselfs, but thats not going to happen so might as well have a good military because there will always be war. Think logically.

 

[Carl.]

The libertarian principle is not that taxation is theft. You might want to look up what Libertarians platform stands for before you just go throwing stuff around.

Here is a link for you: The Libertarians' View on Taxation

It may not mentioned like that in the official LP Platform, but it's repeated ad nauseum by libertarians and objectivists in about every debate about the topic, wheter it is "all taxes are theft", or "taxation for healthcare is theft", "taxation for social security is theft", that doesn't make much difference to me.

A tax for a service which everyone may benefit from if he needs to ISN'T theft, otherwise taxes you pay to keep firefighting service are also theft. To frame a tax you don't agree with as theft is wrong, and misleading.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Everyone over the age of 16 who isn't medically incapiable can work, and even some people who have illnesses can still work and I would encourage them to.

Then why are corporations constantly laying people off -- or offshoring jobs? Presumably those people can go find jobs, but statistically they get paid only ~82% of the money they made at their previous job (pushing them closer to the poverty level). Welfare is there to help offset some of their living expenses temporarily. It's not a waste.

I would encourage people to work too (I also started working at 16), but in terms of economics you cannot just tell EVERYONE to get job and expect them too at the same time. As an aside, I remember reading some statistics that show that a majority of the people on welfare WANT to work.

People with mental illnesses work at a lot of stores and I commend the store for doing that, these people deserve the chance to live normal lives.

I don't see a problem with that.

I had my first job when I was 16 and I come from an extremely wealthy family. I had a job because my parents didn't give me anything. As it should be.

Agreed. 👍 But you can't make the assumption that everyone has the same opportunities or advantages that you have/had.

But I would say all but >1% of the workable population could work. Many choose not to.

The lowest unemployment rate that I can think of is about 1.8-2% just after WW2. It had reached about 2-2.5% in Massachusetts (Boston, I think) in the 1980s if I remember correctly. Other than that, I don't think it's possible for the unemployment rate to drop that low.

Defending sometimes means pre-emptive strike. Which is the reason we are in the Middle East. I think we should say screw the world and be concerned with ourselfs, but thats not going to happen so might as well have a good military because there will always be war. Think logically.

We spend more on the military than any other country in the world combined. That's excessive -- some of that money could be used on butter.

 

[Dave A]

Everyone over the age of 16 who isn't medically incapiable can work, and even some people who have illnesses can still work and I would encourage them to. People with mental illnesses work at a lot of stores and I commend the store for doing that, these people deserve the chance to live normal lives.

Defending sometimes means pre-emptive strike. Which is the reason we are in the Middle East. I think we should say screw the world and be concerned with ourselfs, but thats not going to happen so might as well have a good military because there will always be war. Think logically.

The first paragraph, I totally agree with, if your capable of working theres no excuse to not go out and look for work. Theres obviousely going to be odd cases where employment may not be available ect, benefits should become available to people who simply can't work for whatever valid reason such as certain ilnesses/incapacities and no available jobs in an area which can happen in more rural areas, I can't be bothered is not one of them.

The second point, in this day and age, the military in an unfortunate nessecity, it needs funding to be kept running. I don't like the military it'self, though I commend many for defending their country, it's not the soldiers/generals or any individuals fault the world is so uncertain today. However, if everyone genuinely wanted peace, and was striving to achieve that, the military armies could be dramatically cut, that would be a good thing, but only if that happened, and the sad truth is it won't. Not in the near future anyway.

 

[Dave A]

Then why are corporations constantly laying people off -- or offshoring jobs? Presumably those people can go find jobs, but statistically they get paid only ~82% of the money they made at their previous job (pushing them closer to the poverty level). Welfare is there to help offset some of their living expenses temporarily. It's not a waste.

I would encourage people to work too (I also started working at 16), but in terms of economics (my major) you cannot just tell EVERYONE to get job and expect them too at the same time. As an aside, I remember reading some statistics that show that a majority of the people on welfare WANT to work.

As I said ion my last post, it's going to happen where you'll see capable people who want to work, out of work. If you were to becom unemployed for whatever reason, go and claim, but they need to be told to get a job becuase they could lose thier benefits. It shouldn't be a set rule either, it should depend on the area and the current economy of that area, if theirs thousands of jobs avaialbe for that person that he's qualified for, give him 1 month's benefits max, if theres almost no jobs in the area, then he should be allowed the opportunity to stay on benefits until the circumstances change. People claiming month after month who can work but do not work and have hundereds of jobs available, do not deserve benefits.

 

[Famine]

Care to explain why? I'd consider living in the UK. Preferably as close to the City of London as possible. Exchange Square.

Try it. I won't need to explain why.

And have a quite shufty about how badly in debt we are. And how nothing supposedly funded by income taxation works.

 

[Joey D]

Then why are corporations constantly laying people off -- or offshoring jobs? Presumably those people can go find jobs, but statistically they get paid only ~82% of the money they made at their previous job (pushing them closer to the poverty level). Welfare is there to help offset some of their living expenses temporarily. It's not a waste.

I would encourage people to work too (I also started working at 16), but in terms of economics (my major) you cannot just tell EVERYONE to get job and expect them too at the same time. As an aside, I remember reading some statistics that show that a majority of the people on welfare WANT to work.

This is another issue our country needs to address, quit shipping jobs overseas. I still think welfare is a crock.

Agreed. But you can't make the assumption that everyone has the same opportunities or advantages that you have/had.

Anyone can get a McDonald's job, my first job was at an import tuner store sweeping floors and stacking boxes making a wonderful 6 bucks an hour.

The lowest unemployment rate that I can think of is about 1.8-2% just after WW2. It had reached about 2-2.5% in Massachusetts (Boston, I think) in the 1980s if I remember correctly. Other than that, I don't think it's possible for the unemployment rate to drop that low.

Just because the unemployment rate isn't that low doesn't mean there are no jobs. Many people choose not to work because they would have to take a lower paying job. A job is still a job.

We spend more on the military than any other country in the world combined. That's excessive -- some of that money could be used on butter.

The second point, in this day and age, the military in an unfortunate nessecity, it needs funding to be kept running. I don't like the military it'self, though I commend many for defending their country, it's not the soldiers/generals or any individuals fault the world is so uncertain today. However, if everyone genuinely wanted peace, and was striving to achieve that, the military armies could be dramatically cut, that would be a good thing, but only if that happened, and the sad truth is it won't. Not in the near future anyway.

Well if the world was different we could easily have a low funded almost non exsistant military.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

This is another issue our country needs to address, quit shipping jobs overseas.

Institute taxes on profits made overseas. Provide tax breaks for profits made domestically.

Anyone can get a McDonald's job, my first job was at an import tuner store sweeping floors and stacking boxes making a wonderful 6 bucks an hour.

Seems I've been blessed. My first job was at a small computer company making $8/hr -- which is a lot if you only have yourself to support, but for a family of 3, 4, or 5 -- no way (Delphi... ).

Just because the unemployment rate isn't that low doesn't mean there are no jobs. Many people choose not to work because they would have to take a lower paying job. A job is still a job.

That's asinine. But in general, accepting a lower paying job (especially when you have family to take care of) is easier said than done.

Well if the world was different we could easily have a low funded almost non exsistant military.

The world would be better off if we had a lower funded military to begin with -- and we could save on taxes at home!