SoonerMatt
CAGiversary!
If you expect a country to run on people's generosity and donations then you are blissfully ignorant. People are selfish.
What's with this big anti-tax movement?
- Thread starter gareman
- Start date
The question should never be are my taxes too high, the question should be am I getting enough from my taxes? I read an article recently in foreign affairs on I believe it was Denmark. It talked about how they are largely a socialist nation and their tax rate is 50%. However for the 50% income taxes they pay they get years upon years worth of unemployment payments(that are like 90% of their former income or something crazy like that)their college is completely payed for and everyone has free health care as well as many other great government programs. Untill the recent influx of uneducated Muslim immigrants into the country their system was running extremely well with business booming, people happy and healthy and unemployment extremely low.
It shouldn't matter if the government takes a high % of your income if you get great services as a result. The problem is that Government services have not been performing recently.
As someone else pointed out another problem with the idea of letting people just keep their money and everyone the same amount.....its that rich people are no longer investing their money back into America. People are greedy and people are no longer patriotic. I cant recall if it was Warren Buffet or T Boone Pikens but one of the 2 talked about how rich Americans just dont invest their money back into the U.S the way they used to and that's why they feel the rich should be taxed more. They talked about how back in the day an American who did well for himself would turn around and reinvest his money into the U.S economy creating more jobs. Trickle down did work to an extent at least. However now there is more money to be made over seas then in the U.S. So rich people take their money and send it to India, China or Africa.
What is needed is a huge reform of government followed by huge government tax and spend. Take more(especially from the rich)but then turn around and invest it into creating green jobs, infrastructure and health care that works. This will not only provide a great service to the American people but create millions of new jobs. This would make our tax money be worth it which is more important then again how much we are taxed.
It shouldn't matter if the government takes a high % of your income if you get great services as a result. The problem is that Government services have not been performing recently.
As someone else pointed out another problem with the idea of letting people just keep their money and everyone the same amount.....its that rich people are no longer investing their money back into America. People are greedy and people are no longer patriotic. I cant recall if it was Warren Buffet or T Boone Pikens but one of the 2 talked about how rich Americans just dont invest their money back into the U.S the way they used to and that's why they feel the rich should be taxed more. They talked about how back in the day an American who did well for himself would turn around and reinvest his money into the U.S economy creating more jobs. Trickle down did work to an extent at least. However now there is more money to be made over seas then in the U.S. So rich people take their money and send it to India, China or Africa.
What is needed is a huge reform of government followed by huge government tax and spend. Take more(especially from the rich)but then turn around and invest it into creating green jobs, infrastructure and health care that works. This will not only provide a great service to the American people but create millions of new jobs. This would make our tax money be worth it which is more important then again how much we are taxed.
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='MSI Magus']The question should never be are my taxes too high, the question should be am I getting enough from my taxes? I read an article recently in foreign affairs on I believe it was Denmark. It talked about how they are largely a socialist nation and their tax rate is 50%. However for the 50% income taxes they pay they get years upon years worth of unemployment payments(that are like 90% of their former income or something crazy like that)their college is completely payed for and everyone has free health care as well as many other great government programs. Untill the recent influx of uneducated Muslim immigrants into the country their system was running extremely well with business booming, people happy and healthy and unemployment extremely low.[/quote]In before any actual
conservatives: what's their debt like?
conservatives: what's their debt like?
[quote name='The Crotch']In before any actual
conservatives: what's their debt like?[/QUOTE]
No clue but a quick google search brought this up.
In 2006 the US GDP was ~13 trillion dollars
The public debt was 8.6 trillion, or ~66% of the GDP
The budget deficit was 250 million dollars. (the government needed to borrow 250 million)
Therefore the national debt grew by 3%
In 2006 the Danish GDP was ~200 billion dollars
The public debt was 55.8 billion, or ~28% of the GDP
The budget surplus was ~8 billion
Therefore the national debt was reduced by 14%
It then implied they were on track to have paid off their debt by year end. So my guess is if that was correct they probably have either a surplus or a minor debt(especialy in comparison to us)right now. Then again as I said the article I read said that their system had gone swimmingly till recently when they started getting influxes in low educated immigrants who were abusing their welfare system and putting a serious strain in place.
conservatives: what's their debt like?[/QUOTE]
No clue but a quick google search brought this up.
In 2006 the US GDP was ~13 trillion dollars
The public debt was 8.6 trillion, or ~66% of the GDP
The budget deficit was 250 million dollars. (the government needed to borrow 250 million)
Therefore the national debt grew by 3%
In 2006 the Danish GDP was ~200 billion dollars
The public debt was 55.8 billion, or ~28% of the GDP
The budget surplus was ~8 billion
Therefore the national debt was reduced by 14%
It then implied they were on track to have paid off their debt by year end. So my guess is if that was correct they probably have either a surplus or a minor debt(especialy in comparison to us)right now. Then again as I said the article I read said that their system had gone swimmingly till recently when they started getting influxes in low educated immigrants who were abusing their welfare system and putting a serious strain in place.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='speedracer']Libertarians: we promise not to bail you out under any circumstances. Cause we love you.[/quote]
The answer isn't always cutting taxes. I'd suggest paying more in taxes until the debt is paid off, but I'd make requirements like a far smaller military happen before the public is fleeced more.
The most common answer with libertarianism is the government shouldn't be involved in the matter.
Why must everybody pay into social security? Why can't a person opt out of social security and risk his own retirement, disability and life insurance on his or her own?
Why must everybody pay into building new schools and hospitals? New high schools are grand and all, but why should the childless pay into their creation or maintenance?
There are dozens of examples where the government pays people to make bad choices? The only arbiter of these choices to determine their worth? The government.
Libertarianism: Your on your own! Good luck!
The answer isn't always cutting taxes. I'd suggest paying more in taxes until the debt is paid off, but I'd make requirements like a far smaller military happen before the public is fleeced more.
The most common answer with libertarianism is the government shouldn't be involved in the matter.
Why must everybody pay into social security? Why can't a person opt out of social security and risk his own retirement, disability and life insurance on his or her own?
Why must everybody pay into building new schools and hospitals? New high schools are grand and all, but why should the childless pay into their creation or maintenance?
There are dozens of examples where the government pays people to make bad choices? The only arbiter of these choices to determine their worth? The government.
Libertarianism: Your on your own! Good luck!
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The answer isn't always cutting taxes. I'd suggest paying more in taxes until the debt is paid off, but I'd make requirements like a far smaller military happen before the public is fleeced more.
The most common answer with libertarianism is the government shouldn't be involved in the matter.
Why must everybody pay into social security? Why can't a person opt out of social security and risk his own retirement, disability and life insurance on his or her own?
Why must everybody pay into building new schools and hospitals? New high schools are grand and all, but why should the childless pay into their creation or maintenance?
There are dozens of examples where the government pays people to make bad choices? The only arbiter of these choices to determine their worth? The government.
Libertarianism: Your on your own! Good luck![/QUOTE]
Libertarianism: Welcome to Rapture
The most common answer with libertarianism is the government shouldn't be involved in the matter.
Why must everybody pay into social security? Why can't a person opt out of social security and risk his own retirement, disability and life insurance on his or her own?
Why must everybody pay into building new schools and hospitals? New high schools are grand and all, but why should the childless pay into their creation or maintenance?
There are dozens of examples where the government pays people to make bad choices? The only arbiter of these choices to determine their worth? The government.
Libertarianism: Your on your own! Good luck![/QUOTE]
Libertarianism: Welcome to Rapture
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='MSI Magus']Libertarianism: Welcome to Rapture[/quote]
I understand Conservatism adheres to "Judeo-Christian" values, but does Libertarianism really adhere to any religion?
I understand Conservatism adheres to "Judeo-Christian" values, but does Libertarianism really adhere to any religion?
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']The answer isn't always cutting taxes. I'd suggest paying more in taxes until the debt is paid off, but I'd make requirements like a far smaller military happen before the public is fleeced more.[/quote]
I would take that deal in a heart beat.
I would take that deal in a heart beat.
Because when they screw it up (and they will), we will pay for it anyway. Like we are now.
Because humans are naturally social organizers. We band together and then establish service floors, like basic education until the age of 18. It's an expression of human social nature. Libertarians (not you specifically) talk about the natural order of greed as if you're an absolute imbecile if you don't address it, but totally discard the natural order of social organization. I don't get it.
Sure, it ain't perfect. But the other horses in the race ain't doing so hot either.
*until you screw it up and we save you from your own stupidity because we ultimately care about our fellow man.
[quote name='Strell']
Blah-dee blah blah, blah blah dee dee blah dee blah... I hate bmulligan for picking on me in the Nintendo forums six months ago... blah blah blah dee blah dee blah...[/QUOTE]
Did you actually have a point to your post or do you just need to vent on me, personally? I'm guessing it's just a personal thing because you have to know that the workers who work for the rich doods get pizzaid and get to feed their families with their wages. You just seem to have a problem with people making "obscene" profits from the sale of houses. Envy doesn't suit you, Strell. Whether your envious of Paris Hilton because she has more money than you, or anyone else because they've worked harder than you to earn it, their success doesn't threaten you in the slightest, doesn't steal food from your refrigerator, or dollars from your wallet so they can live high on the hog.
They ARE the ones who pay the taxes to give you public TV, the local bus system, the space program and all that great federally funded, nobel scientist lobbying research. They are the ones who are paying for the war in Iraq, the national defense, the department of education, health, welfare, interior, etc., so they have every right to bitch about paying taxes because relatively, you're just a hanger-on who has no right to bitch about their existence, and they have every right to bitch about yours.
Now if you want to talk about or monetary system, the collusion to keep people in debt and dependent on those evil "rich" people, or how our government is used to strong-arm the world by the World-Corporate Elite, that's another argument. The bottom line is that the existence of what you think are "the rich" do not mean a greater amount of squalor and starvation for America's poor. Wealth is not a zero-sum gain equation. Using this rich-poor politics of envy is a convenient tool to divide the American people into believing redistribution is the answer to all societal ills.
You're mad about the bailouts? Me too. But your taxes (if you even pay any) aren't paying for it as far as you know ( well you are, but the inflationary nature of the bailout is another argument again). Did you bother to write or call your congressman? Or do you just bitch about before, during, and afterwards? My guess is the latter, but I'd like to think I'm wrong.
Blah-dee blah blah, blah blah dee dee blah dee blah... I hate bmulligan for picking on me in the Nintendo forums six months ago... blah blah blah dee blah dee blah...[/QUOTE]
Did you actually have a point to your post or do you just need to vent on me, personally? I'm guessing it's just a personal thing because you have to know that the workers who work for the rich doods get pizzaid and get to feed their families with their wages. You just seem to have a problem with people making "obscene" profits from the sale of houses. Envy doesn't suit you, Strell. Whether your envious of Paris Hilton because she has more money than you, or anyone else because they've worked harder than you to earn it, their success doesn't threaten you in the slightest, doesn't steal food from your refrigerator, or dollars from your wallet so they can live high on the hog.
They ARE the ones who pay the taxes to give you public TV, the local bus system, the space program and all that great federally funded, nobel scientist lobbying research. They are the ones who are paying for the war in Iraq, the national defense, the department of education, health, welfare, interior, etc., so they have every right to bitch about paying taxes because relatively, you're just a hanger-on who has no right to bitch about their existence, and they have every right to bitch about yours.
Now if you want to talk about or monetary system, the collusion to keep people in debt and dependent on those evil "rich" people, or how our government is used to strong-arm the world by the World-Corporate Elite, that's another argument. The bottom line is that the existence of what you think are "the rich" do not mean a greater amount of squalor and starvation for America's poor. Wealth is not a zero-sum gain equation. Using this rich-poor politics of envy is a convenient tool to divide the American people into believing redistribution is the answer to all societal ills.
You're mad about the bailouts? Me too. But your taxes (if you even pay any) aren't paying for it as far as you know ( well you are, but the inflationary nature of the bailout is another argument again). Did you bother to write or call your congressman? Or do you just bitch about before, during, and afterwards? My guess is the latter, but I'd like to think I'm wrong.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='speedracer']Because when they screw it up (and they will), we will pay for it anyway. Like we are now.[/quote]
Perhaps some private individual or organization would support somebody who screwed up their life. However, the government wouldn't assist the person IF the person chose not to participate in social programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc.
[quote name='speedracer'] Because humans are naturally social organizers. We band together and then establish service floors, like basic education until the age of 18. It's an expression of human social nature. Libertarians (not you specifically) talk about the natural order of greed as if you're an absolute imbecile if you don't address it, but totally discard the natural order of social organization. I don't get it.[/quote]
That doesn't make sense. Let's assume a person chose to not have any children by choice or circumstance. Why should a person be forced to participate in a social contribution neither he/she nor any of his/her offspring will enjoy? For a different example, why should a person contribute to social security's retirement program if a genetic disorder guarantees death by the age of 40?
[quote name='speedracer'] Sure, it ain't perfect. But the other horses in the race ain't doing so hot either.[/quote]
The other horses aren't allowed in the race in America. Conservatism: We need a larger military to enforce Jeebus's will and only programs approved by the Bible should be federally funded. Liberalism: We need to put a lot of money in a big pile and fund every domestic program as long as it doesn't involve religion or possibly suggest somebody is inferior to another person.
[quote name='speedracer'] *until you screw it up and we save you from your own stupidity because we ultimately care about our fellow man.[/quote]
In Libertarianism, altruism becomes a private affair.
Perhaps some private individual or organization would support somebody who screwed up their life. However, the government wouldn't assist the person IF the person chose not to participate in social programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc.
[quote name='speedracer'] Because humans are naturally social organizers. We band together and then establish service floors, like basic education until the age of 18. It's an expression of human social nature. Libertarians (not you specifically) talk about the natural order of greed as if you're an absolute imbecile if you don't address it, but totally discard the natural order of social organization. I don't get it.[/quote]
That doesn't make sense. Let's assume a person chose to not have any children by choice or circumstance. Why should a person be forced to participate in a social contribution neither he/she nor any of his/her offspring will enjoy? For a different example, why should a person contribute to social security's retirement program if a genetic disorder guarantees death by the age of 40?
[quote name='speedracer'] Sure, it ain't perfect. But the other horses in the race ain't doing so hot either.[/quote]
The other horses aren't allowed in the race in America. Conservatism: We need a larger military to enforce Jeebus's will and only programs approved by the Bible should be federally funded. Liberalism: We need to put a lot of money in a big pile and fund every domestic program as long as it doesn't involve religion or possibly suggest somebody is inferior to another person.
[quote name='speedracer'] *until you screw it up and we save you from your own stupidity because we ultimately care about our fellow man.[/quote]
In Libertarianism, altruism becomes a private affair.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Perhaps some private individual or organization would support somebody who screwed up their life. However, the government wouldn't assist the person IF the person chose not to participate in social programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc.[/quote]
But it never ends up that way, does it? I mean realistically?
I appreciate that some of these things sound quite nice given our current ridiculous government bloat, but I'm arguing from the point that the bloat is the problem. I don't really see the point of debating the question of whether a government has the 'right' to tax and spend.
I'm not against libertarianism per se. I just think they should go ruin someone else's country.
But it never ends up that way, does it? I mean realistically?
The problem is that you could theoretically opt out of every single governmental program. Where would that leave us other than with a dressed up anarchic society? Not just education and social welfare, but defense, transportation, etc. And how would you form national and international policy with so little a support base?
I appreciate that some of these things sound quite nice given our current ridiculous government bloat, but I'm arguing from the point that the bloat is the problem. I don't really see the point of debating the question of whether a government has the 'right' to tax and spend.
A great idea can catch on, there's just no great idea with libertarianism. People just flat aren't interested, which makes them stupid sheeple or something of that nature (so goes the message board logic).
fixed that for you.
I'm not against libertarianism per se. I just think they should go ruin someone else's country.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Perhaps some private individual or organization would support somebody who screwed up their life. However, the government wouldn't assist the person IF the person chose not to participate in social programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc.
That doesn't make sense. Let's assume a person chose to not have any children by choice or circumstance. Why should a person be forced to participate in a social contribution neither he/she nor any of his/her offspring will enjoy? For a different example, why should a person contribute to social security's retirement program if a genetic disorder guarantees death by the age of 40?
The other horses aren't allowed in the race in America. Conservatism: We need a larger military to enforce Jeebus's will and only programs approved by the Bible should be federally funded. Liberalism: We need to put a lot of money in a big pile and fund every domestic program as long as it doesn't involve religion or possibly suggest somebody is inferior to another person.
In Libertarianism, altruism becomes a private affair.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, when a person screws up their retirement the private sector will jump in. Just like when a bank or federal institution won't loan to a person who has "screwed" up their credit, then their are those wonderful payday loan companies that chose to keep their "altruism" a private affair.
I can't believe people don't see the advantage everyone has when we all pay for education--childless or not. Whether it be technological advancements that a child might grow up to, or BUSINESS opportunity they might create, or just the day to day interactions of being around people that are fundamentally educated.
Also altruism is not altruism if people are demanding it be private. Altruism is selflessness, if one is concerned about not having a choice in helping people than it is not altruism. Altruism is not about having a choice or even having yourself fit into the equation...its just something that Is. Now whether or not this concept of drive to help and raise the welfare of others as a just Is really exist is for another debate.
That doesn't make sense. Let's assume a person chose to not have any children by choice or circumstance. Why should a person be forced to participate in a social contribution neither he/she nor any of his/her offspring will enjoy? For a different example, why should a person contribute to social security's retirement program if a genetic disorder guarantees death by the age of 40?
The other horses aren't allowed in the race in America. Conservatism: We need a larger military to enforce Jeebus's will and only programs approved by the Bible should be federally funded. Liberalism: We need to put a lot of money in a big pile and fund every domestic program as long as it doesn't involve religion or possibly suggest somebody is inferior to another person.
In Libertarianism, altruism becomes a private affair.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, when a person screws up their retirement the private sector will jump in. Just like when a bank or federal institution won't loan to a person who has "screwed" up their credit, then their are those wonderful payday loan companies that chose to keep their "altruism" a private affair.
I can't believe people don't see the advantage everyone has when we all pay for education--childless or not. Whether it be technological advancements that a child might grow up to, or BUSINESS opportunity they might create, or just the day to day interactions of being around people that are fundamentally educated.
Also altruism is not altruism if people are demanding it be private. Altruism is selflessness, if one is concerned about not having a choice in helping people than it is not altruism. Altruism is not about having a choice or even having yourself fit into the equation...its just something that Is. Now whether or not this concept of drive to help and raise the welfare of others as a just Is really exist is for another debate.
bread's done