What are your social, economic, and politic views.

Post Reply New Topic

I don't think you addressed his criticisms, you need to deal with his argument on the relationship between investment, consumption, and the tax rate. He essentially put forward a supply side argument and either you must claim that he is right, or he is wrong. I would sooner just cut programs and the tax rate, they owe the necessary costs for running a government, they get more taken from them than that.
I really tend to think not, as I would see it high university fees will encourage people to get degrees based more upon the perceived benefit of the degree, whereas otherwise they can get degrees for the hell of it. Also, a lack of work experience need not exist anyway, as internships should be an option, or even campus research. I think that the real matter is that people get crappy degrees that will not be employable. For example: if one gets a degree in engineering in the states they walk into a 50k salary fresh out of college in a nation where the GDP per capita is 40k, with a business degree they walk right into that 40k. The degrees are seen as valuable, and highly beneficial, they are not likely to be unemployed or underemployed. Johnnie's trucker friend probably got an advanced degree in English Literature or something of that nature, and overconsumption of that type of education is not beneficial. If we want to make an argument for college being beneficial, then it must be remembered that only certain educations really help everyone else, the useful degrees, but by subsidizing the entire thing we encourage the useless degrees.

How can there be a program to do that? What would it do? If it is a job search program then those are already being developed such as Monster.com. I don't think that there is really a job hunting problem here, I think it is that people are misusing resources, something that can be a problem in a world where college is privately paid for and likely more of a problem in a world where they don't.

More freedom. I don't really think we should have so many laws except to protect the rights and safety of individuals. So for example, I think gay marriage as well as marriages with more than two partners should be legal. That's not hurting anyone. I think more recreational drugs should be legal except for those that are very dangerously addictive like heroin. But I also don't think the drugs that cause temporary impairment should be sold at stores, instead only provided at bar-type places that, based on the dose, hold an individual for a limited period of time. That protects other's right to safety. Instead of a war on drugs we should be taxing the drugs (I'm speaking as a US citizen.) Then maybe we can stop feeding the rest of the world with weapons. On top of that I think the prison systems need to focus much more on rehabilitation and less on punishment.



I'm for free enterprise with some checks and balances to prevent monopolies. But I think healthcare should be socialized.



Democracy, and not a bipartisan system. My only concern with having many parties is that in certain times (like present day US) there may be a large number of fundamentalists in the country and their party may come to power. But I'm sure checks and balances can be put into place within the government. Might be more likely for a politician to manipulate that type of group anyway, as I believe has been done by the current president.

Most states run some sort of free truck driver training programs, do to the fact it's free and anyone who can pass a piss test and aim a truck can get qualified, wages tanked.
awsome gets the supply and demand situation, what good will be a college degree when everyone has one, about as good as the truck drivers license I have, not worth s**t in the labor force.

2 doctors got married, the taxes on their combined incomes where so high, one quit and they still had the same exact after tax disposable income because no more AMT or child care.`

40% income tax plus social security tax and state income taxes will convince more people to not bother working.Already 1/3 of the nations labor force doesn't work because the after tax income doesn't make it worthwhile. people turn down work and overtime because the after tax income doesn't make it worthwhile.

My sister quit a $20 an hour part time job because the after tax income sucked.

I dropped out of the labor force at 45 years old, what is 40% of nothing, ZERO.
Last year wasn't $15,000 in income taxes like i was paying a few years ago, it was ZERO.

you tax the rich people just don't get it and never will.

my property taxes kept going up and up,so I'm selling the house and moved to someplace with lower property taxes. the woman buying it works for the government, so she will pay ZERO taxes. All she will be doing is returning some of the money the government gives her back to the government, the government isn't getting a dime from her.

The USA is just a dot on the globe, if taxes are too high here, people will take their business someplace else, capitol will flee the country.
just look at Michigan, they taxed their auto industry out of the state. the workers just passed the high government spending onto their employers the auto companies who are going broke.

if you want to pay higher dentist bills, tax the s**t out of your dentist and he will raise his prices. go ahead and tax the rich, they will pass the cost right back to the little people.

leona helmsley the queen of mean siad only the little people pay taxes,she got the picture, raise her taxes and she would raise her prices.

If a dentist or any other professional wants to net $100,000 a year, it's irrelavent if his taxes are 90%, he will just raise his prices high enough to gross near a million dollars so he can net $100,000 after taxes.

liberals just don't get it and never will.

Right, I'll address all the other points later, but with income tax, it needs to be done properly.

90% income tax for any salary is just absurd and totally unfair.

20-25% of a 100,000 pound a year(my pound sign key doesn't appear to be working) income isn't exactly a huge financial burden in proportion to that person's huge income, is it? So long as they have a higher after-tax income than people who have a smaller overall income, then it's fair to tax about 25%. A person who earns less overall should be taxed less, about 5% tax would work for a person earning under 10000 pounds a year, and so on.

A person earning what, 3 hundred thousand pounds a year can do without 40% of that income, and still be mega rich. Even more so for the billionaires who earn millions, even hundreds of millions a year.

When the incentive to work is reduced, total tax revenue falls, so what is accomplished ?

Your logic was applied to me the truck driver, people said hey John has some investment income and can afford to pay lots of taxes, lets take all the money he makes driving a truck. John quit driving a truck and now they get nothing out of me.

I added up my paychecks from trucking for 2002,03 & 04 and than added up my taxes for the same three years, the government took everything I made working. I quit and put my house up for sale because they tax the s**t out of that also.

There is a town near new york city where most people make all sorts of money off their new york wall street financial district jobs and their own investments, you people can think you can take more of it because they have so much, but at some point they will say why bother going to work or why bother investing when the government takes so much of it and than the government will end up with less revenue.
They won't have as much income and won't buy another Rolls Royce and that puts people out of work in England. I'm not kidding about the Rolls Royce, the town has a Rolls Royce car dealership.

Does taxation without representation apply here? I know we have congress and senate, but who the heck do they represent? The rich or the poor? The employer or the employee? Also, what is everyone's opinion of career politicians?

Social: I don't care
Economic: I don't care
Political: I really, really and really don't care

They pander to special interest groups and use the treasury to buy their votes or more like use everyones tax money to buy votes.

Special interest groups blackmail politicians for their votes. Either provide the funding and give them what they want or they will go on full attack against the politicians who don't provide the funding.

The largest group of blackmailers are the teachers union. They have not only their members own votes, but also the parents backing them and if they turn on a politician he/she/it is toast. Next comes the health care industry, the drug companies and health care providers & insurance companies can wage war against any politician who doesn't keep the money flowing and they will get backup from the voters.

When the country was founded somebody said it will only survive until people discover they can use the voting booth to vote themselves things, we are there now.

you will when you are starving in the streets and I'm looking forward to seeing the day come when all the people like you get what you deserve for not caring.

I don't know, it really depends on what you would like to say should be proper representation anyway. I don't think it was that great of a slogan in the first place. Congress and the Senate represent themselves and whatever they can get. I don't like most political systems to be honest, for all that there is bad about our system there are many things bad about all other systems. The flaw in political systems tends to be that they must be political.

Not everyone should have a job. Some people simply aren't employable.

Of course, naturally. By that I mean that everyone who needs a job should be able to have a job.

There's a terrible labour shortage where I am right now, and all sorts of people are getting jobs when they shouldn't have them. They're total screw-ups who can't do the jobs they have because they're not competent, but the market pays them good wages because there's no one else to do the work - even to do it badly.

But if there wasn't a shortage of labour, these people wouldn't have jobs, and even though they probably want to have jobs, I'd rather they didn't, because they'd suck at them.

simple jobs have been automated, now the average moron is too stupid to do the more advance jobs no matter how much schooling and training they get.

Exactly.

not much fum if we agree with each other

part of the problem is a lot of very capable people are locked out of higher skilled jobs because of the hiring process employers use. So we have people employed way below their potential and people getting hired for jobs way over their heads because they are able to meet the basic qualifications required by the employer. Book smart, but unable to do much in the real world.

Add in the networking that gets people jobs and locks out people without the right connects and we get to deal with somebodies nephew who is stupid as s**t, but his uncle got him the job.