What do people here think of Progressive Taxation I for one

Page 2 of 3 [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,568

04 Feb 2011, 7:58 am

AceOfSpades wrote:
I think progressive taxation is bullshit and that generational poverty needs to be dealt with by addressing the culture of poverty rather than through entitlements and handouts. Yes I do believe society should have a safety net, but the safety net is too easily abused as a comfort net.

@ xenon13: Taxes don't make people work harder if they're already working as hard as they can, it simply bottlenecks the rate at which they make investments since they are left with less money for investments after taxes and operating costs. Effort doesn't just go into how many hours you work, but also what type of investments you make and progressive taxing hampers the rate at which people make investments big time.


Generational Poverty? So I take it you have never heard of NAIRU. You must not read my posts for I go on about it all the time. What about the existence of low wage work. Someone has to do that work. Moreover, I said that taxes give value to currency. That's what's called the State Theory of Money. So you hard money fanatics should be supporters of high taxes. Practically, the value of money is tied to the size and health of the internal market when the currency is used. Destroying demand in the name of punishing the poor, in the name of virtue, this is another great way to destroy the value of the currency.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

04 Feb 2011, 10:32 am

ruveyn wrote:
skafather84 wrote:

Okay so it's simply a matter of your not understanding what money is and how it works. Do you know what money is? Do you know what gives it value? Do you know who owns it?


What is money then. I thought money is a universally accepted trade good. You probably have a different definition.

ruveyn


A slightly more defined version which you use part of that definition before when describing it as a tool.

It's not simply just an accepted tool for trading goods but it's also a very tenuous phenomenon that requires, at times, as much faith in it as one might have in a deity. The flow of money is important to retaining its value. This is hampered by legislation that keeps the top 1% of earners (in an already extreme spectrum of income) safe from all the required taxation which allows the money to flow back through the system via government programs focused on building, innovating, and maintaining infrastructure. Which, the definition of infrastructure continues to grow as a society progresses and there is a higher demand on all aspects of society.

If conservatives really wanted to return to the successes of the 1950s, they'd demand 1950s style taxation (significantly higher than today) and government spending on infrastructure (also significantly higher than today); which, is higher today since there's more maintenance needed on top of the innovation and construction.

But also, for all this to succeed, there needs to be free markets...trust busting and legislation to put an end to the mergers of the 90s that created today's massive mega conglomerates. Take, for a broad example, the media: in 1983 over 50 companies owned media outlets whereas today about 6 own all of the media...which is very odd because this kind of centralization is so frowned upon in every other aspect of American culture.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

04 Feb 2011, 10:43 am

xenon13 wrote:

The government can order such people to pay taxes in the money. They will find some money. As for barter, they won't get money to pay taxes from it so this is dissuaded - I mean they need to find some money and they won't get any with barter. When someone shows up with the currency to buy something, the seller must accept it or else end up in a dungeon.


A person can enter into a contract with another person and specify barter. But to sell to the public one must accept legal tender. To restore the Republic to fiscal sanity, legal tender laws must be modified or repealed.

ruveyn



Drapetomaniac
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 53

04 Feb 2011, 11:16 am

ruveyn wrote:
xenon13 wrote:

The government can order such people to pay taxes in the money. They will find some money. As for barter, they won't get money to pay taxes from it so this is dissuaded - I mean they need to find some money and they won't get any with barter. When someone shows up with the currency to buy something, the seller must accept it or else end up in a dungeon.


A person can enter into a contract with another person and specify barter. But to sell to the public one must accept legal tender. To restore the Republic to fiscal sanity, legal tender laws must be modified or repealed.

ruveyn


Just go to haiti, there no government and no taxes and no firemen and no police and no hospitals .....



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,671
Location: Seattle

04 Feb 2011, 1:36 pm

Drapetomaniac wrote:
Just go to haiti, there no government and no taxes and no firemen and no police and no hospitals .....


So, you're saying that Haiti's misery was caused by an excessive amount of libertarian policies, not the generations of brutal dictators and corrupt government?


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


Drapetomaniac
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 53

04 Feb 2011, 1:54 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Drapetomaniac wrote:
Just go to haiti, there no government and no taxes and no firemen and no police and no hospitals .....


So, you're saying that Haiti's misery was caused by an excessive amount of libertarian policies, not the generations of brutal dictators and corrupt government?


The current absence of government doesn't seam to be an improvement.



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,568

04 Feb 2011, 6:01 pm

A former Haitian defence minister says that Haiti's the most privatised country in the world. Everything was privatised and liberalised under the auspices of Leslie Delatour and Delatour's widow has married the current president. It's almost as if he had to do this to get development aid! As Delatour was dead Preval had to show his devotion to his memory in some other way so why not through matrimony.



jamieboy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,619

05 Feb 2011, 11:26 am

ruveyn wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
mikecartwright wrote:
What do people here think of Progressive Taxation I for one support it.




It makes perfectly good sense. Who does one steal from? One steals from those who have something to be stolen.

ruveyn



You're really buying hard into this whole class warfare thing, huh?

:


No. Governments have stolen money in order to operate for the past 10,000 years. It is a matter of historical fact.

There are only two classes. Those who steal/filch and those who produce.

ruveyn


Agreed. Workers produce the wealth and then capitalists steal/filch it.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

05 Feb 2011, 11:29 am

Mexico has low taxes as well. It's a great place for corporations and the wealthy. But the government provides few services and are grateful that their poor have another country to run to.



jamieboy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,619

05 Feb 2011, 11:33 am

I will never undestand the delusional mindset of the extreme rightwinger who think's rich people are responsible for the production and creation of all wealth. Try removing every company employee from their jobs and then see how much wealth those people are able to generate on their own.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Feb 2011, 2:01 pm

jamieboy wrote:
I will never undestand the delusional mindset of the extreme rightwinger who think's rich people are responsible for the production and creation of all wealth. Try removing every company employee from their jobs and then see how much wealth those people are able to generate on their own.


Take away the capitalists and the technicians and see how much industry you will have. The misadventre of the Soviet Union and North Korea ought to give you a clue. Obviously both capital and labor are required to make an economy go. The question is who gets what share of the surplus that is produce.

ruveyn



jamieboy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,619

06 Feb 2011, 2:37 am

ruveyn wrote:
jamieboy wrote:
I will never undestand the delusional mindset of the extreme rightwinger who think's rich people are responsible for the production and creation of all wealth. Try removing every company employee from their jobs and then see how much wealth those people are able to generate on their own.


Take away the capitalists and the technicians and see how much industry you will have. The misadventre of the Soviet Union and North Korea ought to give you a clue. Obviously both capital and labor are required to make an economy go. The question is who gets what share of the surplus that is produce.

ruveyn


If that's your question then why is your answer less progressive taxation? You can quite easily take away capitalists and have productive factories as worker owned and operated co-op's in argentina prove.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Feb 2011, 6:19 am

jamieboy wrote:

If that's your question then why is your answer less progressive taxation? You can quite easily take away capitalists and have productive factories as worker owned and operated co-op's in argentina prove.


The productivity of Argentina just takes my breath away.

How many new inventions have Argentinians produced?

I have no doubt that a co-op based squishy co-op based socialist system can function (looked at Sweden) but it will never be much beyond mediocrity.

ruveyn



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,568

06 Feb 2011, 10:24 am

There was plenty of industrialisation in the Soviet Union.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Feb 2011, 11:50 am

xenon13 wrote:
There was plenty of industrialisation in the Soviet Union.


And the people still stood around for 6 hours a day because of the shortages. It was a very inefficient industrialized economy and thanks to Stalin's crackdown on the kulaks it had a chronic food shortage.

ruveyn



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,568

06 Feb 2011, 7:25 pm

They did not queue up for six hours, certainly not during most of the Soviet times. People just remember things breaking down near the end because of perestroika being wrongly done.

This suggestion that technological advancement and industrialisation is impossible under the east bloc system is absurd. I mean are you going to credit the Tsarist regime for Sputnik? I mean we can give the Tsarist era the theramin, but not Sputnik.