Tax the rich! Make America affordable again!

Page 2 of 3 [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,921
Location: Adelaide, Australia

17 Jan 2023, 8:13 pm

magz wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
How much money would you get per person? If you taxed the rich and divided it up amongst the general population?

That's a bad idea.
If you look at successful mixed economies, they don't give much money to citizens. They invest this money in infrastructure, education, healthcare, affordable housing and so on. Things that are believed to benefit the whole society*.

___________
* Yes, affordable housing benefits everyone, preventing losses caused by large homeless population.

You mean like Norway? Norway did plenty of good for its population but it didn't achieve this just by taxing the rich. Norway achieved this by declaring that Norway's oil reserves are the property of the people and profits from it shall be spent on the people.

That's a mixed economy. A mixed economy isn't just a capitalist country with higher taxes. If America decleared it's oil reserves to be the property of the people that would be more beneficial then letting greedy oil barons own them and then giving those oil barons higher taxes. Better to cut out the middle man.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


Highlander852456
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 1 Apr 2013
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 301
Location: Bratislava

17 Jan 2023, 8:23 pm

We have to define rich.
There is a huge difference between business that makes millions and business that makes billions.

There is also importance of tax evasion. In the past the same financial mechanism did not exist.
Business was bind more locally and dependent on people who supported it.

Parasitism of rich is something that is often averted by philanthropist to some degree.

The other problem is that US government is so small and full of old rich guys its nearly impossible to say how easy is to bribe few of these guys to play against higher tax.

The other problem is that high tax does not equal more money automatically.

The money has to be invested in right strategy. Since US has no state strategy except financial regulation by FED and banking sector where they regulate the dollar and banks, you really have to define tax.

If you tax rich people in small towns they will leave and people in small towns will be left with just small business.

IF you tax rich people in in big cities as well they will evade tax better than you can imagine.

What is worth noting is that capitalism in US is competitive so the richer you are the easier its to keep funneling into fonds and evading taxes, while the lesser beings with just few millions will be unable to afford that.

Other problem is that big companies are behemoths of financial investment, that is to some degree under their control which allows them to control and manage their assets by various transfers that have nothing to do with tax, but their control over legislative.

They also have the ability to invest in any branch of economy freely without problem and that is why they can buy out anything, which is dangerous for diversifying economy and they can freely kill or buy out any competition arising against them hence why there is only one Bill Gates and 10 of them.

The problem is having primary position on market means also they have control over political decisions through lobby and meddling with the legislation.

This means rich people will never get more poor by raising taxes. They will just displace their business else where like in Asia or Europe which they already done.

Unfortunately Trumps ideas were not that bad in trying to bring business back by lowering taxes, but its the same toothless idea just as making taxes higher.
It just does not make difference to the people who are most likely the intended target.

The other problem is that state bureaucracy is notoriously inefficient with state money and the higher taxes you have the bigger you have to have bureaucracy which in it self costs money and there is lots of corruption and nepotism in this. Not only do the rich people have strong leverage over this they have ability to circumvent laws and buy out favors of simple bureaucrats and state bureaucracy it self gets interlaced with secondary political aspirations that cost state lot of money in corruption and even dark economy.

Since US tax system is already in shambles this idea only makes sense if its properly changed to meet state goals, which in US are mostly on federal level and that means more lower level corruption.



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,921
Location: Adelaide, Australia

17 Jan 2023, 8:33 pm

Highlander852456 wrote:
Mostly Venezuela was object to out side manipulation from US who owned their oil fields for sometime.
Has America done this to other countries? Is America's car culture fueled in part by stealing from other countries?


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

18 Jan 2023, 3:38 am

Highlander852456 wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
Mona Pereth wrote:

"Eating" the rich is a slogan that calls to violence. As if the rich are not human beings entitled to human rights as is the right to property. To "eat" the rich means weaponizing
the state bureaucracy against a group of people who are entrepreneurs who constantly are finding new, more efficient ways to utilise resources, including human labour. See what eating the Rich did for Venezuela instead.


Venezuela is not where it is because of socialism.

It was a dictatorship which collapsed on it self, and there is violent in fighting between very powerful political orders.

Mostly Venezuela was object to out side manipulation from US who owned their oil fields for sometime.
As vengeance of US has no limits they screw everyone over who tries to screw them over.
Not saying US is sole reason Venezuela is screwed, but US did its very best to burn the economy in constant meddling in their political affairs.

More importantly the current establishment is lunatic. They are about as socialist as Caligula.


Venezuela went from being the richest country in South America to the poorest just exactly after Chavez came to power. Chavez run on a socialist platform. And as socialist tradition has it, it degenerated into a dictatorship pretty quickly. But apparently you must have your own personal definition of what socialism is. I can't help you with that.



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

18 Jan 2023, 3:44 am

RetroGamer87 wrote:
magz wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
How much money would you get per person? If you taxed the rich and divided it up amongst the general population?

That's a bad idea.
If you look at successful mixed economies, they don't give much money to citizens. They invest this money in infrastructure, education, healthcare, affordable housing and so on. Things that are believed to benefit the whole society*.

___________
* Yes, affordable housing benefits everyone, preventing losses caused by large homeless population.

You mean like Norway? Norway did plenty of good for its population but it didn't achieve this just by taxing the rich. Norway achieved this by declaring that Norway's oil reserves are the property of the people and profits from it shall be spent on the people.

That's a mixed economy. A mixed economy isn't just a capitalist country with higher taxes. If America decleared it's oil reserves to be the property of the people that would be more beneficial then letting greedy oil barons own them and then giving those oil barons higher taxes. Better to cut out the middle man.

Definitely, a mixed economy is not just a capitalist economy with higher (and likely progressive) taxes.
A mixed economy is an attempt at balancing "private" and "public" good for possibly best outcomes for the population.
Constructing and maintaining it is way more tricky than simply raising taxes for the rich.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Mountain Goat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 May 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,197
Location: .

18 Jan 2023, 4:00 am

Tax the rich...
Lose the rich...
All have to pay higher taxes instead.

(One rich person already pays taxes equal to a hundred poor people taxes. Who will pay the difference if the rich say "I am being overtaxed. I will move elsewhere where I am not going to be taxed at all!" (And who can blame them for thinking this as all they get in America is evil hearted jelous people hating them because they are rich). If the rich move elsewhere, how many of you are prepared to pay the extra taxes to make up the difference? If the rich have tax loopholes, then blame Biden who has allowed them!)



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

18 Jan 2023, 4:25 am

Mountain Goat wrote:
One rich person already pays taxes equal to a hundred poor people taxes.
If this is true, the "tax the rich" slogan has been already implemented where you live.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Highlander852456
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 1 Apr 2013
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 301
Location: Bratislava

18 Jan 2023, 4:32 am

Dengashinobi wrote:
Venezuela went from being the richest country in South America to the poorest just exactly after Chavez came to power. Chavez run on a socialist platform. And as socialist tradition has it, it degenerated into a dictatorship pretty quickly. But apparently you must have your own personal definition of what socialism is. I can't help you with that.


Please do tell how socialism can make a country with largest oil reserves in the world suddenly go poor, with bit of incompetence and greatest violence. Saying socialism does not work when its all around the world and works fine is hard sell. There is larger context to be considered.
Venezuela has a real problem that is true, but socialism is not the explanation.
Venezuelan government is corrupt and has realistically done nothing social.
The infighting is partly a legacy of Venezuelan nationalist movements and their inability to unify their support to competent leaders. Realistically Venezuela has huge violence rate due to this and the subsequent poverty is realistically not possible to fix when their leaders are corrupt and could not careless about actual policies that alleviate some major problems.

Socialism=bad is US centric meme that has no supporting evidence in history.

Also no Venezuela did not start having problems just when Chavez got to power. He got to power, because Venezuela was already spiraling out of control. Venezuela was never a paradise and had bad political structure way before Chavez. Chavez was simply there to parasite off this weakness as all crappy people like himself do.
I am by the way not defending socialism.
I just think its too simplistic to say socialism did it.
Socialism is a system that existed prior to Chavez to some degree.
Chavez butchered it.



Last edited by Cornflake on 18 Jan 2023, 6:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.: Fixed broken quote tags

Highlander852456
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 1 Apr 2013
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 301
Location: Bratislava

18 Jan 2023, 4:44 am

RetroGamer87 wrote:
Highlander852456 wrote:
Mostly Venezuela was object to out side manipulation from US who owned their oil fields for sometime.
Has America done this to other countries? Is America's car culture fueled in part by stealing from other countries?


Yes. Oil companies of US have pretty much done a good deal of damage in Africa as well.



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

18 Jan 2023, 5:05 am

Highlander852456 wrote:
Please do tell how socialism can make a country with largest oil reserves in the world suddenly go poor, with bit of incompetence and greatest violence. Saying socialism does not work when its all around the world and works fine is hard sell. There is larger context to be considered.
Venezuela has a real problem that is true, but socialism is not the explanation.
Venezuelan government is corrupt and has realistically done nothing social.
The infighting is partly a legacy of Venezuelan nationalist movements and their inability to unify their support to competent leaders. Realistically Venezuela has huge violence rate due to this and the subsequent poverty is realistically not possible to fix when their leaders are corrupt and could not careless about actual policies that alleviate some major problems.

Socialism=bad is US centric meme that has no supporting evidence in history.

Also no Venezuela did not start having problems just when Chavez got to power. He got to power, because Venezuela was already spiraling out of control. Venezuela was never a paradise and had bad political structure way before Chavez. Chavez was simply there to parasite off this weakness as all crappy people like himself do.
I am by the way not defending socialism.
I just think its too simplistic to say socialism did it.
Socialism is a system that existed prior to Chavez to some degree.
Chavez butchered it.
In the meantime, Norway with huge oil reserves and a good deal of socialism stays stable and rich.

While populists very often carry socialist slogans, it's a problem of populism, not socialism.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

18 Jan 2023, 5:08 am

Highlander852456 wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
Highlander852456 wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
Mona Pereth wrote:


Venezuela went from being the richest country in South America to the poorest just exactly after Chavez came to power. Chavez run on a socialist platform. And as socialist tradition has it, it degenerated into a dictatorship pretty quickly. But apparently you must have your own personal definition of what socialism is. I can't help you with that.


Please do tell how socialism can make a country with largest oil reserves in the world suddenly go poor, with bit of incompetence and greatest violence. Saying socialism does not work when its all around the world and works fine is hard sell. There is larger context to be considered.
Venezuela has a real problem that is true, but socialism is not the explanation.
Venezuelan government is corrupt and has realistically done nothing social.
The infighting is partly a legacy of Venezuelan nationalist movements and their inability to unify their support to competent leaders. Realistically Venezuela has huge violence rate due to this and the subsequent poverty is realistically not possible to fix when their leaders are corrupt and could not careless about actual policies that alleviate some major problems.

Socialism=bad is US centric meme that has no supporting evidence in history.

Also no Venezuela did not start having problems just when Chavez got to power. He got to power, because Venezuela was already spiraling out of control. Venezuela was never a paradise and had bad political structure way before Chavez. Chavez was simply there to parasite off this weakness as all crappy people like himself do.
I am by the way not defending socialism.
I just think its too simplistic to say socialism did it.
Socialism is a system that existed prior to Chavez to some degree.
Chavez butchered it.


Socialism was established before Chavez, and it failed miserably causing the civili discontent that brought socialist Chavez into power. Chavez dealt the final blow and there you go.

Wherever socialism was established failed miserably and brought dictators to power. You should know better since you come from an country that has experienced what socialism is.



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

18 Jan 2023, 5:15 am

Dengashinobi wrote:
Socialism was established before Chavez, and it failed miserably causing the civili discontent that brought socialist Chavez into power. Chavez dealt the final blow and there you go.

Wherever socialism was established failed miserably and brought dictators to power. You should know better since you come from an country that has experienced what socialism is.

Norway?


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

18 Jan 2023, 5:18 am

magz wrote:
Highlander852456 wrote:
Please do tell how socialism can make a country with largest oil reserves in the world suddenly go poor, with bit of incompetence and greatest violence. Saying socialism does not work when its all around the world and works fine is hard sell. There is larger context to be considered.
Venezuela has a real problem that is true, but socialism is not the explanation.
Venezuelan government is corrupt and has realistically done nothing social.
The infighting is partly a legacy of Venezuelan nationalist movements and their inability to unify their support to competent leaders. Realistically Venezuela has huge violence rate due to this and the subsequent poverty is realistically not possible to fix when their leaders are corrupt and could not careless about actual policies that alleviate some major problems.

Socialism=bad is US centric meme that has no supporting evidence in history.

Also no Venezuela did not start having problems just when Chavez got to power. He got to power, because Venezuela was already spiraling out of control. Venezuela was never a paradise and had bad political structure way before Chavez. Chavez was simply there to parasite off this weakness as all crappy people like himself do.
I am by the way not defending socialism.
I just think its too simplistic to say socialism did it.
Socialism is a system that existed prior to Chavez to some degree.
Chavez butchered it.
In the meantime, Norway with huge oil reserves and a good deal of socialism stays stable and rich.

While populists very often carry socialist slogans, it's a problem of populism, not socialism.


Norway is a free market economy. It's market is so powerful that it can sustain a social welfare system leeching off its back.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,561
Location: the island of defective toy santas

18 Jan 2023, 5:22 am

i would like a system more like what they have in northern europe, the so-called "third way" where the well-to-do in general pay heavier taxes than here, which funds a "great society" that gives every working-class citizen a much better shake than the typical american working class person who has to struggle just to get by.



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,283
Location: Poland

18 Jan 2023, 5:34 am

Dengashinobi wrote:
Norway is a free market economy. It's market is so powerful that it can sustain a social welfare system leeching off its back.
And this is called a mixed system.

In various flavors, we have it almost everywhere in Europe.


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.

<not moderating PPR stuff concerning East Europe>


Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

18 Jan 2023, 5:56 am

magz wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
Norway is a free market economy. It's market is so powerful that it can sustain a social welfare system leeching off its back.
And this is called a mixed system.

In various flavors, we have it almost everywhere in Europe.


In that regard we have it everywhere in the world. There is no free market economy anywhere to be seen anymore. That was the 18-th and 19-th century, before the first modern bureaucratic nation state was developed, which was guess who, Germany after the unification. The rest folloew suit as the history of worl conflicts progressed. The last place on earth to have a truly free market economy was Hong Kong and look what a miracle it was.