Poll: Which one would you rather?
Tax the rich.
Cut spending.
[Show Results]
 
Which would you rather?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-04-2012, 04:20 PM
RE: Which would you rather?
(16-04-2012 04:07 PM)SaviourSelf Wrote:  
(16-04-2012 03:49 PM)germanyt Wrote:  We can. But for the purposes of this poll I'd like to know, if you had the choice to cut spending or raise taxes on the rich and both had the same economic effect which would you rather? For those not from the US try and base your opinion on our current economic status.
Well, in that case I'd probably tax the rich for a variety of reasons.

1. They make far more than what one would define as a "livable wage." Yes, they should reap rewards of success (or in Bill Gates's case, stealing others' ideas and using them first), but you can't expect the rich to simply be charitable for no reason at all.

2. I don't buy into the trickle-down effect. I've only taken a couple of economics classes and each of them made a point of saying that the trickle-down effect has never been observed to have worked (the people that get the tax cuts at the top typically just save the money and continue operating rather than reinvesting the money, as the middle-class is likely to do). These classes may very well have been extremely biased, but they were also all heavily critical of social security and unions. Maybe if I had had different textbooks and teachers I would feel differently.

3. I don't think cutting welfare programs actually helps people on welfare in getting jobs.

4. I'm a filthy liberal socialist communist terrorist muslim dog that is going to hell.

5. I'm heavily in favor of health care reform and space exploration. DON'T CUT MAH FAVORITE PROGRAMS!
1. I personally don't bother myself with what is considered a livable wage or how much over that they make. It's their money, they earned/made it, whatevs.

2. Perhaps but I disagree with Keynesian economics as well. I think on principal liberals have economics down but in application it fails miserably. Much like socialism or communism. It sounds great until you're living in it.

3. You are absolutely right. But diverting welfare funds to adult education and job assistance programs might.

4. You said it. Not me. Big Grin

5. Two issues I'm partial to as well. But I think we can do better than Obamacare and had we privatized the space industry long ago we would probably be walking on Mars already. I'm stoked to see where Virgin Galactic will get us while NASA continues to hitch rides with the Russian and Chinese governments.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 04:21 PM (This post was last modified: 16-04-2012 04:27 PM by Antirepublican.)
RE: Which would you rather?
(16-04-2012 02:54 PM)germanyt Wrote:  Would you rather the federal government tax the rich at higher rates or cut spending to the exact dollar amount that tax rates would raise? Why?
Why not both? Why is there this false dichotomy of one or the other?

Though if I had to pick just one it would probably be to cut spending, particularly in the offense department.
Establish universal health care, that would save a ton of money.
Other than that though, there isn't much more to cut.

The rich and corps do pay way too little in the states though, that is for sure.
Many pay a smaller percent than the working class stiffs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 04:25 PM (This post was last modified: 16-04-2012 04:26 PM by germanyt.)
RE: Which would you rather?
(16-04-2012 04:12 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(16-04-2012 04:01 PM)germanyt Wrote:  Most would agree that Mitt doesn't pay a high enough rate. But in our situation, we have a huge debt and deficit problem. Do you correct it first by cutting spending or by increasing taxes on the rich?

When the rich pay what they pay in America I would tax the rich more, whether there were economic issues or not.
What about all the people who disagree with taxing the rich higher? Or those that think a flat tax would be more fair? This is a democracy after all. I'm not in favor of a flat tax but lots of people are. If one person making 20 grand a year pays 10% in taxes totaling 2 grand and another person makes 20 million a year pays 10% totaling 2 million, how is that person not taxed enough already? Mitt Romney only paid around 14 percent but he paid like 3 million in taxes. I have my reasons for not for not favoring the flat tax but what do you think about it?


(16-04-2012 04:21 PM)Antirepublican Wrote:  
(16-04-2012 02:54 PM)germanyt Wrote:  Would you rather the federal government tax the rich at higher rates or cut spending to the exact dollar amount that tax rates would raise? Why?
Why not both? Why is there this false dichotomy of one or the other?

Though if I had to pick just one it would probably be to cut spending, particularly in the offense department.
I'm not suggesting we can't do both. Just wanted to gauge the viewpoint of the forum if there was only one choice. And I lol'd at the bold.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 04:31 PM
RE: Which would you rather?
(16-04-2012 04:25 PM)germanyt Wrote:  What about all the people who disagree with taxing the rich higher? Or those that think a flat tax would be more fair? This is a democracy after all. I'm not in favor of a flat tax but lots of people are. If one person making 20 grand a year pays 10% in taxes totaling 2 grand and another person makes 20 million a year pays 10% totaling 2 million, how is that person not taxed enough already? Mitt Romney only paid around 14 percent but he paid like 3 million in taxes. I have my reasons for not for not favoring the flat tax but what do you think about it?

I think the general person doesn't really know what they want. They either say what they're told or they have no opinion because they don't understand economics.

One of the biggest achievements of recent times is the success with which the illusion of participation in decision making has been spread whilst actually removing the general public from politics.

My view on the taxes is that why should someone on a million dollars pay the same as someone on ten thousand? It just seems a little unfair to expect everyone to contribute on the same level.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 04:48 PM
RE: Which would you rather?
(16-04-2012 04:20 PM)germanyt Wrote:  
(16-04-2012 04:07 PM)SaviourSelf Wrote:  Well, in that case I'd probably tax the rich for a variety of reasons.

1. They make far more than what one would define as a "livable wage." Yes, they should reap rewards of success (or in Bill Gates's case, stealing others' ideas and using them first), but you can't expect the rich to simply be charitable for no reason at all.

2. I don't buy into the trickle-down effect. I've only taken a couple of economics classes and each of them made a point of saying that the trickle-down effect has never been observed to have worked (the people that get the tax cuts at the top typically just save the money and continue operating rather than reinvesting the money, as the middle-class is likely to do). These classes may very well have been extremely biased, but they were also all heavily critical of social security and unions. Maybe if I had had different textbooks and teachers I would feel differently.

3. I don't think cutting welfare programs actually helps people on welfare in getting jobs.

4. I'm a filthy liberal socialist communist terrorist muslim dog that is going to hell.

5. I'm heavily in favor of health care reform and space exploration. DON'T CUT MAH FAVORITE PROGRAMS!
1. I personally don't bother myself with what is considered a livable wage or how much over that they make. It's their money, they earned/made it, whatevs.

2. Perhaps but I disagree with Keynesian economics as well. I think on principal liberals have economics down but in application it fails miserably. Much like socialism or communism. It sounds great until you're living in it.

3. You are absolutely right. But diverting welfare funds to adult education and job assistance programs might.

4. You said it. Not me. Big Grin

5. Two issues I'm partial to as well. But I think we can do better than Obamacare and had we privatized the space industry long ago we would probably be walking on Mars already. I'm stoked to see where Virgin Galactic will get us while NASA continues to hitch rides with the Russian and Chinese governments.
1. That's true, but following that logic, why should anyone pay taxes? It's their money, why should the people have it? The point I'm hinting at is complete class warfare - the idea behind cutting taxes on the middle class works because the middle class uses the money on wants that stimulates the economy. People that are already rich have little or no incentive to spend money that they suddenly have more of. Of course, I could be absolutely wrong, my major was not in economics and my classes on the subject have been far too few for me to call myself an expert. In other words, I'm probably exactly as qualified as any politician when it comes to my opinion on economics.

2. I used to be a fervent supporter of communist ideals when I was in middle school. I still support a few of the ideas, to a degree, but you're absolutely right that things often work on paper but not in practice.

3. Actually, if I had any level of say in what would be cut, I wouldn't be cutting welfare or education (many of the Republican nominees have been hell bent on getting rid of the Department of Education, if you can recall). I would instead make the choice noone wants to and start cutting funds to Defense. Not to unemploy armed services members, but to get rid of many of the failed Cold War projects that have been unnecessary black holes on money for decades now. America has more nuclear arms than the next sixteen nations combined. I'm pretty sure that's more than enough. It's like if Master of Orion is real life, America is the Psilon empire as as human player against over a hundred Tutor-level NPCs.

5. I definitely don't think that Obamacare is the way to go. I think at the very least prescription medication should be completely socialized, but I honestly don't know what to do about the rest of health care. I believe it would require a LOT of trial-and-error experimentation that could take far too long to evaluate than people would be willing to wait. Privatized space exploration is a possibility, but I would still like heavy investment in the sciences. People think a Mars 9 year mission is too long, yet we could be starting 900,000 year long unmanned missions that would be incredibly beneficial to the human race as a whole. Imagine if we sent a probe to the Milky Way's singularity. It would take 27,000 years (minimum) and it would be a magnificent achievement that nobody living today could ever see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 06:11 PM
RE: Which would you rather?
(16-04-2012 04:48 PM)SaviourSelf Wrote:  
(16-04-2012 04:20 PM)germanyt Wrote:  1. I personally don't bother myself with what is considered a livable wage or how much over that they make. It's their money, they earned/made it, whatevs.

2. Perhaps but I disagree with Keynesian economics as well. I think on principal liberals have economics down but in application it fails miserably. Much like socialism or communism. It sounds great until you're living in it.

3. You are absolutely right. But diverting welfare funds to adult education and job assistance programs might.

4. You said it. Not me. Big Grin

5. Two issues I'm partial to as well. But I think we can do better than Obamacare and had we privatized the space industry long ago we would probably be walking on Mars already. I'm stoked to see where Virgin Galactic will get us while NASA continues to hitch rides with the Russian and Chinese governments.
1. That's true, but following that logic, why should anyone pay taxes? It's their money, why should the people have it? The point I'm hinting at is complete class warfare - the idea behind cutting taxes on the middle class works because the middle class uses the money on wants that stimulates the economy. People that are already rich have little or no incentive to spend money that they suddenly have more of. Of course, I could be absolutely wrong, my major was not in economics and my classes on the subject have been far too few for me to call myself an expert. In other words, I'm probably exactly as qualified as any politician when it comes to my opinion on economics.

2. I used to be a fervent supporter of communist ideals when I was in middle school. I still support a few of the ideas, to a degree, but you're absolutely right that things often work on paper but not in practice.

3. Actually, if I had any level of say in what would be cut, I wouldn't be cutting welfare or education (many of the Republican nominees have been hell bent on getting rid of the Department of Education, if you can recall). I would instead make the choice noone wants to and start cutting funds to Defense. Not to unemploy armed services members, but to get rid of many of the failed Cold War projects that have been unnecessary black holes on money for decades now. America has more nuclear arms than the next sixteen nations combined. I'm pretty sure that's more than enough. It's like if Master of Orion is real life, America is the Psilon empire as as human player against over a hundred Tutor-level NPCs.

5. I definitely don't think that Obamacare is the way to go. I think at the very least prescription medication should be completely socialized, but I honestly don't know what to do about the rest of health care. I believe it would require a LOT of trial-and-error experimentation that could take far too long to evaluate than people would be willing to wait. Privatized space exploration is a possibility, but I would still like heavy investment in the sciences. People think a Mars 9 year mission is too long, yet we could be starting 900,000 year long unmanned missions that would be incredibly beneficial to the human race as a whole. Imagine if we sent a probe to the Milky Way's singularity. It would take 27,000 years (minimum) and it would be a magnificent achievement that nobody living today could ever see.

Tough to argue that. Some interesting points there. Especially about spending habits on the rich and prescription drugs. My wife happens to be type 1 diabetic. Her insulin w/o insurance is absurdly expensive. Roughly 4-500 dollars a month with strips and syringes. I'm always bitching about how medications that you have to have to live can be so expensive.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 06:14 PM
RE: Which would you rather?
(16-04-2012 04:48 PM)SaviourSelf Wrote:  
(16-04-2012 04:20 PM)germanyt Wrote:  1. I personally don't bother myself with what is considered a livable wage or how much over that they make. It's their money, they earned/made it, whatevs.

2. Perhaps but I disagree with Keynesian economics as well. I think on principal liberals have economics down but in application it fails miserably. Much like socialism or communism. It sounds great until you're living in it.

3. You are absolutely right. But diverting welfare funds to adult education and job assistance programs might.

4. You said it. Not me. Big Grin

5. Two issues I'm partial to as well. But I think we can do better than Obamacare and had we privatized the space industry long ago we would probably be walking on Mars already. I'm stoked to see where Virgin Galactic will get us while NASA continues to hitch rides with the Russian and Chinese governments.
1. That's true, but following that logic, why should anyone pay taxes? It's their money, why should the people have it? The point I'm hinting at is complete class warfare - the idea behind cutting taxes on the middle class works because the middle class uses the money on wants that stimulates the economy. People that are already rich have little or no incentive to spend money that they suddenly have more of. Of course, I could be absolutely wrong, my major was not in economics and my classes on the subject have been far too few for me to call myself an expert. In other words, I'm probably exactly as qualified as any politician when it comes to my opinion on economics.

2. I used to be a fervent supporter of communist ideals when I was in middle school. I still support a few of the ideas, to a degree, but you're absolutely right that things often work on paper but not in practice.

3. Actually, if I had any level of say in what would be cut, I wouldn't be cutting welfare or education (many of the Republican nominees have been hell bent on getting rid of the Department of Education, if you can recall). I would instead make the choice noone wants to and start cutting funds to Defense. Not to unemploy armed services members, but to get rid of many of the failed Cold War projects that have been unnecessary black holes on money for decades now. America has more nuclear arms than the next sixteen nations combined. I'm pretty sure that's more than enough. It's like if Master of Orion is real life, America is the Psilon empire as as human player against over a hundred Tutor-level NPCs.

5. I definitely don't think that Obamacare is the way to go. I think at the very least prescription medication should be completely socialized, but I honestly don't know what to do about the rest of health care. I believe it would require a LOT of trial-and-error experimentation that could take far too long to evaluate than people would be willing to wait. Privatized space exploration is a possibility, but I would still like heavy investment in the sciences. People think a Mars 9 year mission is too long, yet we could be starting 900,000 year long unmanned missions that would be incredibly beneficial to the human race as a whole. Imagine if we sent a probe to the Milky Way's singularity. It would take 27,000 years (minimum) and it would be a magnificent achievement that nobody living today could ever see.
Obamacare is not socialized medicine.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 06:17 PM
RE: Which would you rather?
(16-04-2012 06:14 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(16-04-2012 04:48 PM)SaviourSelf Wrote:  1. That's true, but following that logic, why should anyone pay taxes? It's their money, why should the people have it? The point I'm hinting at is complete class warfare - the idea behind cutting taxes on the middle class works because the middle class uses the money on wants that stimulates the economy. People that are already rich have little or no incentive to spend money that they suddenly have more of. Of course, I could be absolutely wrong, my major was not in economics and my classes on the subject have been far too few for me to call myself an expert. In other words, I'm probably exactly as qualified as any politician when it comes to my opinion on economics.

2. I used to be a fervent supporter of communist ideals when I was in middle school. I still support a few of the ideas, to a degree, but you're absolutely right that things often work on paper but not in practice.

3. Actually, if I had any level of say in what would be cut, I wouldn't be cutting welfare or education (many of the Republican nominees have been hell bent on getting rid of the Department of Education, if you can recall). I would instead make the choice noone wants to and start cutting funds to Defense. Not to unemploy armed services members, but to get rid of many of the failed Cold War projects that have been unnecessary black holes on money for decades now. America has more nuclear arms than the next sixteen nations combined. I'm pretty sure that's more than enough. It's like if Master of Orion is real life, America is the Psilon empire as as human player against over a hundred Tutor-level NPCs.

5. I definitely don't think that Obamacare is the way to go. I think at the very least prescription medication should be completely socialized, but I honestly don't know what to do about the rest of health care. I believe it would require a LOT of trial-and-error experimentation that could take far too long to evaluate than people would be willing to wait. Privatized space exploration is a possibility, but I would still like heavy investment in the sciences. People think a Mars 9 year mission is too long, yet we could be starting 900,000 year long unmanned missions that would be incredibly beneficial to the human race as a whole. Imagine if we sent a probe to the Milky Way's singularity. It would take 27,000 years (minimum) and it would be a magnificent achievement that nobody living today could ever see.
Obamacare is not socialized medicine.
A single payer option would have ultimately led there.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 06:17 PM (This post was last modified: 16-04-2012 06:22 PM by Antirepublican.)
RE: Which would you rather?
You would not be walking on mars right now if the space program was privatized. That is absurd! You have way way too much faith in privatized companies and the aristocrats.

Neil Tyson actually disproves that exact argument in this video,


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-04-2012, 06:22 PM
RE: Which would you rather?
(16-04-2012 06:17 PM)Antirepublican Wrote:  You would not be walking on mars right now if the space program was privatized.

Neil Tyson actually disproves that exact argument in this video,


Please man. Virgin was ready to take private passengers into orbit while NASA was struggling to keep space shuttles in one piece. A private company relying on inexpensive and very high demand trips to space would be selling trips to Mars like it was a cruise if it'd been around as long.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: