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
20-04-2012, 08:35 AM
RE: Which would you rather?
(16-04-2012 03:34 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  I live in a country where the rich already pay 50%.



I think they're paying enough already.
LOL!!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-04-2012, 09:09 AM
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?

Cut spending. I would rather the government left my money alone and dealt with the problem they created by solving the cause of the problem (themselves...i.e big govt), than draw more money into the system that will then be wasted be irresponsible bureaucrats.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-04-2012, 12:59 PM
RE: Which would you rather?
We should reign in spending before increasing taxes on anyone. That means the holy trinity of US politics (Social Security/Medicaid/Defense) along with other programs all get an overhaul.

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2012, 04:52 PM
RE: Which would you rather?
Depends. Lower taxes and increase spending if we are in a depression/recession/panic/whateveryouwannacallit. Problem with lowing taxes is its hard to raise them during inflationary periods.

Decrease spending and increase taxes during a boom/inflationary period. Which one do I think would be more useful? Depends on the tax rates, wealth distribution, and spending. If the tax rate were already very progressive (US has a weird curve where the upper-middle class and lower upper class pay the lowest effective taxes- but that should be fixed by ending "loopholes" for the rich, not raising taxes imo. ) and wealth distribution was reasonable (not equal, but not such a huge disparity as we have in the US. http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html). Then I'd say no, unless taxes were raised on other incomes too. On spending, if the money is being wasted on pointless wars, subsidizing oil, and criminalizing people for using weed, then I'd say cut those. If the spending is keep the infrastructure in good shape, educating the population, and providing services such as fire-care and health-care, then I'd say keep the spending as is.

Right now, we have both problems. But we are not having inflation problems right now. So we should be lowering (the middle class's) taxes and increasing spending. We are doing the opposite- raising taxes (effective starting like next year) and decreasing spending (funny how Fox/Republicans like to make it seem like under Obama we have just been spending so much money when its leftovers from from the previous presidents.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2012, 05:33 PM
RE: Which would you rather?
To your question about why not a flat tax? Capitalism, especially crony capitalism, leads to wealth aggregating
into the hands of the few. Progressive taxes try to prevent it. Why is that a problem?
-The video I shared partly explain why.
-Money is power. When too few have too much power, it corrupts. Which leads to more crony capitalism.
-I've played MMOs. Making it hard to level up each time actually increases your will to level up. That's why all successful MMOs do it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I see progressive tax rates the same. Now, I have also learned that huge leaps in difficulty at certain points kill interest. I played 12 sky 2, where tons of people quit at levels 112 and a1 (113) because they became suddenly a lot harder. One way I think could prevent that problem without having too many tax brackets is make a simple formula where some top point (such as 1bil/year- which is almost nobody) is taxed the highest (say 50%) and the lowest point (such as 0 or 20k) is taxed 0%. Not sure if it should be linear or slightly curved.
-Disposable income differences (so not including things such as food, housing, healthcare,etc). Ofc you could get around this by making a rule so that the 1st X amount of money is not taxed and/or providing universal health care.



On privatized space:
Governments are the ones who have generally lead the way to new territories. Rome, The New World, Interchangeable Parts, the internet, etc. Corporations do not start the exploration until the foundation is set down, they can understand the risks, and the can expect a return soon. I think we are getting to that point where the torch should be handed off, but there are too many unknowns still. Also, the problem with "Orbit" is that its not really space imo. Space is defined as when the sky look the same night and day. So on earth, its like 6miles. For the moon and mars, you're already in space. While it is an easier definition, it hardly is what most consider space. And it not close to the spot where you start to get into the uncertainties. The militarys (governments) of the 30s-50s basically provided the needed info with the learning about planes for WWII and the Cold War. Relabeling the same thing "space" by going a little higher is hardly going where no man has gone before.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-05-2012, 11:39 PM
RE: Which would you rather?
(10-05-2012 05:33 PM)TaVe Wrote:  To your question about why not a flat tax? Capitalism, especially crony capitalism, leads to wealth aggregating
into the hands of the few. Progressive taxes try to prevent it. Why is that a problem?
-The video I shared partly explain why.
-Money is power. When too few have too much power, it corrupts. Which leads to more crony capitalism.
-I've played MMOs. Making it hard to level up each time actually increases your will to level up. That's why all successful MMOs do it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I see progressive tax rates the same. Now, I have also learned that huge leaps in difficulty at certain points kill interest. I played 12 sky 2, where tons of people quit at levels 112 and a1 (113) because they became suddenly a lot harder. One way I think could prevent that problem without having too many tax brackets is make a simple formula where some top point (such as 1bil/year- which is almost nobody) is taxed the highest (say 50%) and the lowest point (such as 0 or 20k) is taxed 0%. Not sure if it should be linear or slightly curved.
-Disposable income differences (so not including things such as food, housing, healthcare,etc). Ofc you could get around this by making a rule so that the 1st X amount of money is not taxed and/or providing universal health care.



On privatized space:
Governments are the ones who have generally lead the way to new territories. Rome, The New World, Interchangeable Parts, the internet, etc. Corporations do not start the exploration until the foundation is set down, they can understand the risks, and the can expect a return soon. I think we are getting to that point where the torch should be handed off, but there are too many unknowns still. Also, the problem with "Orbit" is that its not really space imo. Space is defined as when the sky look the same night and day. So on earth, its like 6miles. For the moon and mars, you're already in space. While it is an easier definition, it hardly is what most consider space. And it not close to the spot where you start to get into the uncertainties. The militarys (governments) of the 30s-50s basically provided the needed info with the learning about planes for WWII and the Cold War. Relabeling the same thing "space" by going a little higher is hardly going where no man has gone before.
So you mean the same tax system we have here?

Our tax system works like so:
$0-14k - 10.5%
$14-48K - 17.5%
$48-70K - 30.0%
$70k+ - 33.0%
Companies flat tax of 28%
Trust funds flat tax of 33%

And that works as the first 14K is taxed at 10.5% then the next 14-48k is taxed at 17.5% etc....

I think this is a very fair system for the exact reasons you say, because flat tax tends to produce a divided rich and poor and studies have shown that the more divided the rich and poor become the lower general happiness is. (how they measured happiness I can't remember, I read it in a time magazine).
So countries where there is a relatively small divide between rich and poor, I believe Japan was used, the general happiness was shown as higher then countries like the US and I think the UK was also mentioned, are comparatively much lower.
I suppose you could use this as an argument for pure communism considering everyone would be the same and thus would be happier. BUT I still stand by capitalism, it promotes competition which greatly increases efficiency (especially from price takers such as farmers), only the strong survive sort of thing. Which is a much better thing consider a country has limited resources and so if a country can best allocate those resources it can (resources in the form of things like people) grow. And if a country can overall grow then the quality of life will grow as well increasing general happiness. I don't think you get that with communism, yes you don't get a divide between rich and poor but you don't get best allocation of resources and so hindered country growth and so in the long run capitalist countries would be better off.
What was this thread about again I forgot?

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2012, 12:27 PM
RE: Which would you rather?
If you raise taxes on the rich but don't cut spending the rich will cease to be rich and then your only choices will be to cut spending or send the country into bankruptcy.

God's invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.
Romans 1:20 ESV

blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes theophilus's post
14-05-2012, 01:30 PM
RE: Which would you rather?
I think when I originally voted, I missed the part that said: "to the exact dollar amount that tax rates would raise".

I was thinking that if we either had to raise taxes or cut, cutting, assuming that closing tax loop holes could be a part of that, would get you a lot farther in deficit reduction than taxes just on the rich.

Just taxing the rich would be the better solution though. It is revenue, even if it isn't a large amount, and unless of course there was spending that was completely wasteful, and didn't in any way help the economy or people, and could equal the same as the taxes, taxes would be the way to go.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2012, 10:43 PM
RE: Which would you rather?
(10-05-2012 11:39 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  So you mean the same tax system we have here?

Our tax system works like so:
$0-14k - 10.5%
$14-48K - 17.5%
$48-70K - 30.0%
$70k+ - 33.0%
Companies flat tax of 28%
Trust funds flat tax of 33%

And that works as the first 14K is taxed at 10.5% then the next 14-48k is taxed at 17.5% etc....

I think this is a very fair system for the exact reasons you say, because flat tax tends to produce a divided rich and poor and studies have shown that the more divided the rich and poor become the lower general happiness is. (how they measured happiness I can't remember, I read it in a time magazine).
So countries where there is a relatively small divide between rich and poor, I believe Japan was used, the general happiness was shown as higher then countries like the US and I think the UK was also mentioned, are comparatively much lower.
I suppose you could use this as an argument for pure communism considering everyone would be the same and thus would be happier. BUT I still stand by capitalism, it promotes competition which greatly increases efficiency (especially from price takers such as farmers), only the strong survive sort of thing. Which is a much better thing consider a country has limited resources and so if a country can best allocate those resources it can (resources in the form of things like people) grow. And if a country can overall grow then the quality of life will grow as well increasing general happiness. I don't think you get that with communism, yes you don't get a divide between rich and poor but you don't get best allocation of resources and so hindered country growth and so in the long run capitalist countries would be better off.
What was this thread about again I forgot?
I also forgot to mention inflation favors the rich. The tax rate has to at the bare minimum make up for that.

Anyways, basically.

I saw a TED talk on what you were talking about, general health and happiness go up with equality.

In communism vs capitalism, freedoms and choice get diminished and competition is reduced. I suspect these will start to make health and happiness overall decrease when you go to far. Its kinda like chocolate. .1% is terrible. And 100% is terrible. Some people prefer dark chocolate (or 72% mint dark chocolate). Some like normal chocolate better. But no one is really happy at the extremes.

Something about taxes raises vs spending cuts. I said tax decreases and spending increase (or at least get it out of the military and invest in infrastructure and education).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TaVe's post
21-05-2012, 10:59 PM
RE: Which would you rather?
TED talk, yeah that's where I got it from.

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: