Fascists - Page 5

lookout123 · 07-21-2004, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC

I dont agree that being choosy is a necessity . It is a necessity in the setup you just gave me.....But that isnt how it is in reality. The idea that America cannot afford or sustain that level of immigration is I think disengenuous. It's a huge country and the wealthiest on planet earth

one of (not the only) the reasons that we are the wealthiest is that is capitalism vs. socialism. penalizing those who make "too much" money is a negative on the economy.

lookout123 · 07-21-2004, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC

In most countries ( including Britain) the poor get hit by flat taxes to a greater extent than the wealthy, that is it represents a greater proportion of their income than it does for the wealthy

so what? if everyone pays the same % of their income (i.e. everyone pays 7%) the wealthy pay more dollars.

lookout123 · 07-21-2004, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC

"Sounds like you've got a budget all worked out. How, pray tell, could America do that? Oh right, you're a socialist. You work in theory, not in practice."
It's easy , you justhave to make the leap and decide that you will tailor your tax policy to suit your country's needs and not the pockets of your elite

it would be so awesome to live in a fairy tale where it is so easy to say "It's their fault!!! them over there!!! the ones that make more money than i do!!!"

we could call it Danaland, Inc.

Quote:

What is your highest tax bracket? That is to say, what percentage of their income do they pay in tax?

to the best of my knowledge - 40%. again, if you want to raise that so you can give it to the people on the bottom, what is the incentive for anyone to earn more?

DanaC · 07-21-2004, 06:38 PM

The incentive is that 40 per cent of 10 million dollars is still a lot of money. Do you really think the rich will cease striving for more wealth if you take an extra 10 %off them? You think they'll just stop trying to make money because they dont feel it's worth it?

"we could call it Danaland, Inc."
Or you could call it Germany....or France...at a bit of a push you could call it Britain, though we dont proviede for our people as well as our continental brothers.

lookout123 · 07-21-2004, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC

Or you could call it Germany....or France...

how the hell is that a good thing??? it is inherently unfair to charge me (or anyone else) a higher percentage of my income, just because i make more.

we actually had this discussion the other day. flat tax on every dollar over $25000 in a single year. most fair system in the world.

Quote:

though we dont proviede for our people as well as our continental brothers.

there is something to strive for kamerad.

DanaC · 07-21-2004, 06:45 PM

10 % of $10 000 dollars may be a smaller amount to pay than 10% of $100 000 dollars but to the person who is on 10 000 it is a harder burden

"there is something to strive for kamerad."
*chuckles* oh many of us are trying. Personally i would take our tax system back to the old supertax days. Those earning over a certain amount would be taxed at a very high rate for anything they earn above that limit. I believe it used to be 90%...I wouldnt go that far. I wold put it at 70%

"if you want to raise that so you can give it to the people on the bottom, what is the incentive for anyone to earn more?"

I really dont think the rich need to be incentivised to make themselves richer. You could tax them at horrible levels and they would still want to make more money.

Happy Monkey · 07-21-2004, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

You're wrong. The lowest income brackets pay zero taxes.

You're only factoring in income taxes. Payroll taxes are regressive. Sales taxes are flat. Tax dodges are primarily for the wealthy.

lookout123 · 07-21-2004, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

You're only factoring in income taxes. Payroll taxes are regressive. Sales taxes are flat. Tax dodges are primarily for the wealthy.

sales taxes are flat dollar . that is harder on the poor. a flat % income tax on anything over $25,000 (and adjustable for inflation) is extremely fair.

and dana - do you not understand that communism doesn't work once people are involved? that is why america is the richest country - because people trying to get ahead are rewarded for their efforts.

no where does it say "life, liberty, and happiness" it says "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" translation - life and freedom are yours. you also have the right to step to the edge and try to fly. you may crash and burn, but you have the right to try. if you penalize those who succeed, you hamper the desire for the next guy to take the leap.

DanaC · 07-21-2004, 06:57 PM

I think the difference between America and Europe is that in America you have the concept of a classless society in which anyone can make it to the top. The fact that most people actually arent able to take advantage of that doesnt seem to make a difference. In Europe we are under no illusions of a level playing field. We know that those who are on low incomes will likely stay on low incomes and the ones who are wealthy are the ones who will remain wealthy. ....The elite do a fairly bangup job of protecting their interests without me doing it for them. I hear many Americans defending their right to low taxes at the higher levels possibly because they believe that one day they may be the one who is being taxed for their high income. They are protecting a dream they will never be able to participate in. They are defending their elite's right to stay elite. In doing so they are defending people who are the least in need of defense and whose interests are at odds with their own ( imo)

DanaC · 07-21-2004, 06:58 PM

"and dana - do you not understand that communism doesn't work once people are involved? "
I am not an advocate of communism. What I am talking about is not communism, it isnt even socialism. I advocate capitalism with a social conscience.

lookout123 · 07-21-2004, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC

I think the difference between America and Europe is that in America you have the concept of a classless society in which anyone can make it to the top. The fact that most people actually arent able to take advantage of that doesnt seem to make a difference. In Europe we are under no illusions of a level playing field.

a level playing field means that everyone has a chance to succeed. we do have that. it doesn't mean that everyone starts from the same point or even that everyone who gives it their all will succeed. success will be harder for some than others - but a large variable is the question of what you consider to be success. for me, it is putting my kid through school, and semi-retirement at 45 without a change in my lifestyle. some people want more, some people want less.
the point is that we have the ability to pick a goal and work toward it. we may not reach it, but that is just the way life goes sometimes.

lookout123 · 07-21-2004, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC

I am not an advocate of communism. What I am talking about is not communism, it isnt even socialism. I advocate capitalism with a social conscience.

sounds more like a fan of robin hood than anything. but really, taking from the wealthy to give to the poor is socialism. we do it in small ways here in america. the welfare system that everyone gripes about, either that it is too much or it is too little, is socialist in nature.

DanaC · 07-21-2004, 07:25 PM

A fair point Lookout. In that case all we are actually arguing about is percentages rather than principal.

As to the level playing field .....I meant that interms of access to the higher echelons of society. Success may mean any number of things to the individual, but to gain access to the upper earning levels and the power that brings is reserved primarily to the ones born into it. A few make it....they give credence to the "American dream"...My point is that a tiny fraction of your society has a stake in the highest levels of society but the majority of the population will defend to the hilt the rights of the extremely wealthy to not have their wealth making impeded in any way despite the fact that those defending them will likely never be able to take advantage of that dream and indeed would be able to lead happier lives ( imo) if the wealthy were forced to put more back into the society which provided them with the markets and workforce which allowed them such success. The elite didnt make their money in a vacuum. They did so through the labours of themselves and others. They are not just people who do society the kindness of creating jobs, they are also people who have been served by a workforce which is all too often percieved by them as an inconvenient way to spend money.....Employers by their very nature will try to get the workers they need for the minimum the market will allow them to pay without losing their workforce.

lookout123 · 07-21-2004, 07:37 PM

the fact that relatively few people actually achieve great wealth is the whole motivating factor.if everyone who worked hard walked away with a $200K salary then there would be no motivation for anyone to go through the requirements for higher skill level training. there have to be winners and losers in a capitalist society.

and the simple fact is that whether you like him or not John Edwards father was a steel worker and now he is a candidate for VP. he made millions by raising our insurance costs, but he is a son of a steel worker. bill clinton was the son of a drunken womanizer and he became a drunken... oh wait (I"M JUST BEING SMART ASS) he became president. Reagan was an actor. my cousin grew up lower middle class and is worth untold millions now, because he wrote some bizarre software that apparently revolutionized bank and government security systems... it can happen to everyone, but it shouldn't happen to everyone.

DanaC · 07-21-2004, 08:43 PM

*nods* True it happens to a few and you wouldnt want it to happen for everyone. I am not suggesting that the playing field be made truly level *smiles* I think that really would mark me a fabulist....What I am suggesting is that America could raise those at the very bottom of the heap up to a more comfortable position without it actually costing so mvery much in real terms. What would be spent on inmproving the social conditions of the poorest in society would be recouped by lower prison populations and fewer families falling into generational poverty and alienation from the world of work thereby reducing the overall burden on welfare in the long term...

The thing is, it wouldnt really require that much extra tax. I do think the absolute top earners should pay a small per centage extra, perhaps even an extra 2 or 3 per cent would make a startling difference. But what would make more of a difference is if the money was spent where it was truly needed and not where it felt most at home :P I struggle to understand the willingness of the American taxpayer to fund Corporate welfare schemes for the likes of McDonalds in order for them to "open up new markets overseas" yet begrudge a small income and assistance with their rent to a family living below the poverty line (To me that seems somewhat perverse)

Other things would ease the burden on the tax payer too.....For instance a combination of incentives for eploying in America and penalties for corporations who close profitable factories in America in order to move their operations to a low wage economy.....If companies like Ford could be persuaded to maintain a profitable factory with it's staff of loyal and often 2nd generation workers then maybe there wouldnt be a large population of unemployed workers living in a devastated town with little or no economic landscape to take advantage of .....I am sure they'd rather have their jobs back than live on the charity of a society who begrudges them the very small help they seek.

Then there are the many loopholes and dodges which large companies and wealthy corporations are able to exploit .....It would likely make a difference if those who were being taxed at 40% actually were paying tax on the whole oftheir earnings.

.....But thats just the top earners. As for the rest of the tax paying public I dont think you should be paying more. Your tax burden is plenty high enough. The trouble is you dont seem to get a lot for your taxes .....that is to say, if I had to pay tax at the level I do now but after i had paid that tax I still had to pay for medical insurance, the education of any future children all the while knowing that if for some reason my life did hit the rails the help I would be able to access would be minimal and short lived....If that were the case I would probably seriously resent my tax burden. As it is I dont really see it as a burden...I get value for money *smiles* I pay reasonably high taxes and for those taxes I can feel confident that my needs will be met ( just) should I fall ill, or out of work and that any children I have will have access not only to primary and secondary education but also college and university ( although university is no longer free it is heavily subsidised and the basic cost of tuition fees along with maintenance is met by the state and repaid at a later date when the student is earning above a certain level)

If I didnt have that value for money perhaps I would be more hostile to taxation generally. Given how little you seem to get in return for your taxes I can understand your resentment when your money is taken off you to provide for others. If your taxes were also paying for your children's education and your Grandmothers heart bypass they may seem less odorous. As it is given how much you then have to pay for health insurance and education and the myriad other things the tax buden on the middle classes in particular seems overly heavy

07-21-2004, 06:45 PM	#66
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	10 % of $10 000 dollars may be a smaller amount to pay than 10% of $100 000 dollars but to the person who is on 10 000 it is a harder burden "there is something to strive for kamerad." chuckles oh many of us are trying. Personally i would take our tax system back to the old supertax days. Those earning over a certain amount would be taxed at a very high rate for anything they earn above that limit. I believe it used to be 90%...I wouldnt go that far. I wold put it at 70% "if you want to raise that so you can give it to the people on the bottom, what is the incentive for anyone to earn more?" I really dont think the rich need to be incentivised to make themselves richer. You could tax them at horrible levels and they would still want to make more money. Last edited by DanaC; 07-21-2004 at 06:51 PM.

07-21-2004, 07:37 PM	#74
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	the fact that relatively few people actually achieve great wealth is the whole motivating factor.if everyone who worked hard walked away with a $200K salary then there would be no motivation for anyone to go through the requirements for higher skill level training. there have to be winners and losers in a capitalist society. and the simple fact is that whether you like him or not John Edwards father was a steel worker and now he is a candidate for VP. he made millions by raising our insurance costs, but he is a son of a steel worker. bill clinton was the son of a drunken womanizer and he became a drunken... oh wait (I"M JUST BEING SMART ASS) he became president. Reagan was an actor. my cousin grew up lower middle class and is worth untold millions now, because he wrote some bizarre software that apparently revolutionized bank and government security systems... it can happen to everyone, but it shouldn't happen to everyone. __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

07-21-2004, 08:43 PM	#75
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	nods True it happens to a few and you wouldnt want it to happen for everyone. I am not suggesting that the playing field be made truly level smiles I think that really would mark me a fabulist....What I am suggesting is that America could raise those at the very bottom of the heap up to a more comfortable position without it actually costing so mvery much in real terms. What would be spent on inmproving the social conditions of the poorest in society would be recouped by lower prison populations and fewer families falling into generational poverty and alienation from the world of work thereby reducing the overall burden on welfare in the long term... The thing is, it wouldnt really require that much extra tax. I do think the absolute top earners should pay a small per centage extra, perhaps even an extra 2 or 3 per cent would make a startling difference. But what would make more of a difference is if the money was spent where it was truly needed and not where it felt most at home :P I struggle to understand the willingness of the American taxpayer to fund Corporate welfare schemes for the likes of McDonalds in order for them to "open up new markets overseas" yet begrudge a small income and assistance with their rent to a family living below the poverty line (To me that seems somewhat perverse) Other things would ease the burden on the tax payer too.....For instance a combination of incentives for eploying in America and penalties for corporations who close profitable factories in America in order to move their operations to a low wage economy.....If companies like Ford could be persuaded to maintain a profitable factory with it's staff of loyal and often 2nd generation workers then maybe there wouldnt be a large population of unemployed workers living in a devastated town with little or no economic landscape to take advantage of .....I am sure they'd rather have their jobs back than live on the charity of a society who begrudges them the very small help they seek. Then there are the many loopholes and dodges which large companies and wealthy corporations are able to exploit .....It would likely make a difference if those who were being taxed at 40% actually were paying tax on the whole oftheir earnings. .....But thats just the top earners. As for the rest of the tax paying public I dont think you should be paying more. Your tax burden is plenty high enough. The trouble is you dont seem to get a lot for your taxes .....that is to say, if I had to pay tax at the level I do now but after i had paid that tax I still had to pay for medical insurance, the education of any future children all the while knowing that if for some reason my life did hit the rails the help I would be able to access would be minimal and short lived....If that were the case I would probably seriously resent my tax burden. As it is I dont really see it as a burden...I get value for money smiles I pay reasonably high taxes and for those taxes I can feel confident that my needs will be met ( just) should I fall ill, or out of work and that any children I have will have access not only to primary and secondary education but also college and university ( although university is no longer free it is heavily subsidised and the basic cost of tuition fees along with maintenance is met by the state and repaid at a later date when the student is earning above a certain level) If I didnt have that value for money perhaps I would be more hostile to taxation generally. Given how little you seem to get in return for your taxes I can understand your resentment when your money is taken off you to provide for others. If your taxes were also paying for your children's education and your Grandmothers heart bypass they may seem less odorous. As it is given how much you then have to pay for health insurance and education and the myriad other things the tax buden on the middle classes in particular seems overly heavy Last edited by DanaC; 07-21-2004 at 08:49 PM.

07-21-2004, 06:38 PM	#64
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	The incentive is that 40 per cent of 10 million dollars is still a lot of money. Do you really think the rich will cease striving for more wealth if you take an extra 10 %off them? You think they'll just stop trying to make money because they dont feel it's worth it? "we could call it Danaland, Inc." Or you could call it Germany....or France...at a bit of a push you could call it Britain, though we dont proviede for our people as well as our continental brothers.

07-21-2004, 06:57 PM	#69
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	I think the difference between America and Europe is that in America you have the concept of a classless society in which anyone can make it to the top. The fact that most people actually arent able to take advantage of that doesnt seem to make a difference. In Europe we are under no illusions of a level playing field. We know that those who are on low incomes will likely stay on low incomes and the ones who are wealthy are the ones who will remain wealthy. ....The elite do a fairly bangup job of protecting their interests without me doing it for them. I hear many Americans defending their right to low taxes at the higher levels possibly because they believe that one day they may be the one who is being taxed for their high income. They are protecting a dream they will never be able to participate in. They are defending their elite's right to stay elite. In doing so they are defending people who are the least in need of defense and whose interests are at odds with their own ( imo)

07-21-2004, 06:58 PM	#70
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	"and dana - do you not understand that communism doesn't work once people are involved? " I am not an advocate of communism. What I am talking about is not communism, it isnt even socialism. I advocate capitalism with a social conscience.

07-21-2004, 07:25 PM	#73
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	A fair point Lookout. In that case all we are actually arguing about is percentages rather than principal. As to the level playing field .....I meant that interms of access to the higher echelons of society. Success may mean any number of things to the individual, but to gain access to the upper earning levels and the power that brings is reserved primarily to the ones born into it. A few make it....they give credence to the "American dream"...My point is that a tiny fraction of your society has a stake in the highest levels of society but the majority of the population will defend to the hilt the rights of the extremely wealthy to not have their wealth making impeded in any way despite the fact that those defending them will likely never be able to take advantage of that dream and indeed would be able to lead happier lives ( imo) if the wealthy were forced to put more back into the society which provided them with the markets and workforce which allowed them such success. The elite didnt make their money in a vacuum. They did so through the labours of themselves and others. They are not just people who do society the kindness of creating jobs, they are also people who have been served by a workforce which is all too often percieved by them as an inconvenient way to spend money.....Employers by their very nature will try to get the workers they need for the minimum the market will allow them to pay without losing their workforce.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)