112 replies to this topic

[Vortigern]

It is nothing to do with calling everything I "hate" Fascism. It is economic fascism. Corporate buddies using the government to give themselves an upper hand in the markets. Are you saying the bailouts were not an example of this kind of fascism? There is more than one type of fascism Kacen, I'd expect you to have known that.

That's not Fascism, Tom. That's an extension of nepotism, more commonly referred to as the 'old boys network'. People doing favours for friends and ensuring that all the money stays in the same hands. Not Fascism. Really, genuinely not.

[Puppeteer]

It's no use saying that Tom, he'll say "it'll stop when they're all dead".

someone suggesting that people who earn over £250k p.a. should pay 75% tax

Now evidently this is ridiculous, but I like the idea of a sliding scale... up to a limit, of course.

[Vortigern]

What's wrong with the sliding scale of 'the more you earn, the more you pay' while keeping the proportions the same for everyone? It seems more and more strange and illogical the more I think about it that people should work harder, earn more money, the foundation capitalism and our very society, and then because they've worked hard, they lose more of it for no reason.

Example: my sister has worked fucking hard for the last year and a half. We're talking 12 hour days hard work, and now because of that she's estimated this year's earnings at £52k or thereabouts. That isn't really that much, but it puts her in the current highest tax bracket, so 40% goes in taxes. That's more than £20k that she has earned but will never see. I understand that taxes are necessary for a working regulated society, but it does seem a bit ridiculous.

[Allathar]

Which is why I suggest the same % for everyone. It also deals with other problems, in Holland we have for example 'hypotheekrenteaftrek'. That means you don't have to pay taxes over the interest of your hypotheek (don't know the english word, it'll be something like that) (which means you can lower your income with the interest, and you'll only have to pay taxes over that amount) so a lot of the very rich people just go buy houses, do nothing about it, use the interest over it to spend less money on taxes, and through this wizardry end up spending less money overall in the long run in taxes/interest.

[Mathijs]

Hypotheek = mortgage, just to clear that up.

[Rafv Nin IV]

There are two problems with taxing everyone equally by percent. The first is that the wealthy--the people who by their own hard work and ingenuity earn more money--still pay an unfair amount of tax. The second is that the poor don't have much money for you to tax anyway, so it's pretty much pointless to tax them. These two problems conflict with each other: the only way to solve one is to completely ignore the other.

This is one reason why I support the minimization of government, so that while you can't solve these problems, you can at least take some steps to alleviate them.

Doesn't the prefix hypo- mean under? And if a simple word like mortgage ends up as "hypotheekrenteaftrek", there's no way I'll ever try learning Dutch

[Mathijs]

Hypotheek means mortgage, hypotheekrenteaftrek means mortgage tax-deduction.

Edited by Matias, 23 April 2009 - 11:42 PM.

[Allathar]

Yes, the government needs to be minimalized, but there's still a lot of money needed for the country. And the easiest way to get it is through taxes on the loans. Also, it's not really 'unfair' for the richer people to pay more taxes - it's still 'for every 3 dollars I make, 1 goes to the government', no matter how much you earn. So it's still worth the effort to make more money, unlike the system (in Holland) atm: in the highest scale, for every € you make, 0.52 goes to the government. So, in the highest scale, more than half of it vanishes. And then it's not really worth the effort anymore.

[Rob38]

Yes, the government needs to be minimalized, but there's still a lot of money needed for the country. And the easiest way to get it is through taxes on the loans. Also, it's not really 'unfair' for the richer people to pay more taxes - it's still 'for every 3 dollars I make, 1 goes to the government', no matter how much you earn.

Yes, but $10000 going to taxes for something making $100,000 is much different than $1000 going to taxes for something making $10000. They're the same percentage (10%) but the person who makes only $10000 is more severely affected by it as you can still live fairly well off with $90000 but would be very difficult to live with $9000.

[Vortigern]

How much more difficult is it going to be to live off $9000 then $10000? Besides, if you're only earning $9000/year then you're probably below minimum wage or not working full time, so go do something about it. However, that's not the point. If everyone pays 33% or whatever then nobody can complain. It just doesn't make sense to penalise people for fulfilling the role capitalism intended for them.

[Allathar]

Guess that poor guy earning only 10k shouldn't have dropped out of school then... He could've had a better job and earn more if he finished it. But many poor people aren't capable of affording school anymore, so they kind of have to drop out and get a job, to make some money and go to school to get a better job. The government should help these people, but not too much, because people tend to get lazy then and the government too generous, and soon more and more people will ask the government for money because 'they are poor and the government will give it anyway'.

While I'm at it, the government here in Holland also spends it's money wrong... There are a lot of alcohol and drugs addicts who 'earn' government money (uitkeringen) so they can spend it on more drugs and alchohol. In the 'verslaafdenzorg' (rehab clinic?) they get all the care in the world, because they are sooo poor, while at the same time the elder persons (bejaarden) who can't take care of themselves anymore are just dumped somewhere with no care for them at all, even when they paid taxes their whole live. And the drugs addicts get all the care in the world. This is totally wrong imo, these addicts haven't ever contributed anything to the society, so they shouldn't expect the society to contribute anything to them.

This is a simple sketched situation and in reality things are much more complicated ofc, but I wanted to show my point clearly.

[Vortigern]

Actually, England has a similar situation. The new budget announcements are giving more money to help young unemployed people because of the economic crisis, but what about old unemployed people? What about guys who have worked in the same factory for thirty-five years and now have nothing? They don't get any more help. I think this is a shining example of how our government can't actually get anything right.

By the way, just to summarise the budget report: "We might get better in ten years or so, but we don't really have a plan. Maybe borrow some more." Inspires confidence, doesn't it?

[Allathar]

A lot of confidence indeed...

[/sarcasm]

Confidence, which is, actually, the only thing needed to cure the economical crisis. At the moment, the crisis is more of a 'self-fulfilling-prophecy' - people and companies don't spend anymore 'because of the crisis'. No, I'm waiting to buy that big television, 'because of the crisis'. No big holiday plans, it's crisis, remember. And when people start postponing buying stuff, that's when you GET a crisis. Crisis > people buying less stuff > companies making less money > people getting fired > people buying less stuff > etc, etc. Yes, the media have done a terrific job scaring everyone with the economical crisis. Negative reports each day, convincing everyone the crisis will bring us back to the thirties... While in reality the initial shock in the banking world and the 'crisis' following it wouldn't have had an impact whatsoever if it weren't for the goddamned media. The government had a good plan with lowering the interest, but it's useless now because the media convinced everyone it's crisis. Now, the only thing able to stop the crisis is a confident government, and confident people who start spending their money again. But that's a tough thing to accomplish when the media bring us apocalyptic messages...

Edited by Allathar, 25 April 2009 - 10:19 AM.

[Rafv Nin IV]

You speak as if the 'crisis' is merely a matter of people spending, that it's merely about consumer goods and not about hard, tangible things. Perhaps it is in Europe, in the East Coast of the USA, but over here, it's about overproduction.

The economy was good. Lots of people could afford houses. Construction went through the roof, and the lumber companies here had to step up their efforts. Too many houses were built, and now we're in a slack tide until the ones that lie unsold are purchased.

The economy was good. Lots of people could afford boats. Boat building, welding, and related occupations saw a surge in activity, and the aluminum smithies had to step up their efforts. Too many boats were built, and now we're in a slack tide until the ones that lie unsold are purchased.

The pattern goes through most of Oregon's economy, touches most everything. With money, people bought Noble Firs for Christmas trees instead of buying Douglas Firs (a doug takes two-thirds the money and time), so the tree farms (they are a major part of Oregon's economy, we ship them up to Canada, down to Mexico, and across the nation) focused on growing Nobles. As a result, fields and fields of Noble Firs were cut down, heaped into piles and burned. All that money, gone up in smoke, because you need that land or you won't have a crop at all seven years from now.

But, in part, you are right. People convinced that they will be laid off will not buy from Oregon's berry farms; they'll buy the inferior Californian breeds (they actually are inferior; on our products the words "Oregon Strawberries" are emblazoned because they don't taste like plastic) that have half the flavor, but are cheaper to produce. On a bike ride the other day, I saw a whole field of harvested onions that weren't sold, so they were planted back into the ground as seed for next year. There were probably twenty thousand dollars of unsold white onions. That's when you know the people are paranoid--it's not that they won't buy boats or the best Christmas trees, but that they won't buy white onions.

I had hypothesized at the beginning of this recession that if there was one area that would stay untouched, it would be the alcohol industry. People don't stop drinking for this sort of thing. They'll stop eating onions before they'll stop drinking beer. But Oregon's alcohol industry is primarily wine and microbrews, and people who traditionally drank two-bucks-a-bottle microbrews have moved to Bud Light. That means the hop growers and the grape growers have to cut back...

Add into that the NAFTA business, which is going to destroy Oregon's tree farms. The pilot program installed under the Bush Administration (they actually did do some decent things; just not many) that allowed fifty Mexican trucking companies access to American freeways has been revoked by the Obama Administration. Mexico responded by placing high tariffs on some U.S. goods--including a 33% tariff on small trees. How many Mexicans will use a Douglas Fir instead of a palm tree when it costs a third again as much?

Edited by Rafv Nin IV, 25 April 2009 - 03:34 PM.

[Allathar]

The situation you described is simply low conjuncture in the economy. Free market will handle it, no government needed for that.

@ your edit: agreed, although I'm not so sure whether it's because of the crisis the onions are doing bad. Alcohol won't suffer though, you can even tax it all the way you want, people will still drink it. And the issue with the Mexican trucking companies... It shows again that you shouldn't mess with the free market, the 'government plan' always backfires and it turns out worse than it'd have been in a free market.

Btw, I think we better split the economic discussion. *blames Puppeteer for derailing the thread*

Edited by Allathar, 25 April 2009 - 03:49 PM.

[Rafv Nin IV]

You're telling the economic reactionary that there's no need for government intervention. Click on the Libertarian userbar: that's my political compass. You don't have to tell me my own beliefs

My point was merely that this is not the sort of Wall Street Banking Crisis that it's hyped up to be, or the fault of corporate entities or the media or anybody else. This is merely the coincidental collapse of many industries that are interlinked with the public perspective.

I do, however, think that the Obama Administration is idiotic for complaining about the "public safety affects" of allowing Mexicans to drive in older trucks on our roads, when the West Coast economy is shitty enough as it is that we don't need our third greatest trading partner (after Canada and China) cut off from us.

[Rattuskid]

There is more than one type of fascism Kacen, I'd expect you to have known that.

It's like reverse doublethink, pinning a very specific type of nationalized racism to just anything you don't like. A fascinating study in how deeply autistic people can be in their political views.

There are two problems with taxing everyone equally by percent. The first is that the wealthy--the people who by their own hard work and ingenuity earn more money--still pay an unfair amount of tax. The second is that the poor don't have much money for you to tax anyway, so it's pretty much pointless to tax them. These two problems conflict with each other: the only way to solve one is to completely ignore the other.

If there is a God in heaven, you're hopefully not old enough to vote.

You base a lot of this in hypothetical. Firstly, not everyone who has money earned it. Many simply inherited it, some sequestered it through other means, and at the end of the day 'hard work' as the means of receiving compensation is ludicrous. You know those little beads you see during Mardis Gras? The workers in the factory that make them put in 16 hour shifts for around 10 cents an hour. The factory owner, who got the position from a friend, does little more than organize new ways to keep his workers 'productive' like removing safeties from equipment, making everyone wear bright hats so he can 'spot' them, and in general just terrorizing them. He makes about $1.6 million a year.

He invented nothing. He hardly works apart from 'managing'. He makes about 8,000 times what his employees do. His employees meanwhile live in dormitories on the site of the factory, and it's considered one of the most 'modern' facilities in China. He prefers to keep about 80% of his workforce female, because he has less 'issues' with them.

Also, people bellyache U.S. and U.K. taxes a lot, but compared to some other European nations, like Finland, Sweden or whatnot, they're laughably low.

You must also realize there is a specialty of 'tax lawyers' whom, for a fee, gladly find otherwise overlooked deductions and minimize the amount you have to pay. Obviously, these services are more frequented by those who can afford them though, but when you hear people who make over $500,000 a year pay 35%... that's only in pure theory and very rarely works out to that amount.

How much more difficult is it going to be to live off $9000 then $10000? Besides, if you're only earning $9000/year then you're probably below minimum wage or not working full time, so go do something about it. However, that's not the point. If everyone pays 33% or whatever then nobody can complain. It just doesn't make sense to penalise people for fulfilling the role capitalism intended for them.

How much more difficult is it to live off 9 grand as opposed to 10? Spoken like a man who assuredly still lives with his parent(s) (but hopefully that also means you can't vote... my faith in the Almighty is reaffirmed). I also like how you anthropomorphizing the concept of capitalism as 'wanting' certain things, but if your higher power is green and rectangular, I won't go there. Here's the general theory on why a flat tax is bad, apart from the excellent point Rob raised. If I live off of $40,000/yr that probably means I live in a fairly modest home. I probably drive a truck or sedan, and in general do average, or below avergey things.

Now if I make 40 million a year, you can bet I'm living larger, which means my house is larger, but also has more ground, more rooms, consumes more electricity and the like. With the obvious fact that I have more property, more home than I can view at one given time, and a decent security system, it's going to consume more resources of the local police department to keep my home safe or respond to break ins, than it is for 40 grand me. With more electrical stuff, I also have a larger more burnable asset that in theory would tax the local fire department more. A similar argument can be made for paramedic services... and the people I employ, from maids to security guards to just my 'posse' all place far more wear on the roads than 40 grand me. I certainly fly more, necessitating more use of federal employees like TSA personnel or air traffic controllers, and the list just goes on. Essentially, a flat tax doesn't make sense because everyone isn't equal in their consumption of government services.

Thems the breaks, and it's not punishing those who strive the best in out society, it's just a society where a fiscal pyramid is a necessity surviving the whims of those at the top by taking a slither more from them than anyone else.

Now, a flatter tax is a whole different ballgame, and I've seen people make some very convincing arguments for that, but they only do so by leaving any Randian baggage where it belongs... at the door.

Also, your fears on the truckers being a lifeline are unfounded. They just don't allow the Mexican drivers, with a much more lax set of safety rules concerning trucks, drive goods once over the border. They put it on American company owned trucks, with domestic drivers. This has been the case. Obama isn't changing anything, he's just preventing a change from happening.

Edited by Rattuskid, 26 April 2009 - 07:53 AM.

[Allathar]

Now if I make 40 million a year, you can bet I'm living larger, which means my house is larger, but also has more ground, more rooms, consumes more electricity and the like. With the obvious fact that I have more property, more home than I can view at one given time, and a decent security system, it's going to consume more resources of the local police department to keep my home safe or respond to break ins, than it is for 40 grand me. With more electrical stuff, I also have a larger more burnable asset that in theory would tax the local fire department more. A similar argument can be made for paramedic services... and the people I employ, from maids to security guards to just my 'posse' all place far more wear on the roads than 40 grand me. I certainly fly more, necessitating more use of federal employees like TSA personnel or air traffic controllers, and the list just goes on. Essentially, a flat tax doesn't make sense because everyone isn't equal in their consumption of government services.

Even with flat tax, people earning 40 million a year still pay WAAY more taxes than people earning only 10k... Because 10% of 40 million is 4 million, and 10% of 10k is only 1000. Your argument just doesn't make sense.

Also, your example of the factory owner who 'only' manages things is also wrong - for one, even if he paid more taxes he'd still be bullying his employees, and two, it's a very bad example of someone who earns a lot money. Not everyone who earns a lot money has gotten it from their father or from some distant uncle... No, it's mostly because of HARD WORKING.

[Vortigern]

How much more difficult is it to live off 9 grand as opposed to 10? Spoken like a man who assuredly still lives with his parent(s) (but hopefully that also means you can't vote... my faith in the Almighty is reaffirmed). I also like how you anthropomorphizing the concept of capitalism as 'wanting' certain things, but if your higher power is green and rectangular, I won't go there. Here's the general theory on why a flat tax is bad, apart from the excellent point Rob raised. If I live off of $40,000/yr that probably means I live in a fairly modest home. I probably drive a truck or sedan, and in general do average, or below avergey things.

Wow, you really are a twat, aren't you? First off, I don't live with my parents. I'm 19, I can vote and I know exactly how hard it is to live on a very tight budget. I know that having an extra thousand dollars would be handy, but it isn't going to make that much difference overall. Anyway, nobody actually tries to live off $10000/year. An average salary in Britain is about £26'000, I believe, which, at a flat 33% tax rate which I am proposing, would cost them £8666 in taxes per year. That leaves them with over £17000 for everything off, which is easily a living wage.

Having actually done a bit of research and looked at your profile for just a moment, I see that you're 23 years old. I find it rather depressing to think that a 23 year old who presumably pays taxes and votes has so little understanding of why the system is flawed. Do you honestly think that more people inherit money than earn it? Let me give you an example here. My dad grew up on a council estate. His parents died in the same house fifty years later. Now he has a 5-bedroom house with a big garden in one of Britain's most expensive countryside regions, and he has worked about 12 hours a day for it for the last 15 years. He has not inherited a penny, and he is entirely representative of the middle class. That is how the world works.

I have a question. Rattuskid, did you inherit a shitload of money and just assume everyone else did too? Or are you really just thick as shit?

[Rattuskid]

Even with flat tax, people earning 40 million a year still pay WAAY more taxes than people earning only 10k... Because 10% of 40 million is 4 million, and 10% of 10k is only 1000. Your argument just doesn't make sense.

I really doubt they would pay that. I really doubt it. I don't see how our system would allow a truly flat tax. It'd be more along the lines of x% implemented for most people, and an x% equivalent in y% taxes (x>y) with z amount of charitable donations, or deductions or whatnot.

Assuming a true flat tax, you're only hurting people currently benefiting from tax breaks (like marriage) or those at the bottom of the strata.

An example, let's say our nation has ten people in it. They earn in a fiscal year...

-$4,000
-$5,000
-$10,000
-$10,000
-$20,000
-$40,000
-$40,000
-$40,000
-$100,000
-$1,000,000

Let's assume the laws of our nation are such that anyone making under 8 grand is not taxed at all, people making between 8 and 15 are taxed 5%, people making 15 to 25 are taxed 15%, between 25 and 45 20% and 30% for all over 45. It's a bit silly in those numbers, but just an example, let's see what gov't revenue is in our Imaginationstan.

0
0
500
500
3000
8000
8000
8000
30,000
300,000
________
For a total of $358,000. Now let's say the system shifts power in our little nation of ten, and people like you assume taxation levying control. You still have to pay for public services, for defense, for debt maybe even... So let's see what our amount is, in total of all taxable income ($1,269,000). It comes out to about 28.2%. You're a generous guy though, so you round down to 25% with hefty cuts in spending. Yada yada.

Anyway, the effect is that a 5% tax decrease for the top two earners, and a massive tax hike for everyone else. If you feel comfortable taxing a quarter of that guy who made $4,000 this year, you're probably not the kind of person who gets out much...

Also, your example of the factory owner who 'only' manages things is also wrong - for one, even if he paid more taxes he'd still be bullying his employees, and two, it's a very bad example of someone who earns a lot money. Not everyone who earns a lot money has gotten it from their father or from some distant uncle... No, it's mostly because of HARD WORKING.

I never made the point that taxing him more would make him nicer, I was just pointing out what a fallacy it is to assume hard work is directly proportional to amount earned, and used a real world example of a factory in Fuzhou. In terms of the hypothetical, we could both work for the same company, but through careful staggered and timed out requests for a raise, I could be making a significant amount more than you if you had kept quiet during the same time. There's also the case where in some regions of the nation, you can earn a lot more through crime (by selling drugs in a Detroit ghetto, or arms peddling across the Texan border) than you could through honest work.

There's a healthy difference between wealth as an individual, and worth as a human being that lolbertarian or Randian spectrum people just don't get.

Also I'd contend the amount of top earners who inherited high-income businesses or money is more than you'd expect. Sam Walton built a business from the ground up which you may have heard of, but shortly before his time of death transfered most of the ownership to his four children. Now, I'm not an expert in probability, nor family relations, but I'm willing to say blood relation probably won out over hard work in old man Sam's eyes in terms of who he handed the reigns to. Those four children, nothing more than heirs, are on the Forbes 500. If people didn't have 'family money' there would be no Rockefellers or Kennedys.

Don't get me wrong, I have incredible respect for someone like Bill Gates who is the definition of a self made man, and see the value of not having taxation hit diminishing returns. People need to strive for something... but the poor aren't intrinsically lazy, and the rich are intrinsically hard working. That's simply not reality.

Oh Vort, you're incredibly easy to rile up, aren't you? I'll have to make note.

An average salary in Britain is about £26'000

Mean, median or mode? You do still realize that means ~50%(median) or more (mean if not weighted) of the population falls under that mark, no? I assure you, there are people struggling off ten grand a year, probably a disturbing amount of families to boot who fall under said category. Hard work is certainly often part of earning more than you did previously, but it's far from the only factor. I got laid off from my construction job about two months ago, I'm taking part time work at the moment until things pick up enough to get back on a major project. I've put in 16 hour days. I've worked in 130 degree pits in the ground. I've worked in dirt, muck, roaches and I've even been exposed to asbestos... did any of personal hard work that prevent the recession? Would I have this same job and line of work if I was born in Somalia and not the U.S.? A lot of luck is involved in this too, friend. A lot, and although not being lazy is a fuckton of help, a little ambition going a far way, there is no quantitative way to associate each penny earned to an exact amount of expending labor.