General Government Discussion Thread

  • #1
    Having been inspired by the economics discussion within the "Blizzard Losing Steam" thread on the D3 board, I have decided to go and make a thread where we can all discuss our quarrels with several economic / political theories.

    This is a place for active debate; flaming will not be allowed.

    I will start:

    1. I wholeheartedly believe that Capitalism, in and of itself, is a policy that naturally creates a ever-widening wealth gap. This has been proven time and time again in history; the 1930's and the Great Depression within America, present day America, and in many other countries around the world. This system can have a negative influence upon economics and, due to the still persisting Communist fear within America today, will take time to regulate itself due to constant cries and accusations of "Socialism."

    2. Speaking of Socialism, I think that a good balance of Socialism and Capitalism is preferable in highly developed countries. If an unregulated market is allowed to grow largely enough and quickly enough, it will almost always bounce back at the same rate in which it grew, creating a deadly bear market. A regulated market can help insure that growth can persist and, given the scenario that a bubble does burst somewhere within the market, the economic effect will be lessened. My major gripe with Capitalism is that it encourages a bull market, market speculation (remember home derivative trading?), and a profit based economy, whereas I believe that an economy should be based on efficiency and sustainability.

    3. I believe that a form of progressive taxation could further the benefits of a mixed-Capitalist system. Example:

    Let's say that there are 4 classes within a society: A lower class, a middle class, an upper-middle class, and an elite class.

    Lower class pays %10 on all taxes (this is of course excluding sales tax)
    Middle class pays %20 on all taxes
    Upper-middle class pays %40 on all taxes
    Elite class pays %70 on all taxes

    Lower class makes an average of $2,750 a month. $275 of that goes towards federal revenue, which leaves $2,475 for necessities, mortgage, and indulgences within that family unit. The rest of the classes follow suit with graduating levels of income with the middle class making a monthly income somewhere in the $4,000+ range.

    So, hypothetically:

    $3300 annually from each lower class unit
    $9,600 annually from each middle class unit
    $36,000 annually from each upper-middle class unit (based on a monthly income of $7,500+)
    And, assuming the elite class is making $1 million + monthly, they give up $700,000 of their income annually

    I like this system because I think that it doesn't allow anyone to live beyond their means, but it still doesn't discourage people to aspire to achieve rank success. If the taxes on the elite were too high, then Person A may not want to be an elite at all because they'd be giving too much of their money away. But, Person A also sees that, although the average upper-middle class unit gives away $36,000 of their annual earnings, they get to keep $54,000 of their annual earnings (which is a pretty good sum of money), so they aspire to rise up to that rank. It encourages progression, which is the essence of Capitalism. Now, a large amount of the tax money goes to funding public programs such as education and healthcare (much like we see today, but at a much lesser margin). A small amount of the tax money goes towards a defense budget, and the rest is spent on welfare programs. In my opinion, those are the three essentials within any government and as long as they are funded, then I don't see why there would be any problems. A regulated market helps protect the consumer from fraud within the financial system, helps sustain economic progress.

    I believe in a self-efficient society (trickle up). If we can build upon a base and abandon the belief that we can sustain ourselves on pillars of salt, then I can see some real progress made in the world as far as self-serving society goes. It would be even better if our society could run on completely renewable energy so oil ties, which are hindering Democracies around the world, are dissolved. It also helps create a Green industry that, given proper investment, could revolutionize the way we obtain and distribute power.

    I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
  • #2
    ugh... words. ...and math! D= enjoy the bubble before it busts. awwwww i got school tomorrow! il remain stoic before i find someone to lean on.

    haha 69 posts. =| wow im lame
  • #3
    Quote from lowl

    ugh... words. ...and math! D=


    Simplified version:

    Mixed economy + progressive taxation + rethinking of budget priorities = cool beans

    I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
  • #4
    Ooooh actual debate, how fun ^^

    Well I'm from Holland, which actually is a socialist country.

    Now all American alarms go off, "oh no, communism!" but this is due to a misconception concerning socialism. You see, every form of economy that taxes high incomes more than low incomes is socialist, though it can be in varying degrees.

    Your idea of making the different classes pay different taxes has been incorporated in our tax system, in an adapted form. You see, if you decide someones class based on their income, and then decide how much taxes they should pay, this leads to a problem. Say, for arguments sake, that the lower class makes upto 20k a year. 20k-40k can then be considered middle class.

    So, if you make 19.999 dollar a year, you have to pay 10%, equalling ~2k, giving you a net income of ~18k.
    But, if you make 21.000 dollar a year, you have to pay 20%, equalling ~4k, giving you a net income of 17k.

    This actually means that going forward in life is being punished. This is very detrimental to economic growth and a reason not to seek progress.

    Our system?
    Say the classes are divided like this;
    Lower: 0-20k
    Middle:20-40k
    Upper middle: 40-60k
    Elite: 60k+

    Now lets say we got someone with a before taxes income of 80k a year. This person would then have to pay 10% taxes over the first 20k, 20% over the second 20k, 30% over the third 20k, and 50% over anything above that. In this case that would be 2k + 4k + 6k + 10k = 22k.

    This way it is never detrimental to your net income to make more money. This is glorious you say? Why doesn't the entire world quickly adapt this wonderfull system? Well here's why...

    On paper, it sounds great. The people who have the most, contribute the most. But things that sound great on paper don't always work out as well.

    Why do people spend years in college learning tremendously difficult things, and busting their brains, living on a diet of coffee? Because the reward is big. What happens when you cut down the reward? People's aspirations go down. This is the same problem communism had, though to a much higher degree.

    Second is a very practical problem. Poor people may rejoice at this system, rich people are surprisingly un-fond of it, especially in a country like the USA, where anything resembling socialism is nearly equalled to satanism. A result is that big companies will move their business to other countries, that aren't as social in their tax policies.

    I wholely agree that a socialist structure would be an ideal. Problem is, how do you sell it to the people who have to make it happen?
  • #5
    Some responses to your points:

    1. Everything tends to accumulate. This is only a half-serious analogy, but everything in the universe clumps up unevenly. Sub-atomic particles clump up to create atoms. Atoms clump up to create molecules. Molecules clump up to create bigger structures of matter. Those bigger structures clump up until you have asteroids, planets, suns, galaxies, and the entire universe.

    All this analogy was there to say that growth in general is exponential. And anyone familiar with how exponents work will know how the most minute differences create huge gaps.

    This is not so much unique to capitalism, but something that happens on its own. Whether it should be combated is a political choice.


    2. Regulation sounds good in theory. Only theory.

    In practice regulators are humans too. Politicians are as limited as stockbrokers. Politicians also have limited incentives to go an extra mile. A politician making a good law can sleep during their night just as well as a politician making a better law.

    Markets on the other hand are bigger, and create strong incentives. Markets are the most efficient way to find balances between mutually exclusive choices. Markets in sense are like Blizzard: huge iterative machines.


    3. Progressive taxes as steep as you propose have a problem. As tax rate nears 100%, the incentives to work and earn are lower. If someone was taxed 100% of their income, they will just save themselves all the bothering and not do anything because the result is the same.

    As such, progressive taxes cannot be too steep. A good rule of thumb is that anything beyond 50% is having a serious effect on incentives. (Highest rate of taxation in Finland depends on where a person lives, but can be as high as 50-56%.)

    Progressive tax attempts to decrease income differences. Whether that is taxation's purpose is once again a political decision.





    Beyond those, I'll first say that a country without a government couldn't exist (a fully capitalistic country). There will always be need for several services that can't be produced on a free market. Such as parks, armed forces and lighthouses, to give a few examples.

    Even a libertarian like myself, I think that governments should also take care of the most poor and provide equal opportunities to everyone. However, I do think that governments should be as minimal as possible.

    I don't trust corporations.

    I just trust governments even less.


    Also see my post in the other thread.
  • #6
    Well you not trusting the american gouvernment I can understand. With so many organisations that operate completely in the dark, combined with your system of election is just begging for corruption.

    Other than that, I'd like to postulate that Americans are stupid... x) *hides*

    Americans have democrats and republicans... Only one thing they both agree on, and thats that the system of gouvernment is deeply, deeply flawed. Yet nobody does anything but bitch and moan about it =P

    If you don't trust your gouvernment, get a new one! Even Egypt can do that ;)
  • #7
    I know little about this, it just confuses me more than anything, but I just wanted to say: Where I live, middle class pays the most, something like 45% of our pay. Knowing that, I frankly would not give a **** if the rich would pay 70%. A good system is one that puts everybody on a fair level. No one should ever be considered "higher" than another, and none should ever seek to be higher than others. This is an ever-flawed way of thinking to me.

    You can just not mind my post, I'm not really here to take part in this debate, I can't hold my own when it comes to economic discussions.
  • #8
    Quote from SFJake

    I know little about this, it just confuses me more than anything, but I just wanted to say: Where I live, middle class pays the most, something like 45% of our pay. Knowing that, I frankly would not give a **** if the rich would pay 70%. A good system is one that puts everybody on a fair level. No one should ever be considered "higher" than another, and none should ever seek to be higher than others. This is an ever-flawed way of thinking to me.

    You can just not mind my post, I'm not really here to take part in this debate, I can't hold my own when it comes to economic discussions.

    Yet any comment deserves a reply ;)

    You described communism =P And it's been proven to not work. =) No offense
  • #9
    Quote from Veggie50

    Well you not trusting the american gouvernment I can understand. With so many organisations that operate completely in the dark, combined with your system of election is just begging for corruption.Other than that, I'd like to postulate that Americans are stupid... x) *hides*Americans have democrats and republicans... Only one thing they both agree on, and thats that the system of gouvernment is deeply, deeply flawed. Yet nobody does anything but bitch and moan about it =PIf you don't trust your gouvernment, get a new one! Even Egypt can do that ;)


    I'm not american (see my location), and I don't trust any government :P.

    Governments have monopoly on violence. They are scary entities that are responsible to no-one individually. As long as the majority of their citizens agree with their policies, a government can do basically anything (see modern China or Nazi Germany). And people are lazy to revolt even if they didn't necessarily agree with their governments.

    As such, there is much reason to keep governments on a tight leash. Only allowing them minimum possible power. Government at the end of the day is lead by people. People aren't infallible.

    For some reason technocracies haven't developed into viable governments.


    Quote from SFJake

    I know little about this, it just confuses me more than anything, but I just wanted to say: Where I live, middle class pays the most, something like 45% of our pay. Knowing that, I frankly would not give a **** if the rich would pay 70%. A good system is one that puts everybody on a fair level. No one should ever be considered "higher" than another, and none should ever seek to be higher than others. This is an ever-flawed way of thinking to me.You can just not mind my post, I'm not really here to take part in this debate, I can't hold my own when it comes to economic discussions.


    A system where the most poor pay the least and everyone else pays the same percentage of their income is the "fairest" reasonable system. If everyone pays say 30-40%, then the rich will still pay much more than the poor. A percentage of a higher sum is more than a percentage of a lower sum.

    A completely fair system would be where everyone paid a static lump of money as taxes, but this would be socially unacceptable :P.
  • #10
    Governments have monopoly on violence.

    Lies =P There was violence long before any form of government was formed. Governments just organise said violence =P
    As to keeping governments on a tight leash, that I agree with, but that doesn't mean governments can't have a lot of responsibilities, it just means everything must be made transparent. Ironically nobody says governments should have less power when they're calling the police, firebrigade, ambulances, or even send their kids to school. =) There is a reason we put up with its downsides, which is why I've always thought the libertarian view is a bit naive.

    On another note though, Don ;)
    Everything tends to accumulate. This is only a half-serious analogy, but everything in the universe clumps up unevenly. Sub-atomic particles clump up to create atoms. Atoms clump up to create molecules. Molecules clump up to create bigger structures of matter. Those bigger structures clump up until you have asteroids, planets, suns, galaxies, and the entire universe.

    All this analogy was there to say that growth in general is exponential. And anyone familiar with how exponents work will know how the most minute differences create huge gaps.

    I am a fan of analogies, but this one doesn't quite make sense. Growth is by no means always exponential :3 (I see a whole different discussion coming xD)
    Back on topic!
    My major gripe with Capitalism is that it encourages a bull market, market speculation (remember home derivative trading?), and a profit based economy, whereas I believe that an economy should be based on efficiency and sustainability.

    This sounds really nice and logical, but it wouldn't actually make a difference. Poverty will always exist, no matter what you do. Why? Because the more resources we get, the bigger we allow our world population to get. Say we solve world hunger today by doubling the amount of food available in the world. More food makes for a healthier population, and healthy populations reproduce faster than deprived populations. This will inevitably keep up untill the population is deprived once again, stabilizing the growth rate. Difference is, there would be more people, but relative to the entire world population, there would be the same amount of hunger.
  • #11
    Quote from Veggie50

    Governments have monopoly on violence.

    Lies =P There was violence long before any form of government was formed. Governments just organise said violence =P
    As to keeping governments on a tight leash, that I agree with, but that doesn't mean governments can't have a lot of responsibilities, it just means everything must be made transparent. Ironically nobody says governments should have less power when they're calling the police, firebrigade, ambulances, or even send their kids to school. =) There is a reason we put up with its downsides, which is why I've always thought the libertarian view is a bit naive.


    Of course violence exists outside of governments.

    What that term means (the Wikipedia link was short, yes, but the gist of it is there) is that governments are the only source of justified violence. Police, armed forces and such. Private violence is also justified, but it gains its justification only from the government (security guards, self-defense, etc.). In an organized lawful society, government has the monopoly on violence. Government decides when violence is legal and when it isn't. If a government does not have the monopoly on violence (i.e. the country is in a state of civil war), the government does not function and can barely be called a government.

    If a civil uprise happened, the governments duty would be to quell the said uprising. It would have the right for it. The rebels would be prosecuted and convicted on the other hand. As such, it is important to make sure the government does not gain too much power.


    Libertarianism has more than one vision inside it. I think a total elimination of the government is a ridiculous idea. However, it should be under extreme and careful scrutiny as to what areas of society should be handled by the government and which shouldn't.


    Quote from Veggie50

    I am a fan of analogies, but this one doesn't quite make sense. Growth is by no means always exponential :3 (I see a whole different discussion coming xD)


    Growth is basically always exponential. Advancements build on earlier advancements to create larger advancements than would otherwise be possible.

    Population growth, economical growth, scientific growth, all are almost always exponential. Linear growth might seem more intuitive, but more growth is exponential than linear.

    As an easy example, Earth's population during the last 2000 years:



    World GDP (less steep of an exponential growth, but it's still noticeable):

  • #12
    @Don: the point is not that if everyone pays the same tax %, the rich pay more than the poor (in absolute terms). The point is the money that you have left after you pay taxes. If you earn 250k per month, and you pay 30% tax, you still have 175k to spend after taxes. If you earn 2k per month, and you also pay 30% tax, you only have 1400 to spend after taxes. Sure, the rich guy pays more (in absolute terms), but at least you still have a fuckload of cash to throw around. But if you're poor, you're left with fuck-all after you pay your taxes. Saying that an incremental tax rate discourages desire to succeed is bullcrap. So you'd rather be piss poor and pay 10% tax than be rich and pay 50%? I'll take the rich, if you don't mind.


    @Veggie50: actually, the population of developed/'comfortable' societies has plateaued and has even started to decline a bit; on the other hand, populations of 3rd world countries continue to grow unchecked. I think it's safe to assume that if all countries had the same level of comfort, their populations would follow the same trend.
  • #13
    I've never really understood the notion of libertariarism (being a socialist or broader a marxist if you will). I don't understand why a doctor should earn more than 7500 euro's per month. Ok they studied for a long time and they lead busy lives with a lot of responsibilities, but no-one needs that amount of cash.

    I've never understood the fuss around Obama neither, why is everyone against affordable health care? Any American who would like to explain that to me?
  • #14
    Quote from Don_guillotine

    Progressive taxes as steep as you propose have a problem. As tax rate nears 100%, the incentives to work and earn are lower.


    If the tax rate was 100%, then corporations would just leave the country.

    I think that, as long as the next bracket of wealth makes more than the previous, then progressive taxation would work due to the very fact that human greed will always drive man to pursue extraneous wealth. Why keep $6,000 a month when you could keep $300,000? Why settle for a used 1985 Ford truck when you can get a Mercedes or a Lincoln?

    I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
  • #15
    Quote from Azriel

    2. Speaking of Socialism, I think that a good balance of Socialism and Capitalism is preferable in highly developed countries. If an unregulated market is allowed to grow largely enough and quickly enough, it will almost always bounce back at the same rate in which it grew, creating a deadly bear market. A regulated market can help insure that growth can persist and, given the scenario that a bubble does burst somewhere within the market, the economic effect will be lessened. My major gripe with Capitalism is that it encourages a bull market, market speculation (remember home derivative trading?), and a profit based economy, whereas I believe that an economy should be based on efficiency and sustainability.
    I think the U.S. could afford to be just a bit more socialistic and many European countries could afford to be just a bit less. But don't fool yourself. The United States is actually more socialistic than people think. Lately though some of our hidden socialistic policies are misguided than a general approach to socialism itself. What I mean is, we may believe in free market capitalism, but we're also confounded on this principle when some of our biggest banks are on the brink of failures. And so back around 2006 when the government was bailing out all those banking an investment firms, that action was completely counter-intuitive to a free market but the majority of Congress allowed it to happen anyway.

    The U.S. is perfectly willing to sacrifice free market ideals, however, over a continuing notion in our society of "too big to fail". That is, so much investment and currency was tied up in these organizations that the government felt if they were to fail, so to could the entire economy. So, so far we have politicians preaching free market capitalistic society, but it is more a fear tactic to rail against the only supposed antithesis of capitalism which is socialism. Yet in practice, the government has proven that it is perfectly willing to control markets buy bailing them out instead of allowing them to fail. That is a major type of government regulation right there. The kind that Congress likes to villify every day yet not vote against.

    Quote from Azriel
    I believe that a form of progressive taxation could further the benefits of a mixed-Capitalist system
    I'll just say it's a damn shame we don't have a flat tax rate. Everyone should be taxed the same percentage of their income no matter how much they make.


    Quote from Veggie50

    Now all American alarms go off, "oh no, communism!" but this is due to a misconception concerning socialism. You see, every form of economy that taxes high incomes more than low incomes is socialist, though it can be in varying degrees.
    I'm not arguing that the U.S. doesn't have socialist policies. It does. But U.S. tax policies often find middle class workers paying proportionately more than upper class workers. Or at least, beyond a certain level of income, the proportion doesn't continue to increase leaving really rich people paying the same taxes as those only slightly above middle class.

    Quote from Veggie50
    So, if you make 19.999 dollar a year, you have to pay 10%, equalling ~2k, giving you a net income of ~18k.
    But, if you make 21.000 dollar a year, you have to pay 20%, equalling ~4k, giving you a net income of 17k.

    This actually means that going forward in life is being punished. This is very detrimental to economic growth and a reason not to seek progress.
    Yeah that's a pretty crazy gap in such a small amount of added income.

    Quote from Veggie50
    Why do people spend years in college learning tremendously difficult things, and busting their brains, living on a diet of coffee? Because the reward is big. What happens when you cut down the reward? People's aspirations go down. This is the same problem communism had, though to a much higher degree.
    Like I said earlier. You guys could probably afford to be a tad less socialistic. But if it seems unfair to you that people working hard and rightly earning their money that they should be taxed so severely for that, it still doesn't seem to be stopping people from pursuing careers, does it? I don't know. You tell me if people over there have on average become less ambitious.

    Quote from Veggie50
    Second is a very practical problem. Poor people may rejoice at this system, rich people are surprisingly un-fond of it, especially in a country like the USA, where anything resembling socialism is nearly equalled to satanism.
    This again is the result of ignorance and our vitriol political culture. Sadly.

    Quote from Veggie50
    A result is that big companies will move their business to other countries, that aren't as social in their tax policies.
    Ironically here it is still good to do business in America cause actually have lots of business friendly taxes. I say ironic cause a lot of our jobs leave the country anyway because shop can be set up in poorer countries where workers can be paid a lot less. But the business owners who do that seem to do much better anyway.

    Quote from Veggie50
    I wholely agree that a socialist structure would be an ideal. Problem is, how do you sell it to the people who have to make it happen?
    What's funny to me about this is that Americans love big government. They just don't realize it. We have shitloads of government programs and different levels of government. It is easy to form local governments and municipalities and we expect tons of services from our government and are perfectly willing to pay for them as much as we say out loud we hate doing so. But big government aside, we also still pay some of the lowest taxes in the world which is also funny to me. I mean, you could raise everyone's taxes in the U.S. by even five percent and we'd still be paying way less than everyone else.
  • #16
    Quote from Siaynoq

    What's funny to me about this is that Americans love big government. They just don't realize it. We have shitloads of government programs and different levels of government. It is easy to form local governments and municipalities and we expect tons of services from our government and are perfectly willing to pay for them as much as we say out loud we hate doing so.


    I find it especially funny when Conservatives ask government to get "out of their lives" but, in reality, if "Big Brother" wasn't there to regulate the things that protected them, they'd be begging for government involvement.

    Like, take the quality of our water for example (not a very sound example, I know). If there wasn't the EPA or the FDA to make sure they weren't putting goddamn anthrax or liquid shit in your water, then we'd all be getting terminal illnesses and disease would run rampant in the streets, but we couldn't get proper healthcare coverage because liver disease is a pre-existing condition.

    The government can actually help; it just matters who's in charge. We can't trust humans though, so that's where government fails us (as Don_G said).

    I hate the way you cling to ignorance and pass it off as innocence
  • #17
    Quote from cas89_6080271

    I've never understood the fuss around Obama neither, why is everyone against affordable health care? Any American who would like to explain that to me?

    I can attempt to answer that.

    There is an argument really headed by conservatives that government paid health care would limit a person's choice in health providers. This is a stupid argument for a couple of reasons.

    For one thing, many Americans don't even have access to preventative health care. So why would anyone be picky about what doctor they saw if it was just for a routine medical check up? Or say you needed to go to a gastro-intestinal doctor because you had a bad ulcer in your stomach. How picky are you really going to be about who you see to treat that infliction? But people against government funded health care have successfully scared people into the idea that if they choose this form of heath care, then they can't decide which doctors to go to.

    This is doubly stupid because even private insurance companies will only allow you to go to specific doctors who are under their system anyway. So no matter what insurance you go with, your choices are limited based on what your insurance is willing to send you to. But basically people may have a family practitioner and that is only their doctor because years ago that's where their insurance companies said it was okay to go. But people think with government funded insurance you're gonna be sent to some dank ghetto clinic with poor lighting in the basement of some building. But gosh, even if that WAS the case, is that still not better than nothing? If the government is willing to let me go to a clinic for free and get some preventative care done, is that not better than worrying about a specific doctor later when I have some acute illness that could have been prevented?

    Quote from Azriel

    I find it especially funny when Conservatives ask government to get "out of their lives" but, in reality, if "Big Brother" wasn't there to regulate the things that protected them, they'd be begging for government involvement.

    If you want to equate conservatives with Republicans basically which is fair to do, I learned in public admin classes that it's a statistical fact that overall Republican presidents have created more new agencies than the Democrats. These agencies aren't free. They cost tax dollars to operate. And it's a simple fact that Republicans expanded government way more than their opposition ever has.

    Quote from maka

    @Veggie50: actually, the population of developed/'comfortable' societies has plateaued and has even started to decline a bit; on the other hand, populations of 3rd world countries continue to grow unchecked. I think it's safe to assume that if all countries had the same level of comfort, their populations would follow the same trend.

    This is absolutely true. So much in fact that many European countries are concerned about having a labor crises in the next 25 years if not sooner. But yeah, the correlation between affluency and birthrate is very high. Poor people just love making babies more than wealthier people. I've always found that interesting.
  • #18
    Yeah that's exactly what I don't get. I thought it would have something to do with the extra taxes or something...

    So what you're saying is, is that people think they will have to go to another doctor to get free treatment? Is that what will happen? Or will it be like here (Belgium) where you pay the doctor like 25 euros and he gets the rest payed by the government?
  • #19
    Quote from cas89_6080271

    So what you're saying is, is that people think they will have to go to another doctor to get free treatment? Is that what will happen? Or will it be like here (Belgium) where you pay the doctor like 25 euros and he gets the rest payed by the government?

    Tax issues aside, they're afraid that the government will dictate what doctors they are allowed to have access to. Which is what private insurance companies do anyway.

    Quote from Don_guillotine

    I'm not american (see my location), and I don't trust any government :P.

    You're crazy. I love government. I just hate politics and politicians. But actual government in practice consists of trained bureaucrats who are highly skilled and work in the adverse environment that is politics. I myself am training to become a bureaucrat and I love what government is capable of.

    All conspiracy theories aside, of course.
  • #20
    Quote from maka

    @Don: the point is not that if everyone pays the same tax %, the rich pay more than the poor (in absolute terms). The point is the money that you have left after you pay taxes. If you earn 250k per month, and you pay 30% tax, you still have 175k to spend after taxes. If you earn 2k per month, and you also pay 30% tax, you only have 1400 to spend after taxes. Sure, the rich guy pays more (in absolute terms), but at least you still have a fuckload of cash to throw around. But if you're poor, you're left with fuck-all after you pay your taxes. Saying that an incremental tax rate discourages desire to succeed is bullcrap. So you'd rather be piss poor and pay 10% tax than be rich and pay 50%? I'll take the rich, if you don't mind.


    It's not the rich taxation has the biggest effects on. It's upper middle class of income. But as I already said, actually poor people should be taxed less. As an example, everyone could earn 1,350 tax-free, and then they paid 30% of the income above that. In this example, someone earning 2,000 a month would pay 195 as taxes (10% of their income). Then someone earning 5,000 a month pays 1,095 (21,9% of their income). And eventually someone earning 1,000,000 would pay 299,595 (29,6%).

    This kind of system encourages people to improve their life. In a system like this, every unit of money earned above 1,350 (an arbitrary number) would be just as valuable. In a progressive tax system, money becomes increasingly devalued.


    A flat tax rate system can be turned into a dynamic progressive model by introducing a number of money a person can earn before it begins to be taxed. In this example it was 1,350, which resulted in a progressive model.

    Quote from cas89_6080271

    I've never really understood the notion of libertariarism (being a socialist or broader a marxist if you will). I don't understand why a doctor should earn more than 7500 euro's per month. Ok they studied for a long time and they lead busy lives with a lot of responsibilities, but no-one needs that amount of cash.I've never understood the fuss around Obama neither, why is everyone against affordable health care? Any American who would like to explain that to me?


    When an external body decides what someone needs and doesn't need, there's a problem. Who is to say who needs what?

    Quote from Siaynoq

    Quote from Don_guillotine
    I'm not american (see my location), and I don't trust any government :P.
    You're crazy. I love government. I just hate politics and politicians. But actual government in practice consists of trained bureaucrats who are highly skilled and work in the adverse environment that is politics. I myself am training to become a bureaucrat and I love what government is capable of.

    All conspiracy theories aside, of course.


    I wasn't really speaking about conspiracy theories either :P.

    I distrust governments because at the end of the day their heads are politicians. Voters don't necessarily vote based on rational opinions. Big lines are drawn by the politicians, and executed in practice by bureaucrats. I have nothing against bureaucrats, who are almost always highly skilled professionals.

    So the distrust in practice means that I think governments' functions should be under careful scrutiny. Any extension of the government should be carefully thought out: is this job best handled by the government? Can a private entity do this job better?

    Example: EPA -- can a private entity do it any better? No. In fact, its neutrality and as such purpose would be questionable after that.

    How about an airline owned and run by the government? One that gets infinite money from the owning government and runs on net loss? Maybe not (see Alitalia, owned largely by the Italian government).

    So when I say I distrust the government I don't mean that any mystique body of "they" would be "out to get me" nor do I wear a tin foil hat.

    I just mean that I distrust the government to be any more effective than a private corporation in the same sector. In fact, governments are almost always less effective than privately run corporations. As such, I personally think that government should be limited to doing duties that aren't possible to produce any better by a private corporation. That does include public schools IMO. Not necessarily airlines (as one example).
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.
Posts Quoted:
Reply
Clear All Quotes