Absolute Capitalism

[ilduce349]

Its all the same thing
Socail services = Bad
Y should the seniors who serve no productivity to society get more money the 1/3 of the working americans
Unemployment insurance
same thing
spending billions of dollars on a war we can't win = bad
free health care = very bad (I live in Canada but I normally go to the states to see a doctor as i dont like waiting 6 months to book an appointment)
I admit that not all spending is bad, but 1/2 of the current spending is bad and thats what I want to reduce.
Also heres y democracy is bad.
Right now if the US raised taxes by 10% and reduced spending in those areas its would take 14 months to pay off the national debt. Y dont they? Because if they do that they wont get reelected.
After that reduce taxes by 8% and the US will be out of debt and running a surplus

 

[nonconformist]

Obviosuly Canada's education system isn't socialised enough

 

[ilduce349]

??? obviously Americas education system is bias.
no education system can be socialized without being bias and using propoganda to convince the children to think a certian way

 

[nonconformist]

Yeah, praise be to our majestic queen

 

[ilduce349]

Wait, ur not american

which means my last comment doesn't make any sense

 

[nonconformist]

In socialised systems, we're taught reading comprehension.

 

[ilduce349]

touche

 

[Godwynn]

And another, government spending as a percentage of GDP:



So regardless of the top marginal income tax rate, spending goes up and taxes go up.

Looks like government revenue and spending went up during the 1980s.

 

[ilduce349]

Looks like government revenue and spending went up during the 1980s.

yes, I never said Reagan was a good president. What I said was that spending and revenue needs to go down. The fact is Reagan decreased taxes and spending where he could, however some areas were to liberal for him 2 touch.
Also Reagan had Alzheimer's for the last 2 months of his reign, knowing that can we really trust him?
It was Nixon who is my dream president.

 

[Cutlass]

yes, I never said Reagan was a good president. What I said was that spending and revenue needs to go down. The fact is Reagan decreased taxes and spending where he could, however some areas were to liberal for him 2 touch.
Also Reagan had Alzheimer's for the last 2 months of his reign, knowing that can we really trust him?
It was Nixon who is my dream president.

So, a criminal who massively expanded regulation of business?

 

[Truronian]

I imagine ideologically there would exist 100% inheritance tax, most of which would go into education. Thus every sprogling would have all the knowledge they needed to best innovate and money-make.

 

[JerichoHill]

I must point out that Nixon instituted WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS, ilduce. Is that really a capitalists' dream?

 

[Cutlass]

Don't forget OSHA and EPA.

 

[ilduce349]

All I knew about Nixon before today was that
1) In his reign government spending went down
2) Watergate wasn't as bad as people have lead to believe it was
3) A study showed that he was the smartest republican leader (Highest IQ) in the last 100 years

but after searching, I have changed my mind, Nixon was a communist

 

[amadeus]

Looks like government revenue and spending went up during the 1980s.

Yeah, I changed my tune about Reagan's fiscal "conservatism" after I started seeing those charts, but if you look at just federal revenue, it's been consistently around 15-20% of GDP since Eisenhower took office. As a percentage of GDP, it's state and local revenue collection that has skyrocketed since then.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

Both are pretty useful.

I must point out that Nixon instituted WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS, ilduce. Is that really a capitalists' dream?

It is if his name is "il Duce".

 

[JollyRoger]

Wait, ur not american

which means my last comment doesn't make any sense

Keeping the streak intact.

 

[amadeus]

xarthaz, two questions. The first is: who is that in your avatar?

Second: under this Rothbardian statelessness, what would be preventing me from coming and killing you and taking your property? (In a theoretical sense, please... don't tell me it's because I don't know your address. )

 

[Rashiminos]

All I knew about Nixon before today was that
1) In his reign government spending went down
2) Watergate wasn't as bad as people have lead to believe it was
3) A study showed that he was the smartest republican leader (Highest IQ) in the last 100 years

but after searching, I have changed my mind, Nixon was a communist

You may have to do some research before enagaging in political arguments in CFC OT. In regards to this thread, I think some late 18th-century British history is in order.

 

[ilduce349]

Yeah, I changed my tune about Reagan's fiscal "conservatism" after I started seeing those charts, but if you look at just federal revenue, it's been consistently around 15-20% of GDP since Eisenhower took office. As a percentage of GDP, it's state and local revenue collection that has skyrocketed since then.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

Both are pretty useful.


It is if his name is "il Duce".

I chose Il Duce because that is the title of the person who founded Fascism, which is my ideology. however Il Duces fascism was wrong for 2 reason:
1. Killing of minorities who could benefit society
2. Funding the big buisness and creating wage and price controls

Fascism is the combination of a Military Dictatorship with a free capitalist society. Both are necessary for the security and well being of all citizens.

You may have to do some research before enagaging in political arguments in CFC OT. In regards to this thread, I think some late 18th-century British history is in order.

Y, we r talking about modern politics

 

[History_Buff]

Its all the same thing
Socail services = Bad
Y should the seniors who serve no productivity to society get more money the 1/3 of the working americans
Unemployment insurance
same thing
spending billions of dollars on a war we can't win = bad
free health care = very bad (I live in Canada but I normally go to the states to see a doctor as i dont like waiting 6 months to book an appointment)
I admit that not all spending is bad, but 1/2 of the current spending is bad and thats what I want to reduce.

Social Services - The elderly who are receiving those services paid into them for years. They are legally entitled to it. And it is not the fault of the boomers that they were all born around the same time.

Unemployment Insurance - You pay into it every pay cheque. You are legally entitled to it. It also happens to be good for the economy.

Free Health Care - Great. In fact, that you assert that it would take you 6 months to get a doctor's appointment gives me 100% confidence in saying you're just lying to try and make a point. Last time I needed a doctor's appointment, I was in 3 days later (that was more due to my schedule than anything). Last fall when I realized I had bronchitis, and walked up to the local walk-in clinic, took a mere 3 hours. That was during flu season.

Also heres y democracy is bad.
Right now if the US raised taxes by 10% and reduced spending in those areas its would take 14 months to pay off the national debt. Y dont they? Because if they do that they wont get reelected.
After that reduce taxes by 8% and the US will be out of debt and running a surplus

O RLY? Lets run the numbers.

From here, the Median US Income for the 2009 tax year was $61,500.

From here the median tax bracket was 25%.

From here, that created $915B of income for the Federal government. Now, those numbers may not all be correct, and this is certainly a far too simplistic analysis, but bear with me for a moment.

Now, we use our tax rate to work back to a simple 'taxable income' number. $915B / 0.25 gives us $3,660B. Now, if we hike the tax rate to 35%, lets say the government might rake in $1,281B in individual income taxes. So that's an extra $366B to play with.

Now, from here, U.S. debt is currently sitting at $12,311B. Which means that, even if all they had to pay was the principle (and it's not), that would take 36 years. Which is to say, nowhere close to the 14 months you seem to have pulled out of thin air.

You can even reduce the tax rate I used to get a higher number of 'gross taxable income', even to the point where you double the tax rate, you still have more than a decade to go to pay of the debt.

All their funds are gained through noneconomic means: property right infringements, regulations, monetary fraud.

Since when are taxes noneconomic means? How precisely, have your property rights been infringed by taxation (hint: they haven't). Nor is regulation of the money market fraud.