It would not be enough but it would be something. Something is more than nothing.
Not to mention the principle. Put your money where your mouth is and so forth.
Tax Me More Says Wealthy Entrepreneur
- Thread starter Cutlass
- Start date
It would not be enough but it would be something. Something is more than nothing.
Not to mention the principle. Put your money where your mouth is and so forth.
The feds would be living within its means if it didn't have all those entitlement programs.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,204
That is more of an issue with the tax code than the programs itself.
Do you have any objections to higher taxes other than the 'unfair nature of punishing sucess'? This is assuming that you will be getting benefits in return, like 'free' health care and education.
Those entitlement programs you are talking about are paid with their own special payroll taxes, dude - you plan on keeping the payroll taxes after the programs are cut?
The problem with the flat rate is that in the real world, it's regressive--it functionally lays a heavier lifestyle burden on the lower income groups and places less of a burden on those who have a lot more disposable income. The strength of a capitalistic economy is that it rewards success; but a flat tax has the perverse effect of punishing the lack of success.
A callow libertarian may say "Good; maybe that'll drive more people to work their way out of poverty." While that's a nice theory, in reality the in-puts that cause poverty are much more complex than that. Besides, isn't the lack of poverty supposed to be its own punishment?
A callow libertarian may say "Good; maybe that'll drive more people to work their way out of poverty." While that's a nice theory, in reality the in-puts that cause poverty are much more complex than that. Besides, isn't the lack of poverty supposed to be its own punishment?
If we are going to tax income at a flat rate, then the favorable rates for capital gains and dividends need to go. Also, get rid of the deferral on taxation of capital gains.
That's fine with me.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,204
What if the flat rate was 50% but was used to pay for all sorts of social programs such as 'free' healthcare and education?
civver_764
Deity
Which is why I was criticizing the market in my post...
"The free market is bad because it does this."
"Oh that's because the free market does this."
Oerdin
Deity
It makes perfect sense and any honest person will admit it. Now how do we tell Congress about this? Simple, outlaw the billions in legal bribes... er, "campaign donations" they receive each year and then they'll stop doing what the bribers pay them to do and instead start worrying about what the people want. Until then there is zero chance Congress will give a hoot what we the people think because we're not lining their pockets with millions of dollars.
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,204
Okay, the founder is the most important. Does he make the product to be sold?
What about after the fouhder is dead? Who then is the most important person?
As for the tax thing, I wasn't intending for it to become a debate on the role of the federal government. Rather, I was trying to see if there is a point at which you would prefer a lower progressive tax instead of a high flat text.
What about after the fouhder is dead? Who then is the most important person?
As for the tax thing, I wasn't intending for it to become a debate on the role of the federal government. Rather, I was trying to see if there is a point at which you would prefer a lower progressive tax instead of a high flat text.
civver_764
Deity
How is UHC unconstitutional?
And it would be living within its means without the fraud of supply side economics.
Then we'd be in Scandinavia. That might be manageable in country the size of Sweden or Denmark. But in a country the size of the US, you'd create a lot of market inefficiencies just by the sheer size of the thing. A market system forces healthcare providers to streamline costs and pay attention to bang-per-buck factors in how they operate.
I work in a "social program" (actually an economic functionality program) called free public education. It's a pretty good deal. I think economies of scale make a public school education in America far superior to the average private school education. After all, we produce equal or greater results with students drawn from, on average, significantly lower socioeconomic backgrounds. But I also know that a lot of the advantages we provide came about because we knew we were competing with private schools. Competition makes us better; which is of course better for the kids and for the public at large in the long run.
Bah. Supply side economics isn't fraudulent; it's just inefficient. A market economy is driven by demand, not by supply. Supply in a market is always one step removed from the market reality... whereas consumer demand is the market reality. If you base decisions about tax rates, production factors, and employment policy on supply rather than demand, as Mr Reagan and his acolytes prefer, you're really talking about economic decisions being based on estimates of fact rather than reports of fact. It's ideology driven and not terribly different from the old Soviet-style five year plans.
