GhostWriter16
Deity
No, I'd not go that far. What I mean is no taking from some, giving to others, exc. Government has a necessary role, and ought not go beyond.
Absolute Capitalism
- Thread starter GhostWriter16
- Start date
No, I'd not go that far. What I mean is no taking from some, giving to others, exc. Government has a necessary role, and ought not go beyond.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Well, naturally, yes, the end of that is idealism, however, the first two sentences are definitely a picture of what government ought to be. And obviously you are one of the few who still believes in Capitalism.
Enforcing contracts is taking from some and giving to others.
plarq
Crazy forever
Not every contract is one-way exploitation...
However, if such a contract need to be enforced, then it must be one-way exploitation, otherwise the enforcement is not needed.
If a corporation offers a one time bonus for a worker to promise his children into a lifetime commitment to work for basic food, shelter, and clothing, should the government step in?
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
Then the government can't really do anything. Raising taxes to fund a judiciary to enforce those contracts is a form of wealth distribution.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Well, that is speaking for somebody else, so yes the government should step in because a man can't promise that for his children.
That's not what I mean by redistribution. What I mean by redistribution is say I'm richer than you, so the government makes me pay higher taxes so they can give some of my money to you. That's called socialism and its bad.
That's not to say poor people should not be helped or that taxpayers should pay identical amounts of money. However, it is saying that poor people should be helped by charitable organizations or people who decide, by their own choice, to help them.
As for tax amount, I'm not saying that, for instance, if I pay 100 dollars that means you should pay 100 dollars, but that its unfair that if a millionaire has to give 50+ percent of his money to the government, whereas the lower middle class pay nothing. If the millionaire has to contribute 15percent of his gain so that society can benefit, everyone should pay 15 percent. The millionaire is still paying far more than the lower middle class even if the millionaire pays no higher a percentage.
There's a fine line also between necessary government and unnecessary government, government is good so long as it is necessary to do what it does.
He can't? Are you asking for the government to subvert parental authority? What kind of nanny state are you pushing for?
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
No, that's not called Socialism. Socialism is something else entirely. Please, please stop trying to use buzzwords as the basis of an argument.
A flat tax is vastly more unfair than having an upper class that pays a disproportionate amount of the tax income in the country. Take a look at where the income of the top and bottom classes gets spent; those on the bottom rungs will wind up spending the majority of their money on necessities such as housing, food and transport. Taxing them heavily means they're going to have to make cuts in those departments. Now, the upper rung has so much income that almost none of it (by percentage of course) is spent on those necessities. Taxing them heavily means removing disposable income, and I have a lot fewer qualms about that.
Moreover, you've made the classic conservative assumption: that wealth redistribution only helps those at the bottom. Just as Ford demonstrated through 'welfare capitalism', a richer middle class is actually good for the country and for business. Those at the top of the wealth pyramid will reap a far larger share of the benefits of social programs.
Circular logic much?
Bill Gates has paid far less that 15% of his wealth in taxation thanks to deferred taxation on capital gains income.
Tommy Vercetti
The Don
It would be ideal for all. Capitalism is the best thing there is.
mechaerik
Tuturuu!
Worst thing ever. A few large monopolies would quickly form, likely using questionable business practices. Possible that these economic giants would gain political power, leading to a corporatocracy, using politics to further their own wealth at the expense of the vast majority of the population. Another possibility is that some industries would experience massive instability, leading to one or another business collapsing, and likely taking down a good chunk of the economy.
I mean, look at the U.S. before Teddy took over. Imagine that, but even worse.
I mean, look at the U.S. before Teddy took over. Imagine that, but even worse.
GhostWriter16
Deity
No, that's not called Socialism. Socialism is something else entirely. Please, please stop trying to use buzzwords as the basis of an argument.
A flat tax is vastly more unfair than having an upper class that pays a disproportionate amount of the tax income in the country. Take a look at where the income of the top and bottom classes gets spent; those on the bottom rungs will wind up spending the majority of their money on necessities such as housing, food and transport. Taxing them heavily means they're going to have to make cuts in those departments. Now, the upper rung has so much income that almost none of it (by percentage of course) is spent on those necessities. Taxing them heavily means removing disposable income, and I have a lot fewer qualms about that.
Moreover, you've made the classic conservative assumption: that wealth redistribution only helps those at the bottom. Just as Ford demonstrated through 'welfare capitalism', a richer middle class is actually good for the country and for business. Those at the top of the wealth pyramid will reap a far larger share of the benefits of social programs.
Circular logic much?
Actually, it makes the middle class poorer. When taxes are lower, businessmen have incentives to make jobs and that means more money for all.
In an ideal world, there wouldn't be taxes. Obviously, realistically this doesn't work, but we'd like to get as close to the ideal as we can and still have it work. That means cutting down on the unnecessary government, and its a proven fact when the government redistribute, a lot of the cash goes to them.
The US income tax maxes out at thirty-five percent according to wikipedia. This is scheduled to increase to 40 something (I think 48%) after the Bush tax cuts expire. This is in addition to other taxes. That makes well over half for the wealthiest, and a lot to everyone working a respectable job. Whereas people who don't work often make more off welfare than honest workers. It's ridiculous, and its stealing from the American People. Cut down on the extra spending, cut down on the government size, everyone is better off! Oh, except the government, they need to control everything. Taxing you to give benefits is essentially telling you what to spend your money on. Now, some things, like national defense and highways, are necessary but beyond the necessary, we'd be better off without it, as I've demonstrated.
He can't? Are you asking for the government to subvert parental authority? What kind of nanny state are you pushing for?
I hope you're joking. If you're serious, you're taking what I've said and twisting it. Certain things, like preventing the scenario you've mentioned above, are necessary. You're point is trying to admit that the government then has control over many or all aspects of government. Stop trying to twist my opinion of minimal government and call me an anarchist. If you want to debate the issue, fine, but debate what I actually said instead of putting up a straw man.
See, this is where you just keep being wrong, no matter how much your wrongness is pointed out to you. Welfare is neither socialism nor wrong. Or, you might be able to make an argument that welfare is wrong, but you absolutely cannot make the argument that welfare is socialism.
In other words, most of them die. Because charities cannot get the job done.
The very rich in the US pay much less as a percentage of their income in taxes than the upper middle class does. They pay a lower percent than you do.
Ummm, No. That's the "supply side" argument, and it is an absolute fraud. When the rich pay lower tax rates they do not invest more! At least it is proven in recent US history that they don't. If they do elsewhere, that is yet to be proven. But, for example, when Reagan lowered to tax rates, investment declined by a huge 25%. And that was on top of his deregulation and labor purges.
I am not twisting anything. Your response to every scenario I have proposed in this thread is more government.
How would lower taxes give them incentive to make jobs? Why wouldn't it give them incentive to take another European vacation instead?
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
Except that they don't. Whether you call it Supply-side Economics, Trickle-down theory, or Horse and Sparrow theory, it has been shown to be a rather abject failure. The reason being that the incentive you would intuitively assume to be present isn't actually there.
Nonsense. There are some services that only a non-business can deliver efficiently. There is no realistic way to fund these activities without taxes of some form.
Is it now? Where exactly do you think that money goes? They're not just dumping it in a big hole for fun (monetary policy aside of course, where they do at times
), nor is being unfairly pocketed by bureaucrats.[Citation Needed]
No, it's not stealing, neither in a legal or philosophical sense. Trust me, Libertarian theory as applied to economics is deeply flawed. Or would you like to argue that the government can't legally tax you?
You haven't demonstrated anything. All you've said is that 'only the necessary is necessary', without offering any rubric for how to decide what is necessary is in the first place.
That, and the latter part of that paragraph directly contradicts the first part. Which is it? And again, taxing you isn't the government telling you what to spend your money on, it's the government charging you for the cost of services your countrymen have asked it to provide.
plarq
Crazy forever
Taxation is theft, or is property theft?
Taxing illegal downloads of intellectual property is theft.
gangleri2001
Garbage day!!!
Wouldn't that be Neofeudalism?
Similar threads
