Does Stalin really belong in the game?

[WICKLC1]

I think everyone should be taxed an equal percentage unless they are truly in poverty.

 

[Lord Civius]

So what will you do, if for some reason you will require serious medical attention? Sell the house? Take out a loan (if anyone gives it to you)? Ultimatelly it will be your family who will pay the price anyway.

I have to say that I cannot agree with you on some issues, so lets just agree to disagree.

Things happen that are outside of our control sometimes. No one in America is refused medical care and a person or establishment cannot sue you for your residence or your primary vehicle. So yes I will (being an honest person) try to pay it back to the hospital but unless I strike it rich they'll have to right my debt off as a loss. I don't know where you get the idea that a hospital won't treat you without insurance or the money up front. I have been to the hospital quite a few times and was billed for it and was happy to pay it back at my convenience. Except the time they thought I had insurance and overbilled me.
I am happy to agree to disagree, thats what makes free countries great. As long as people aren't spreading lies and propaganda as some (not yourself)are doing in this thread.

Seems to me a lot of people here are equating "taxing the rich" with "giving welfare to the poor".

Because that is what the governments we are discussing are doing. I am all for a taxing the people to build infrastructure, law and order, top of the line military, etc. My problem is when you tax the people too hard then it becomes a burden on the people. I am in the lowest tax bracket of my State and I pay 30% in income tax alone. This does not include State Sales tax and all the other nickel and dime taxes. Now the liberals are talking about expanding government even more and I can't afford to pay them anymore. Taxing the rich is also a tax to me as businesses are not stupid they will pass it on to me the consumer. People will also lose jobs from it and one of those jobs could be mine!

I think everyone should be taxed an equal percentage unless they are truly in poverty.

The fair tax? I like it in principle but government is greedy and will find a way to tax us more.

 

[Wodan]

Taxing individuals a higher amount, based on their income bracket, is NOT the same as taxing businesses.

Now that you bring it up, however, you are correct that business taxes are passed on to consumers. On the other hand, this results in a higher cost of goods and the average person has the ability to "cut back" on luxury items. Yes, if they end up paying more for necessities (food etc) then this is in effect a tax on them. However, there is nothing wrong with taxing businesses based upon the goods the produce. I wouldn't have any problem taxing Take2, for example, a higher percentage than General Mills Cereal, for example.

I agree that liberals are talking about increasing government programs and funding, at the same time the U.S. is in debt the highest ever. They're liberals... the "tax and spend" party... that's what they do. At some point, the common man will rise up and slay them. (Louis Black.)


Back to the tax bracket topic....

I personally do not have a problem with taxing individuals higher based on their bracket. It would be nice if that was adjusted for cost of living based on locality. That aside, it costs X to live (food, housing, etc.) If one person makes 2X income while another makes 1000X income, plain and simple the latter person can afford to shoulder a higher civic burden. The alternative is to be "fair" and to make them both pay the same tax. Which is ludicrous in my opinion.

This results in you (in the lowest tax bracket yet paying 30% income tax + other taxes) having a perception you're paying high tax while a millionaire living across town from you is probably paying the same % of tax, if not less because he can afford an accountant to look for tax loopholes.

Wodan

 

[Grimz101]

In Capitalism merit goods are under consumed and inferior goods overconsumed.
Isnt Education & Healthcare Merit Goods which are worth subsidising, that amount subsidised would be debateable i agree !
Goverments responsibility to look after the people, in effect resdistribution of wealth is exzactly that!

 

[Iranon]

Economists's nitpick: merit goods and inferior goods have nothing to do with one another; the opposites are demerit goods and normal goods respectively (merit goods are goods that benefit society at large more than the consumer. Things that improve your education, skills or health or that benefit the environment are typical examples. Inferior goods are just that... substitutes for the stuff you'd rather buy but can't afford (e.g.: Bus tickets when you'd rather travel by plane).

The problem with subsidies is that they will often not have the desired effect. For example, some governments offered subsidies/tax reductions to products if they came in recycled packages, citing environmental reasons. Plausible enough if you assume that the alternative is single-use packaging, but if packages were previously collected and re-used suddenly the governments were inciting companies to use a less environmentally friendly solution.

It's often worse if the reason for government interference was addressing social concerns. Unemployment benefits means paying people to refrain from working (as opposed to a base income for everyone, which doesn't distort individual choice as much).
Financially supporting families with children might seem a nice enough idea until some wisen up and realise that they can live comfortably on child benefits alone.
Even progressive taxation warps people's choices to an undesirable degree, especially if governments don't use a smooth progression and higher income pre-tax can mean less after ('Hmm, I'd be willing to put in a few extra hours but I'd pay for the privilege to work... yeah right').

People are, on the whole, smart enough to run rings around governments trying to coerce them into some behaviour the government considers sensible; hence a light touch seems infinitely preferable.

 

[Grimz101]

Appreciated things like that will help me get 100% on my economics exam

 

[Lord Civius]

Taxing individuals a higher amount, based on their income bracket, is NOT the same as taxing businesses.

Thanks for the correction I did throw them in together. I have no problem with taxing the rich as well as the middle class. 20% of my income is roughly 4000 while 20% of a person making 1,000,000 is 200,000. So at the same rate they are more than paying there fair share. I agree we need to tighten up the loopholes that many rich people use and we can do so while decreasing the burden on everyone. More money in the pockets of individuals and businesses will immediately help to increase standards of living while forcing the government to get back to its original purpose.

 

[Comrade Alex]

Ah . .. .. .. . it.

Let's round up all the super-rich, and forcefully redistribute their excessive wealth to the poor and collectivise their businesses.
subsidise everything.

Then we'll have equality.
thumbs up.

 

[caketastydelish]

Ah . .. .. .. . it.

Let's round up all the super-rich, and forcefully redistribute their excessive wealth to the poor and collectivise their businesses.
subsidise everything.

Then we'll have equality.
thumbs up.

Thats not what I said. Thats practically communism. Don't tax them THAT much, but just enough to help out others.

 

[Comrade Alex]

Thats not what I said. Thats practically communism. Don't tax them THAT much, but just enough to help out others.

Heh. i tried to keep it under my hat due to the inevitable torrents of abuse that would follow.

But I'm a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain.

:/

 

[caketastydelish]

Things happen that are outside of our control sometimes. No one in America is refused medical care and a person or establishment cannot sue you for your residence or your primary vehicle. So yes I will (being an honest person) try to pay it back to the hospital but unless I strike it rich they'll have to right my debt off as a loss. I don't know where you get the idea that a hospital won't treat you without insurance or the money up front. I have been to the hospital quite a few times and was billed for it and was happy to pay it back at my convenience. Except the time they thought I had insurance and overbilled me.
I am happy to agree to disagree, thats what makes free countries great. As long as people aren't spreading lies and propaganda as some (not yourself)are doing in this thread.



Because that is what the governments we are discussing are doing. I am all for a taxing the people to build infrastructure, law and order, top of the line military, etc. My problem is when you tax the people too hard then it becomes a burden on the people. I am in the lowest tax bracket of my State and I pay 30% in income tax alone. This does not include State Sales tax and all the other nickel and dime taxes. Now the liberals are talking about expanding government even more and I can't afford to pay them anymore. Taxing the rich is also a tax to me as businesses are not stupid they will pass it on to me the consumer. People will also lose jobs from it and one of those jobs could be mine!



The fair tax? I like it in principle but government is greedy and will find a way to tax us more.

Actually tons of Americans have been denied medical coverage by the insurance companies.

Also, here is the proof: The Clinton administration taxed more than the Bush administration. Under which administration did we have the better economy? Now I'm not saying the more you tax, the better the economy. There is a limit and once you get past the limit it gets worse if you tax more than that. On the flip side of a coin there is a "minimal" limit, and the economy gets worse the less you tax than that. Here is another way to put it:

The problem with Stalin, is he made the government control ALL trade. EVERYTHING. People couldn't make choices for themselves!

The problem with Herbert Hoover is the government didn't do ANYTHING. During the great depression, when so many Americans needed the government to help them out, he acted like he didn't even care. He just said typical Republican stuff. "Go to your churches, go to your charities, get your own money and leave me alone" (and yes that was paraphrased)

The government should tax and have enough control to make a difference for the good of the country and such, but not so much that people can't do anything without the government sniffing up there back! The Clinton administration, for example, knew the right in-between.

"Strong Military" sounds patriotic and such, but I'm not sure what good its doing. There are two problems in my opinion, with it.

1. It gives politicians too much to play with.
2. It can cost a fortune. And with our national debt only growing, is that what we need?

The national debt is killing us. If it keeps going up then they'll have to tax you wheather you like it or not. Otherwise we'll go bankrupt. The national debt is also bad for our buisnesses. And there's nothing conservatives support more than buisnesses. And you know what? The shrinking value of the US dollar (thanks to the national debt) is killing our buisnesses.

Even if its only a temporary thing, we've got to tax more. Increase saving, and reduce spending. Its not just how much you tax, but where the money goes. I dislike where some of our money is going.

 

[caketastydelish]

Heh. i tried to keep it under my hat due to the inevitable torrents of abuse that would follow.

But I'm a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain.

:/

I've heard of a socialist party in Britan, but I never knew they had a communist!

 

[Comrade Alex]

Of course they haave a Communist party.
They have several, who all tear at each other like rabid dogs.

fools.

 

[caketastydelish]

I think the richer schools doing better can be explained with the students upbringing at home. Many poor children come from broken families and are not given the care and learning experiences at home that wealthier children have. Also, no matter how much money you spend, you can't force a kid to learn.

You have a valid point, but that still does not disprove what I said. Even if the government fixes it to where schools with richer kids and schools with poorer kids have equality, richer kids would still get the upper hand. Why is that? All the things you just said, plus the richer parents can hire private tutors and such.

The only way we can get things COMPLETLY equal is with communism. Since I don't believe in Communism, I think that would bad. However, there is a certain good medium between communism and how the country is right now.

While we shouldn't have COMPLETE equality we should have some. And I think making the schools equal would do that.

You are right. Many people that got rich worked hard to do so.

People that tried there best, deserve to have hi-def tv's and swimming pools.
People that don't care deserve to live in the ghetto.
People that did there homework deserve to have the most cutting edge computers.
People that didn't do there homework deserve to have a noisy neighboorhod.

I could go on with this corny thing but I think you get my point. However, there are certain basic human rights that EVERYONE deserves, no matter what.

Everyone deserves health. Everyone deserves an equal chance. The difference is, some people work for there success and some don't. But everyone deserves the same shot at success.

 

[caketastydelish]

Of course they haave a Communist party.
They have several, who all tear at each other like rabid dogs.

fools.

What is Gordon Brown?

 

[caketastydelish]

The rich under any administration pays a higher tax rate than the middle or lower class.



Again I don't think redistributing the money in any way is morally right. Every one is taxed too high, including the rich. I for one am sick of the nanny state. The more power you give the state over your daily life the more it will dictate how you live your life.



Public education is a joke. If we gave each parent a check each year to cover the costs of public education and let them shop around you would see education get alot better real fast. There is no competition so all of the oversight and spending in the world will do little to improve it.
As far as rights people in this country think they have a right to alot of things. Then when it comes to our actual rights like the 2nd ammendment and freedom of speech they are trampled on daily.


And who runs the education system? The Government. The same government some wish to run our healthcare system. Don't you see the Irony here?

Bush cut public education funds and added the no child left behind. The no child left behind, in theory, is great. The problem is, it dosen't work when schools aren't provided enough money. In actuality, all it does is punish the poorer schools, thus creating an even greater gap between the poorer and richer schools. Ethier put more money into the education, or get rid of no child left behind. But those two things should not co-exist.

Believe me, the top 1 percent is barely being taxed anything. I don't mean a complete distribution of the wealth. Thats just communism. Like I said in my other post, there is a certain good inbetween, between Stalin and Herbert Hoover.

 

[Lexicus]

Trying to get back to the topic of Stalin and whether or not he should be in the game...

Regardless of his politics, Stalin's impact on Russia was huge. He industrialized the country and led them to victory against Nazi Germany.

As for the debate on his politics, I don't particularly like Churchill's politics, but I admire the man and I acknowledge him as one of the greatest leaders of England. Hitler should not be a German leader because his leadership resulted in Germany's defeat in the largest war ever fought and its partition and occupation by the victorious powers.

Positive impact on the nation should be what is measured...not how many people they killed.

 

[caketastydelish]

Trying to get back to the topic of Stalin and whether or not he should be in the game...

Regardless of his politics, Stalin's impact on Russia was huge. He industrialized the country and led them to victory against Nazi Germany.

As for the debate on his politics, I don't particularly like Churchill's politics, but I admire the man and I acknowledge him as one of the greatest leaders of England. Hitler should not be a German leader because his leadership resulted in Germany's defeat in the largest war ever fought and its partition and occupation by the victorious powers.

Positive impact on the nation should be what is measured...not how many people they killed.

We also have Montezuma in the game and the Aztecs were destroyed with him as leader.

 

[Grimz101]

With low tax and marginal propensity to save being high at the moment due to fears of recession, imagine how much consumption would go down if we had truely low taxes!
Benefit of Goverment control and high goverment spending !
There is an arguement for high taxes goo on disprovee it, so i can do the same if its talked about in my economics exam !

 

[Lexicus]

We also have Montezuma in the game and the Aztecs were destroyed with him as leader.

That wasn't a result of his policies, though.