1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Question for liberals

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Fifty, Oct 15, 2005.

  1. Stapel

    Stapel FIAT 850 coupé

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    11,036
    Location:
    's-Gravenhage
    Health service is payed by insurance companies and/or insurance foundations. We'll have a new system here in NL, in 2 months:
    Insurance companies may not refuse possible clients; it's compulsary to have an insurance; The poor get a (tax-funded) addition.
    Seems fair to me.
    I think the British NHS is a tiny bit backward.
    I doubt electricity plants are tax-funded.
    There are tax-funds for subsidies for new methods though.
     
  2. Headline

    Headline The King of Fighters

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2001
    Messages:
    173
    Location:
    California
    That is never going to work. Who is to pay for all those bombs and supplies in Iraq? Certainly not the poor guy, because US government gets majority (over 50%) of its revenue from the rich guy. Remember, US military budget is about 35% of entire revenue. If a flat income tax happens, the rich guys cannot possibly make war on other nation for the economical beneifts their company can earn.
     
  3. Ayatollah So

    Ayatollah So the spoof'll set you free

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,389
    Location:
    SE Michigan
    What WillJ said. As usual.

    Transferring money from rich to poor increases the freedoms of the poor and decreases those of the rich. I'm not sure how we're supposed to judge whether the net effect is an increase or decrease of freedom :confused: :crazyeye:
     
  4. Dominus Romae

    Dominus Romae Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    256
    Transferring money to the poor from the rich would be.... acceptable. But these rich guys who would have to contribute should have lots of money, so this donation wouldn't make the difference for them, however for the poor this money would be essential. But this is not the most efficient way to fight poverty: governments should give apropriate education and have competent economic policies, so the old tramps in the street would be able to buy their own houses and live decently.
     
  5. Rhymes

    Rhymes Drive 4 25 is back

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,077
    Location:
    Montreal, quebec Nuts: 2

    The thing is: When a man marries a man, it doesn't affect anyone but the two men (and maybe there familiess...)

    How the economy works affects everyone in the population. Economy is a very strong tool in a government. The more you cut down taxes and let economical freedom, the more you'll create a gap between the classes. When you collect more taxes, you can redistribute them to the whole population in order to close that gap.

    Its not a question of advocating freedom, its a question of common sense. When something doesn't affect anyone, let it be, when it changes the way every people live in your country, then its time to interfere.
     
  6. The Last Conformist

    The Last Conformist Irresistibly Attractive

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    27,779
    Location:
    Not on your side
    Who else would determine?
     
  7. newfangle

    newfangle hates you.

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,046
    Location:
    Waterloo, ON
    Small 'l' liberals will soon have to convert (or revert???) to a platform of fiscal responsibility since the Republicans are spending more than the dems ever did.

    It's all pragmatism. Anyone that thinks that liberalism has a philosophical basis is obviously deluded. It's just a bunch of gibberish rationalizing from high school teens and hollywood stars.
     
  8. Dominus Romae

    Dominus Romae Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Messages:
    256
    What ignorance. :shakehead You know, conservatives are just a bunch of people who try to seek money at all costs, including the life of your neighbor and thousands of people around the world. It has no philosophic basis, just try to get more money and look like moral by supporting churches and calling gay people animals.
     
  9. newfangle

    newfangle hates you.

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,046
    Location:
    Waterloo, ON
    I'm not a conservative so flame away. And I agree with you a little anyways.

    Talk about fallacy of the false dichotomy!
     
  10. mdwh

    mdwh Deity

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Messages:
    3,565
    [Disclaimer - I'm not sure if I would count as a "liberal" in the American sense of the word. I avoid identifying myself as that term, as people often use it to base strawman attacks against what "liberals" supposedly believe, but I do have liberal views about social freedom, as well as preferring that we have a welfare system, so I shall answer.]

    I think it's important to remember that someone who has liberal views isn't against *any* Government involvement, just that related to people's private lives. So if someone was an anarchist who believed that there should be no government involvement at all, but at the same time believed we should be paying taxes, then there would seem to be a contradiction. But someone with liberal views still believe there should be various laws in place.

    Support for gay marriage is more about equality for all people and who they want to spend their life with; that there's no good reason to restrict it based on sexuality. I don't see what this has to do at all with taxation - marriage is a contract, not a private thing as such (I mean yes, you're taxing rich people more, but there's a reason for this system).

    A belief of mine is that things between consenting adults done in private should be legal. This is not the same thing as "I can do anything I like whatsoever", and so it doesn't follow as "I can do what I like with my money". Eg, if I used my money to pay a hitman to kill someone, that should be illegal - even though the transaction may have been done in private.

    I think the answer regarding taxation is to say that it's about a right to resources. Taxation is a compromise between two extreme views: either that people have a right to keep any resources they have and do what they like with it; and that resources should be always shared equally between people. Phrased in this way, I'm not sure it is comparable to doing things in private anymore. Saying that resources should be shared more equally isn't the same as telling other people they can't have sex in a certain manner!

    Furthermore there are good reasons for tax. As has been pointed out, taxation is needed for services, which the people make use of. Yes, you can get away with privatising some things, but I believe that those systems are worse. Despite being generally pro-capitalist, I prefer state support for health and education. This is an opinion which is entirely separate from beliefs about people's private lives. Given that I strongly believe a welfare system and national health is a good thing, I'm willing to be in favour of taxation. There is no similar good reason for restricting consensual private activities.

    I guess a way to summarise is to say that my belief is no Government involvement in private consensual activities unless there is some good reason made - which can be made for taxation, just as it could be made for funding criminal activities, but I'm not sure it can be made for anything else (the best people come up with is things like "gay sex is wrong because it's immoral!")
     
  11. Fifty

    Fifty !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Messages:
    10,649
    Location:
    an ecovillage in madagascar
    Why do they even have to determine it? Why can't they make social and economic freedom equal?
     
  12. The Last Conformist

    The Last Conformist Irresistibly Attractive

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    27,779
    Location:
    Not on your side
    You can't really ask the question like that - economic and social freedom aren't discrete "things".

    My point is, various freedoms will always clash with one another, and with other desirable things (eg, security, rights). Someone will have to prioritize - who should that be, if not the gov't?
     
  13. Fifty

    Fifty !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Messages:
    10,649
    Location:
    an ecovillage in madagascar
    That makes sense. However, I can certainly see how security and rights could jibe with freedoms, but how could various freedoms clash with one-another?
     
  14. The Last Conformist

    The Last Conformist Irresistibly Attractive

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    27,779
    Location:
    Not on your side
    My freedom to own slaves vs their freedom, to take a stark example.
     
  15. amadeus

    amadeus As seen on OT

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    34,746
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Osaka (大阪)
    Hyperbole in the first sentence. The "bombs" in Iraq? :rolleyes:

    If we increased the top tax brackets, what do you think would happen to prices of consumer goods? They would increase and thus hurt the lowest income-earning individuals.

    We've gone from hyperbole to asinine. Yes, Iraq was invaded for oil and money and Halliburton and Zionists and everything else under the sun. :rolleyes:
     
  16. Rhymes

    Rhymes Drive 4 25 is back

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,077
    Location:
    Montreal, quebec Nuts: 2
    :confused: That doesn't make any sense. And its also false. The rich guys pays a lot more then the poor guy in a flat tax system.

    20% of 200000 is way more the 20% of 15000.

    And most rich people dont make more money during war time.

    You obvioulsy know nearly nothing about economy.
     
  17. Insane_Panda

    Insane_Panda Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,595
    Location:
    Southern California
    Thats just because you're poor, and you're just jealous of billionaires. :p

    :joke:

    Im a socially liberal fiscal conservative. Capitalistic free-for-all!

    Edit: I agree with the arguments for flat-tax here, it would be alot more beneficial to the nation. Remove all that complication, and set up a flat income tax so that all pay their fair share after the first 49,000 (or somewhere around there) of their income.
     
  18. The Yankee

    The Yankee The New Yawker Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    19,467
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    That isn't a true flat tax then. Though that might be a lot easier to follow for your average Joe. Also, all those loopholes that are in tax systems (especially here) should be closed. But nobody will have the guts to do that.
     
  19. Headline

    Headline The King of Fighters

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2001
    Messages:
    173
    Location:
    California
    Rich millionaires used to pay 30% of their income to governments and now they are paying 20%. A flat 13% income means the rich people are paying the percentage that a poor or a middle class guy would pay. That means US will lose all those revenues.

    30% of 1000000 is 300000. 20% of 1000000 is 200000. 13% of 1000000 is 130000. There is a difference of $170,000 if you lower te 30% tax to 13% tax.

    Where does the budget deficit come from? It's not just the war you know.

    The rich owners of the companies invest heavily on the equipments, the supplies and the oil.
     
  20. Headline

    Headline The King of Fighters

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2001
    Messages:
    173
    Location:
    California
    I am not even talking about increasing. I am talking about not having tax cut for the rich. Do you think the price of goods will be lower if there is a tax cut for the rich? Hell no!! The demand is what control the price. Giving the rich tax cut means the money in their pocket and the price of goods still stay the same. What makes you think that they would actually invest it instead of spend it? It is more probable that they'd spend it on buying expensive goods. If spending is the goal, why not give the money to the poor who need the money most?

    Also, it doesn't make sense to run a huge budget deficit just to give the rich people tax cut. US is literally hurting its currency by having huge budget deficit. One of the effect is inflation, which hurt the lower class the most.
     

Share This Page