U.S. Politics, Elections & Culture issues

[Vangelovski]

Its when wealth becomes more and more consolidated in fewer and fewer hands.

What proportion of a country's wealth would have to be consolidated into how few hands before you would consider it too much?

Every single economic system from human history has eventually crashed and erupted into violence when the wealth grew too large in too few hands.

That's a very marxist reading of history.

First of all the government isn't some rouge boogie man, it is comprised by the people and fulfills the will of the people so long as they are active in the process.

There is no country where the citizenry is more active than in the US (Some come close, but not quite). So why is it as bad as you claim?

Places where I like the government to take control are those that affect peoples basic needs, Food, shelter, education, health, and security. I dont care if if apples charges ridiculous prices for gadgets, I dont care if people use drugs. What I do care about is that everyone can see a doctor when they are sick without losing their shirt, that people dont starve or live on the street, that everyone has access to education without signing over their future. The only other place where I would want the government to intervene is environmental and labor issues. Someone has to protect the environment, that never goes hand in hand with profit. I think governments should impose strict labor laws, high minimum wages, strict caps on working hours, and mandatory vacations and maternity leaves.

Is there anywhere you don't want to government to take control? Are you saying that the government should provide us with food and homes? Will we get food vouchers or how will that work? Will we all live in exactly the same house/apartment? What would you prefer, the classic concrete Moscow look or the white-washed Yugo look?

What do you think Chris? Anywhere else government should get involved? And if I am guaranteed food, shelter, medical and an education, do I really need to go to work? What's my incentive? Or would you not go as far as Gocka, who says he's an accountant just like you. Actually, that's hilarious! A socialist accountant! Is Gocka your twin Chris?

Pure Capitalism will be just another failed system eventually.

What is pure capitalism?

[Risto the Great]

What do you think Chris? Anywhere else government should get involved? And if I am guaranteed food, shelter, medical and an education, do I really need to go to work? What's my incentive? Or would you not go as far as Gocka, who says he's an accountant just like you. Actually, that's hilarious! A socialist accountant! Is Gocka your twin Chris?

Tom, I found your twin. He was a comedian actor being particularly humourous in the way he portrayed a government employee (like you) who sounded way too much like you.

I regard myself as a capitalist pig who looks down on pathetic public servants looking for incessant handouts, superior working conditions and new cardigans to wear to work. Having said that, I also believe and accept there is a role for government in providing for its citizens. I don't think Australia is far from a decent level.

How much would you put the GST up by Chris? And what would the net effect be? Would we be paying more tax or less?

I'm wondering the average proportion of an Australian's income paid in taxes is - including all direct and indirect taxes, such as income tax, GST, import duties, fuel excises etc etc? I have no idea how to even calculate that, but I would take a guess that its anywhere between 25 and 60 per cent, depending on your income. I take it other than those adjustments you mentioned, you think we've got it about right?

GST at 10% on EVERYTHING would be a start, along with personal and corporate tax rate reductions. But at 15%, I would be insisting on all other excises and levies being abolished in addition to personal and corporate tax rate reductions.

This link has some numbers:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-18/gst-increase-would-leave-nation-better-off-cpa/6130664

I don't think there is a perfect rate or combination of taxes, however, the nation must be globally competitive in order to retain/attract its human capital. So, perfect rates/combinations can only be viewed in a global context. The fact that Australia has a number of some of the most liveable cities in the world supports the suggestion that the balance here is not too far from as good as it gets.

[Vangelovski]

I regard myself as a capitalist pig who looks down on pathetic public servants looking for incessant handouts, superior working conditions and new cardigans to wear to work.

I don't believe there would be too many accountants if the state did not create a demand for their services through taxation and financial regulation. While accountants may wear suits, I think its just to cover their cardigans underneath.

Having said that, I also believe and accept there is a role for government in providing for its citizens.

So do I, but I don't know what you think the government should provide...I would say it has a role in providing for welfare to those that really need it (granted that needs more elaboration), education and health. But I don't think that it should play the sole role as there is plenty of room for the private sector, charities and local communities (particularly in welfare where socialists should really be putting their money where their mouths are).

GST at 10% on EVERYTHING would be a start, along with personal and corporate tax rate reductions. But at 15%, I would be insisting on all other excises and levies being abolished in addition to personal and corporate tax rate reductions.

This link has some numbers:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-1...ff-cpa/6130664

I'd have to think about that some more because it didn't all sink in on the first read. Do you have a rough idea what the total tax burden would be on an individual in Australia - everything included (income tax, excises, levies, council rates etc)? I can't seem to find an analysis on that.

I don't think there is a perfect rate or combination of taxes, however, the nation must be globally competitive in order to retain/attract its human capital. So, perfect rates/combinations can only be viewed in a global context. The fact that Australia has a number of some of the most liveable cities in the world supports the suggestion that the balance here is not too far from as good as it gets.

I generally agree, but I don't put too much credence into the rankings of liveable cities. Plus, there's lots of things I don't believe government should have a role in and question the level of taxation here.

[George S.]

This thread has bought it home of how much the govt reps are costing us and the way they are ripping us off to the tune of millions.Also the extent the same could be said of the unions doing the same thing.Why put the gst or taxes up so they could waste it all.Think of all the hair brained ideas they call infrastructure,

[DraganOfStip]

Its when wealth becomes more and more consolidated in fewer and fewer hands. Every single economic system from human history has eventually crashed and erupted into violence when the wealth grew too large in too few hands.

The problem with full on privatization of everything can be summed up in one word; profit. Any private institution in order to exist needs to make a profit. This profit not only tends to make things more expensive but also prioritizes needs differently. For example, take American style healthcare. Doctor, insurance provider, and patient. The doctor must make a profit, the office the doctor rents must make a profit, the insurance company that pays for the services must make a profit, in the end the consumer the patient, pays for all the profit. The insurance companies may goal to pay out as little claims as possible, not to make sure you get the best care, or the fastest. The main goal of the doctor, is to see as many patients in as little time as possible, his main goal isn't to make sure you get the best care and most attention. In the end the patient pays a lot of money so that the middle man (insurance) makes a profit, the doctor makes a profit, and the patient gets hurried through the exam and then their insurance denies the claim because of some ridiculous stipulation you had no idea existed.

Your claim that the "government" cant possible allocate better where the needs are is flat out wrong. First of all the government isn't some rouge boogie man, it is comprised by the people and fulfills the will of the people so long as they are active in the process. A private institution can never prioritize better than the government because a private institution has one priority and one priority only, profit. As an accountant I can tell you that every single business decision boils down to one factor, and that is profit. If a company calculates that by reducing quality by X, they will lose Y amount of customers but reduce costs by Z, as long as Z is greater than Y, then X is irrelevant. If a company can calculate that dumping chemicals into the river will cost X in fines, and will cost Y in reputation (also monetized), and Z is why it costs to dispose of these chemicals properly, again as long as X plus Y is less than Z, then that is what you do. A private companies job is not to help society, or to protect the environment, its to make a profit. People who can not admit this are delusional.

My only problem with government is that it is not inclusive enough, it is not transparent enough, and it is to easily swayed by money.

Places where I like the government to take control are those that affect peoples basic needs, Food, shelter, education, health, and security. I dont care if if apples charges ridiculous prices for gadgets, I dont care if people use drugs. What I do care about is that everyone can see a doctor when they are sick without losing their shirt, that people dont starve or live on the street, that everyone has access to education without signing over their future. The only other place where I would want the government to intervene is environmental and labor issues. Someone has to protect the environment, that never goes hand in hand with profit. I think governments should impose strict labor laws, high minimum wages, strict caps on working hours, and mandatory vacations and maternity leaves.

I agree that government is inefficient, but that's because way to many people want it to be that way. You cant start out with the notion that no matter what you do, it will suck, and then be shocked when it sucks.

Conservatives hate to hear about Scandinavia, because it works, and they base their entire stock in the idea that government is bad and that privatization can solve every problem. Every worldwide poll taken always finds Scandinavia in the top few places in every category. Happiness, healthiness, standard of living, education, crime, poverty, cleanliness. I doubt you can find one study that finds Scandinavia is last in anything that can be considered good. Unlike a country like the USA which might be number one in average wages, but last in health, crime, depression, obesity, etc. This is what I meant by balanced.

Pure Capitalism will be just another failed system eventually.

"Like" button anywhere?

[Gocka]

If you were out at a banquet, and it was dinner time, and the total amount of guests was 100, and if 99 guests had to sit at one table, and in the center there was one plate of food, and across the hall only 1 guest sat at 1 table with 99 plates of food. This I think would be too much. This is currently how wealth is distributed. Then lets say that even though that ones guest couldn't possible eat more than 1 or 2 plates he refuses to share the remaining 97 plates of food with any of the other guests. Let that mental image sink in for a second and then ask yourself what would you do if you were one of the 99 people. How would you feel, what would you think of that one guy, and what do you suppose would happen to that one guy in short time.

There are plenty of things we do as a society for the betterment of all. I don't understand why money is any different than anything else. Somehow though money is worshiped with this special regard. It's sacred. Frankly its pathetic. There was a time when the richest 1% gave away 99% of their wealth upon their death, excess income was taxed at 90%. Society flourished, the middle class was born, the whole USA took a leap forward and no one blinked an eye. Today, god forbid someone worth 20 billion dollars is forced to struggle with only 2 billion. God forbid we built schools instead of drones. With the advent of the modern corporation, the hydra just keeps growing new heads, so you can forget about 99% of wealth being donated back to society.

What proportion of a country's wealth would have to be consolidated into how few hands before you would consider it too much?

The basic mechanism of the American democratic system is very strong, but as I said before, it requires the participation of the people. The people do not participate. The last elections had a 30% voter turnout. So I challenge your claim that citizens are most active in the USA.

The main problems facing the American democracy are too much money, and a lack of unbiased information which is made possible with large amounts of money. Its less obvious on the national level, but at the local level its comically obvious. Its also apparent in the house of representatives, and less in the senate.



I'm starting to think you are closet socialist, you make the same mistake that all socialists make, you think in an idealized manner that is devoid of reality. You have to love the 21st century Christian, Bible, wallet and pistol. The Bible is used to justify worshiping the wallet and the pistol.

That's a very marxist reading of history.

There is no country where the citizenry is more active than in the US (Some come close, but not quite). So why is it as bad as you claim?

Government doesn't need to get involved in private business. Private everything can co exist with public equivalents. I didn't say that the government should provide anything, but that's useless to point out once you get in one of your tunnel vision modes. The government should have mechanisms that prevent people from not having those things not provide them outright. If minimum wages were high enough to live on, and the average work day was shorter, and people had more time for leisure, then there wouldn't be a need for a welfare system. I'm about incentivizing work, and having strong safety nets incase people slip. No one in the 21st century who works full time 40 hours a week, should need food stamps to feed themselves, currently that is the case in the US.

If you can entrust the big bad government to provide you with police why not medicine? You pay taxes to have someone run around with a gun and protect you but you don't want to entrust someone to heal you? Why does a doctor have to be any different than the police?

You god damn conservatives are the most backwards people on earth today alongside ISIS. Cold war era propaganda was stupid enough in 1950, in 2015 its embarrassing. All you see is communists and Russia everywhere.

Is there anywhere you don't want to government to take control? Are you saying that the government should provide us with food and homes? Will we get food vouchers or how will that work? Will we all live in exactly the same house/apartment? What would you prefer, the classic concrete Moscow look or the white-washed Yugo look?

I don't say I'm an accountant I am an accountant asshole. I don't see why a socialist accountant is funny either, oh probably because you are ignorant and think the sole purpose of an Accountant is taxation, even though the majority of accountants, work with internal controls, efficiency, auditing, record keeping, analysis, planning, budgeting and investment. I mean its not like I'm a government employee, employed at a government institution which I think shouldn't exist, but am happy to take a pay check from, ring any bells? At least me and Chris make our own money and pay taxes. So in reality Chris, through his taxes, pays your salary. That makes you a mooching socialist, stop sucking the government teat and get a real job. Chris can you believe you pay taxes so Vangelovski can sit around all day and talk about..... hold on LMAO ..... Middle eastern studies? A capitalist would never waist hard earned money on middle eastern studies, that is something only a socialist would do. The irony of this conversation is beautiful.

What do you think Chris? Anywhere else government should get involved? And if I am guaranteed food, shelter, medical and an education, do I really need to go to work? What's my incentive? Or would you not go as far as Gocka, who says he's an accountant just like you. Actually, that's hilarious! A socialist accountant! Is Gocka your twin Chris?

[Macedonian]

Gocka I like your post. You are spot on. Australia used to be a very strong 'social democracy' and the safety net was astounding. Business still flourished, debt levels to GDP were minimal, schooling was almost entirely free at all levels with a very high standard at the public level, medicinal requirements for all were at a very high standard and near free.

When I say free I mean paid for via taxation. Yes some were top-heavy and weren't run as efficiently as a profitable corporation but the end game was not profit per se but 'providing a service' without a loss.

Dad could work and cover the living expenses/loans/etc. Mum could look after the kids and sort out the house. Work if she wanted or more cash needed. Now two jobs/incomes can't keep up. Yes inflation has a lot to do with it but the boon of easy credit has been like a honey trap for a bear. The country led by the bankers who have their noose around its' balls is heading quick fast up sh1t creek. It's coming...real soon!

I work with a lot of Scots in my industry and they tell me about the high tax rates in Scotland. Along with that though they tell me that they get free healthcare and education. For a strong middle-class and therefore strong country, this is all critical.

The 1%'ers have get their hands around our throats. Their instrument of delivery is government. Nothing has changed. Ace Veliki knew this back in the day. That's why he left the kings/lords still in place to rule after defeating them. They still answered to him though. But I detract!

Conservative, socialist, capitalist, communist...all labels and means of separation and smoke and mirrors. The discussion is futile. There are larger trends/currents/powers which pose a far bigger threat, that require our attention and energy.

[Vangelovski]

If you were out at a banquet, and it was dinner time, and the total amount of guests was 100, and if 99 guests had to sit at one table, and in the center there was one plate of food, and across the hall only 1 guest sat at 1 table with 99 plates of food. This I think would be too much. This is currently how wealth is distributed. Then lets say that even though that ones guest couldn't possible eat more than 1 or 2 plates he refuses to share the remaining 97 plates of food with any of the other guests. Let that mental image sink in for a second and then ask yourself what would you do if you were one of the 99 people. How would you feel, what would you think of that one guy, and what do you suppose would happen to that one guy in short time.

Banquets aside, are you saying that one per cent of the people in America today own 99 per cent of the wealth? If so, I think we all know that’s BS.

There are plenty of things we do as a society for the betterment of all. I don't understand why money is any different than anything else. Somehow though money is worshiped with this special regard. It's sacred. Frankly its pathetic. There was a time when the richest 1% gave away 99% of their wealth upon their death, excess income was taxed at 90%. Society flourished, the middle class was born, the whole USA took a leap forward and no one blinked an eye. Today, god forbid someone worth 20 billion dollars is forced to struggle with only 2 billion. God forbid we built schools instead of drones. With the advent of the modern corporation, the hydra just keeps growing new heads, so you can forget about 99% of wealth being donated back to society.

I think socialists talk about greed a lot, but forget that wanting other people’s property, whether its money or something else, is greed in and of itself. I don’t think anyone has said that there is no role for government or that government should not tax anyone or anything. I think its really about what role government should play and then tax accordingly to fulfil that role. Taking 90 per cent of someone’s income (regardless of how much they earn) is just theft. Nor is it an incentive for anything productive. If you think it is, send me 90 per cent of your income and keep working.

Chris, what do you think about a 90 per cent taxation rate? I know, you probably won't respond because its me and you want to stay in solidarity with Gocka, but we all know your answer.

The basic mechanism of the American democratic system is very strong, but as I said before, it requires the participation of the people. The people do not participate. The last elections had a 30% voter turnout. So I challenge your claim that citizens are most active in the USA.

There is far more to democratic participation than just voting once every four years. The fact that all you could come up with is voting is more reflective of the socialist mindset than the reality of democratic governance. Its also reflective of what's wrong with Macedonia today.

I'm starting to think you are closet socialist, you make the same mistake that all socialists make, you think in an idealized manner that is devoid of reality. You have to love the 21st century Christian, Bible, wallet and pistol. The Bible is used to justify worshiping the wallet and the pistol.

I’m thinking in an idealised manner? Socialism sounds pretty idealised to me. They tried it quite a few times over the past 150 years – it ended pretty badly. What do you think Chris? Is socialism or capitalism more idealised? Again, we don't expect an answer for the sake of your solidarity with Gocka.

Government doesn't need to get involved in private business. Private everything can co exist with public equivalents. I didn't say that the government should provide anything, but that's useless to point out once you get in one of your tunnel vision modes. The government should have mechanisms that prevent people from not having those things not provide them outright. If minimum wages were high enough to live on, and the average work day was shorter, and people had more time for leisure, then there wouldn't be a need for a welfare system. I'm about incentivizing work, and having strong safety nets incase people slip. No one in the 21st century who works full time 40 hours a week, should need food stamps to feed themselves, currently that is the case in the US.

If you can entrust the big bad government to provide you with police why not medicine? You pay taxes to have someone run around with a gun and protect you but you don't want to entrust someone to heal you? Why does a doctor have to be any different than the police?

I don’t disagree that the government has a role to play, but again, the question is what should that role be. It might be surprising to you, but some people prefer personal freedom over been spoon fed by people who would not have the slightest clue as to your personal circumstances or what's best for you as an individual.

You god damn conservatives are the most backwards people on earth today alongside ISIS. Cold war era propaganda was stupid enough in 1950, in 2015 its embarrassing. All you see is communists and Russia everywhere.

When you promote socialist views, you’ll be seen as a socialist. The reality of socialism has been experienced by millions of people for over 100 years. There’s no need for cold war era propaganda – the simple facts will be sufficient.

I don't say I'm an accountant I am an accountant asshole. I don't see why a socialist accountant is funny either, oh probably because you are ignorant and think the sole purpose of an Accountant is taxation, even though the majority of accountants, work with internal controls, efficiency, auditing, record keeping, analysis, planning, budgeting and investment. I mean its not like I'm a government employee, employed at a government institution which I think shouldn't exist, but am happy to take a pay check from, ring any bells? At least me and Chris make our own money and pay taxes. So in reality Chris, through his taxes, pays your salary. That makes you a mooching socialist, stop sucking the government teat and get a real job. Chris can you believe you pay taxes so Vangelovski can sit around all day and talk about..... hold on LMAO ..... Middle eastern studies? A capitalist would never waist hard earned money on middle eastern studies, that is something only a socialist would do. The irony of this conversation is beautiful.

Accountants aren't all about taxation, but my point is that I don’t think there would be very many of them if government didn't create a need for their services through taxation AND financial regulation. So I think there is a government employee cardigan in all of your closets. If you want to play the financially independent of government card, then you’d have to get a job that is sustained solely through private demand for its particular good or service and not government imposed regulation.

The irony of this conversation is beautiful indeed, particularly given your need for government to create demand for many of your services and my NEVER actually saying there is no need for government or there is no role for government in providing certain services. What I did, essentially, was question what the role of government should be.

So, what was pure capitalism?

[Risto the Great]

90% tax .... utter bullshit
Socialism/Capitalism .... both are idealised and both unrealistic in their true essence. In fact, you appear to be advocating some kind of middle ground or non black and white stance on the issue. I commend you for stepping into the shades of grey world we live in.

[Gocka]

Google is your friend, its been widely reported.

Wealth inequality in the United States (also known as the wealth gap[1]) refers to the unequal distribution of assets among residents of the United States. Wealth includes the values of homes, automobiles, personal valuables, businesses, savings, and investments.[2] Just prior to President Obama's 2014 State of the Union Address, media[3] reported that the top wealthiest 1% possess 40% of the nation’s wealth; the bottom 80% own 7%; similarly, but later, the media reported, the "richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent".[4] The gap between the top 10% and the middle class is over 1,000%; that increases another 1000% for the top 1%. The average employee "needs to work more than a month to earn what the CEO earns in one hour."[5] Although different from income inequality, the two are related. In Inequality for All—a 2013 documentary with Robert Reich in which he argued that income inequality is the defining issue for the United States—Reich states that 95% of economic gains went to the top 1% net worth (HNWI) since 2009 when the recovery allegedly started.[6]

A 2011 study found that US citizens across the political spectrum dramatically underestimate the current US wealth inequality and would prefer a far more egalitarian distribution of wealth.[7]

Wealth is usually not used for daily expenditures or factored into household budgets, but combined with income it comprises the family's total opportunity "to secure a desired stature and standard of living, or pass their class status along to one's children".[8] Moreover, "wealth provides for both short- and long-term financial security, bestows social prestige, and contributes to political power, and can be used to produce more wealth."[9] Hence, wealth possesses a psychological element that awards people the feeling of agency, or the ability to act. The accumulation of wealth grants more options and eliminates restrictions about how one can live life. Dennis Gilbert asserts that the standard of living of the working and middle classes is dependent upon income and wages, while the rich tend to rely on wealth, distinguishing them from the vast majority of Americans.[10] A September 2014 study by Harvard Business School declared that the growing disparity between the very wealthy and the lower and middle classes is no longer sustainable.[11]

http://fortune.com/2014/10/31/inequality-wealth-income-us/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

Banquets aside, are you saying that one per cent of the people in America today own 99 per cent of the wealth? If so, I think we all know that’s BS.

Hmm, its kind of hard to be in a democracy where people dont vote, or do they telepathically tell their leaders what to do? People stopped voting in the USA because they find it pointless because there is not correlation between the will of the people and the actions of its government. Americans are involved on a superficial level, in the end their desires are largely ignored when it comes to economics.

There is far more to democratic participation than just voting once every four years. The fact that all you could come up with is voting is more reflective of the socialist mindset than the reality of democratic governance. Its also reflective of what's wrong with Macedonia today.

Again ignorance of accounting and business. Every company has an accounting department and every company hires outside auditors. Even if there was no government at all and no financial regulation at all this would not change because companies need accounts to keep records, to maintain efficiency and to make sense of everything they do operationally. The only demand the government creates for accounting is in external financial reporting and taxation. We deal with taxation and financial reporting a couple month in the year, the other 10 months are devoted to purely internal needs which are self sufficient, so again I call bullshit.

Accountants aren't all about taxation, but my point is that I don’t think there would be very many of them if government didn't create a need for their services through taxation AND financial regulation. So I think there is a government employee cardigan in all of your closets. If you want to play the financially independent of government card, then you’d have to get a job that is sustained solely through private demand for its particular good or service and not government imposed regulation.

The irony of this conversation is beautiful indeed, particularly given your need for government to create demand for many of your services and my NEVER actually saying there is no need for government or there is no role for government in providing certain services. What I did, essentially, was question what the role of government should be.

So, what was pure capitalism?

Pure capitalism is what many right wing nuts want. I'm sure you can look up a definition of what is capitalism. No need to ask the same question 10 times so as to deflect the conversation, just google it you know how to do that.

[Gocka]

Congress re-adopted the income tax in 1916, levying a 1% tax on net personal incomes above $3,000, with a 6% surtax on incomes above $500,000. By 1918, the top rate of the income tax was increased to 77% (on income over $1,000,000) to finance World War I. The top marginal tax rate was reduced to 58% in 1922, to 25% in 1925, and finally to 24% in 1929. In 1932 the top marginal tax rate was increased to 63% during the Great Depression and steadily increased.

During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments. In pursuit of equality (rather than revenue) President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a 100% tax on all incomes over $25,000.[30][31] When Congress did not enact that proposal, Roosevelt issued an executive order attempting to achieve a similar result through a salary cap on certain salaries in connection with contracts between the private sector and the federal government.[32][33][34] For tax years 1944 through 1951, the highest marginal tax rate for individuals was 91%, increasing to 92% for 1952 and 1953, and reverting to 91% for tax years 1954 through 1963.[35]

90% tax .... utter bullshit
Socialism/Capitalism .... both are idealised and both unrealistic in their true essence. In fact, you appear to be advocating some kind of middle ground or non black and white stance on the issue. I commend you for stepping into the shades of grey world we live in.

The 90% wasn't for everyone it was a progress structure that targeted wealthier and wealthier people. People in our income range would probably pay less then we do today.

I agree that both are unrealistic in there own right, that is why they need to be combined.

[DraganOfStip]

Call it whatever you like,high taxes or no high taxes the Nordic system has proven efficient and Nordic nations top the lists in happiness,living standards etc etc.
And if it can work in Scandinavia there's no reason not to work elsewhere with the right implemented reforms.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/14/politics/bernie-sanders-liberty-university-speech/

[Amphipolis]

I think socialists talk about greed a lot, but forget that wanting other people’s property, whether its money or something else, is greed in and of itself.

Oh those damn poor greedy people! I remember one day I was switching channels and came across a "rich and famous" TV show. It was about the everyday life of a weird wealthy eccentric gay stylist. We saw how he went to buy a diamond necklace for his cute little dog.
Or another episode where some fourth category Greek Paris Hilton-like heiress was showing her collection of 30 Porches. (So what, we all collect things).

Kill them all I say! No, eat them alive!! Is that greedy, hateful and revolutionary enough for you?

Well, a (legal and constitutional) alternative is to tax them more.

[Gocka]

I'm not even sure where the socialist label is coming from, I don't see my views as socialist.

I think that there should be private equivalents to anything that is offered publicly; Healthcare,. education, etc.

I think through taxation the government should make available free of further charge education and healthcare, because they are core needs that society will benefit from having readily available. Healthy educated people are less prone to crime and are generally more useful to society. In my view this expense pays future dividends.

I think the minimum wage should be very high, even if it raises the price of goods. In the end people can do without certain goods, and the higher income will help them pay basic expenses like housing and food, which under current minimum wages in the USA is unattainable.

I think there should be a progressive tax structure that gets very high as income exceeds a certain amount. I don't think 90% is out of the question once you reach over something like 20,000,000. I think the rates up until 500,000 should be low, maybe 20% top at 500,000 going lower as you down and higher as you go up.

I am for a flat tax on income and consumption. I don't like little bullshit taxes hidden in places you never think about. So do away with Gas tax, phone tax, federal this fee, federal that fee. Only income and sales tax period.

Sales tax 10% on everything except food. Lavish purchases, such as second homes, third car, jewelry, private aircraft, limo, clothing over $300 per article, etc should be at a higher rate, 20%- 25%.

Where I would be a huge stickler would be budgets. I hate the idea of shuffling money around so that no one knows which tax pays for what service, and which ones are huge drainers and which ones produce income. The flat taxes eliminate one part of that by making it easily identifiable where the income comes form. It would be easy to know exactly how much revenue is generated from income tax, home much from sales tax, how much from one income range to another. Then it will be easy to tweak it accordingly because you will know exactly who and by how much you are impacting. Then the second part is strict allocation of resources, with constant input from the citizens where allocations should change. Currently in the USA no one can tell you where the revenue comes from and where it is used because its a mess. Sometimes I wish the government was run like some of the businesses I audit. I've seen places that can tell you how much they spent on pencils and pens separately.

I agree that an over arching government is dangerous at worst and inefficient at best. I honestly don't think the idea of government is a problem but the type of people that lead it and the level of participation and input from the populace. I've even audited government agencies and their biggest problem is accountability. No one is ever accountable for anything, and the tax payer has no clue how much they give in taxes and where they go.


All of that can be changed for the better.


Also a side note on 90% tax rate on top income earners. The taxes rates were quite low before the great depression, during the great depression the wealth gap grew to levels seen today, at which point people realized it was no longer sustainable. Roosevelt even proposed a 100% tax over a certain income, and eventually succeeded in getting 91%-94%. After that things started to get back to normal, It was the most successful period in American history and was the only generation that saw a middle class emerge and grow. Other laws passed that led to the boom were strict banking laws, heavy regulation, increased workers rights and heavy spending on education and infrastructure. Leading up to the 1970's the tax rates were progressively decreased to what is today almost record low rates, and what is the outcome? Public and private debt at record highs, poverty at records highs, stagnant wages, record high wealth and income gaps, a decreasing middle class, increased crime. If left unchecked capitalism always nets the same result, wealth gets consolidated to the point where there is not enough left to go around.

I don't blame the income earners, they generally play by the rules that are given, and generally they earn fair and square, I don't hate billionaires nor am I jealous, nor do I think they are greedy. But, when you live in a society sometimes you have to be part of the group and not just an individual. There are plenty of laws that restrict us from doing selfish things for the good of all, that none of us complain about. Money is just another part of life that affects us all, that needs to be checked in some manner for the betterment of all, and it has been and has caused no ill effects.

Once you get past a certain level of wealth, more is really meaningless. There is only so much you can buy, there is only so much you do with that money, hording it is not helping anyone even the person hording it. In the end even taxing at such high levels, there will still be a wealthy class, that will live lives we couldn't even dream of. The problem is that people overvalue themselves, I think RTG might fall into that class, or maybe not. People think that if they make $200,000 a year they are now part of the wealthy class, and they don't want taxes to go up on the wealthy. They end up thinking they are advocating for themselves when they are really advocating for a totally different class of people. Me on the other hand I realize I am not advocating for myself. My proposals might take more away from me and I probably wont benefit directly form it, I'm ok with that. I am well off in comparison to most, I am also no where near even moderately wealthy. Frankly I don't need anything from the government, but there are millions that do.

Everyone thinks they are well off until one little unexpected turn happens in their life, then they realize how tiny and hopeless they are in the grand scheme of things.

Label it what you want, all I can say to you is by your standards if Jesus walked the earth today, and you didn't know he was Jesus, you would call him a flaming socialist and tell him to got o hell.

[George S.]

Yes its about taking from the rich and giving to the poor.Who is the rich?