U.S. Politics, Elections & Culture issues

[Vangelovski]

Originally Posted by Gocka

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?

Originally Posted by Gocka

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.

Originally Posted by Gocka

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?

Originally Posted by Gocka

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?

Originally Posted by Gocka

Pure Capitalism will be just another failed system eventually.

What is pure capitalism?

[Risto the Great]

Originally Posted by Vangelovski

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.

Originally Posted by Vangelovski

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/2015-02-1...ff-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]

Originally Posted by Risto the Great

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.

Originally Posted by Risto the Great

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).

Originally Posted by Risto the Great

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.

Originally Posted by Risto the Great

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]

Originally Posted by Gocka

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.

Originally Posted by Vangelovski

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Gocka

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.

Originally Posted by Gocka

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.

Originally Posted by Gocka

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Gocka

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.

Originally Posted by Gocka

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/inequa...lth-income-us/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth..._United_States

Originally Posted by Vangelovski

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.