Capitalism vs. Socialism

[cquark]

Originally posted by: ntdz
the top bracket is 30%??? YEAH RIGHT...

The Federal Tax is 35% for the top bracket (42% under Clinton and 70% under Jimmy Carter). That might not seem like much, but add on state tax (another 10% in most states like California), Sales tax, gas tax, property tax, and before Bush the dividend tax and death tax. Pretty much everything we do or spend gets taxed. By the time its all said and done, the top bracket is easily paying 60-65% of their income to the govt. If that aint socialist then i dont know what is...

That might be bad if you were correct, but you're not.

We essentially have a flat tax when all taxes are taken into account, because while you're correct that there are plenty of taxes, many of them fall more heavily on lower incomes people than higher, including sales taxes and gas taxes (poor people spend a higher percentage of their income) and several of the income taxes (only about half the highest rate on unearned income like capital gains, which makes up a large portion of the richest people's incomes, plus you omitted the extra 15.3% FICA income tax which drops to 0% at just below $90,000 income, and all the deductions which make the real difference between what two people pay in taxes.)

The problem with the US tax system isn't that the rich pay a larger percentage of their money in taxes than the poor, because they don't. There is only a couple percentage points difference in total tax rates (including all taxes) between the top 20% bracket of people by income on average between the bottom 20% bracket of people by income. The problem with the US tax system is that the percent that people pay within each of those 20% brackets, especially in the higher brackets, varies tremendously from individual to individual.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
2. The free market is actually the most efficient anti-poverty program ever created. For this reason reduction of taxes on the "rich" actually benefit wage earners. More on that here.

And why does 12.1% of US citizens live in poverty?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: biostud666

Originally posted by: Dissipate
2. The free market is actually the most efficient anti-poverty program ever created. For this reason reduction of taxes on the "rich" actually benefit wage earners. More on that here.

And why does 12.6% of US citizens live in poverty?

Well you see, the trickle-down is slowed up by teh eval taksez

All complete systems work brilliantly on paper. Bcause on paper there is no asymetric information; all relevant agents are represented in all transactions, and so on, ad nauseum.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: ntdz
the top bracket is 30%??? YEAH RIGHT...

The Federal Tax is 35% for the top bracket (42% under Clinton and 70% under Jimmy Carter). That might not seem like much, but add on state tax (another 10% in most states like California), Sales tax, gas tax, property tax, and before Bush the dividend tax and death tax. Pretty much everything we do or spend gets taxed. By the time its all said and done, the top bracket is easily paying 60-65% of their income to the govt. If that aint socialist then i dont know what is...

That might be bad if you were correct, but you're not.

We essentially have a flat tax when all taxes are taken into account, because while you're correct that there are plenty of taxes, many of them fall more heavily on lower incomes people than higher, including sales taxes and gas taxes (poor people spend a higher percentage of their income) and several of the income taxes (only about half the highest rate on unearned income like capital gains, which makes up a large portion of the richest people's incomes, plus you omitted the extra 15.3% FICA income tax which drops to 0% at just below $90,000 income, and all the deductions which make the real difference between what two people pay in taxes.)

The problem with the US tax system isn't that the rich pay a larger percentage of their money in taxes than the poor, because they don't. There is only a couple percentage points difference in total tax rates (including all taxes) between the top 20% bracket of people by income on average between the bottom 20% bracket of people by income. The problem with the US tax system is that the percent that people pay within each of those 20% brackets, especially in the higher brackets, varies tremendously from individual to individual.

Interesting points about the average tax percentages being so close for the top and bottom 20% tax payers. Do yuo have any links or data to support this?

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: ntdz
the top bracket is 30%??? YEAH RIGHT...

The Federal Tax is 35% for the top bracket (42% under Clinton and 70% under Jimmy Carter). That might not seem like much, but add on state tax (another 10% in most states like California), Sales tax, gas tax, property tax, and before Bush the dividend tax and death tax. Pretty much everything we do or spend gets taxed. By the time its all said and done, the top bracket is easily paying 60-65% of their income to the govt. If that aint socialist then i dont know what is...

That might be bad if you were correct, but you're not.

We essentially have a flat tax when all taxes are taken into account, because while you're correct that there are plenty of taxes, many of them fall more heavily on lower incomes people than higher, including sales taxes and gas taxes (poor people spend a higher percentage of their income) and several of the income taxes (only about half the highest rate on unearned income like capital gains, which makes up a large portion of the richest people's incomes, plus you omitted the extra 15.3% FICA income tax which drops to 0% at just below $90,000 income, and all the deductions which make the real difference between what two people pay in taxes.)

The problem with the US tax system isn't that the rich pay a larger percentage of their money in taxes than the poor, because they don't. There is only a couple percentage points difference in total tax rates (including all taxes) between the top 20% bracket of people by income on average between the bottom 20% bracket of people by income. The problem with the US tax system is that the percent that people pay within each of those 20% brackets, especially in the higher brackets, varies tremendously from individual to individual.

Interesting points about the average tax percentages being so close for the top and bottom 20% tax payers. Do yuo have any links or data to support this?

I'm a scientist, so most of the data I've seen is offline in my father's tax library, instead of being in my own library, but here is one link I could quickly find for you.

 

[imported_tss4]

Thank you. very interesting.

 

[rextilleon]

Free Market? Laissez-faire capitalism lasted for about 15years before it displaced and destroyed so many lives that they had to create a welfare system (ie. the poor houses in England etc) So to talk about the "free market" in Utopoian terms is ridiculous. The United States has a mixed economy---both private and public sectors. It has worked for many years and one sector gets to much power the other pulls things back to equilibrium. Unfortunately, the present occupant of the White House is trying to change this and thus, we have the increasing numbers of people living below the poverty level.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Todd33
I'm sorry, that didn't say anything about taxation, it was about socialism. I fail to see how we can have a government with taxation, or is it progressive taxing you dislike?

I guess a complete free market looks great on paper, until you realize greed is the fundamental driving force in mankind. The house of cards then falls apart when reality sets in.

Greed occurs whether there is complete free market or not. Just because someone is poor, doesn't mean they are not greedy.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Todd33
I'm sorry, that didn't say anything about taxation, it was about socialism. I fail to see how we can have a government with taxation, or is it progressive taxing you dislike?

I guess a complete free market looks great on paper, until you realize greed is the fundamental driving force in mankind. The house of cards then falls apart when reality sets in.

Greed occurs whether there is complete free market or not. Just because someone is poor, doesn't mean they are not greedy.

Your point?

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Socialism works in Scandinavia...best example i can thing of with social policy, rights and freedoms, no sanctions due to bad leadership.

Their economies are good, standard of living is high, no deficit, good education and health, no poverty, sure the rich get tazed a lot, but they still ahve an upper class, not as rich as americans but how much do you honestly need.

Anyways, ultra low taxation (capitalism) is still ot be tested and has a lot of assumptions. Very debatable, since based on economic theory which in itself is contradictory and very grey at times. But on the other side, socialism is proven to work. So if you are looking for betterment of humanity, socialism is the only proven success.

BS, Scandinavia is not socialistic, government regulation is lower than in many other countries, that includes the US, taxes are high but taxes are not the same as socialism, most things are privatized, including schools and hospitals, the government provides schools and hospitals though just like in the US, so tell me, what makes Scandinavia socialistic and the US capitalistic? If we go by only by taxes then US is horribly socialistic, and that simply isn't the case.

Ultra low taxation isn't capitalism btw, it is just a step closer to capitalism on the mixed economy scale.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: biostud666

Originally posted by: Dissipate
2. The free market is actually the most efficient anti-poverty program ever created. For this reason reduction of taxes on the "rich" actually benefit wage earners. More on that here.

And why does 12.1% of US citizens live in poverty?

First of all poverty is relative. If you compared that 12.1% to people living 600 years ago, you would notice that even those considered wealthy 600 years ago didn't live as well off as those considered impoverished today. How did this radical change come about? Only one way: technology developed, mass produced and mass distributed in the free market. All of the toys and gadgets that are only available to the wealthy eventually come down in price and become available to everyone. It happened with radios, televisions and cars. It will continue to happen in spite of the enormously hampering of the market.

Those 12.1% of U.S. citizens live in "poverty" mostly because they made poor life decisions, such as poor family planning but they also live in "poverty" because of minimum wage laws and the other millions of regulations that cost businesses $900 billion a year. When the government taxes and regulates, it is the poorest people who suffer as a result, because the free market is stripped of its means to produce more & better opportunities.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Wow... that's some drivel. Did you know the author managed to write well over 100 pages of this thing without mentioning externalities, and claims that there is no such thing as a monopoly?

For a critique of the concept of monopolies read chapter 10 of Man, Economy & State. For a critique of the externalities doctrine go to page 96 of Capitalism

"It will be argued that, contrary to much that has been written in the economics literature on
monopoly and public goods, neither problem exists or, if they did exist, would still not suffice in any meaningful sense to prove any economic deficiency in a pure market system. Rather, a capitalist order always, without exception and necessarily so, provides in the most efficient way for the most urgent wants of voluntary consumers, including the areas of police and the courts. With this constructive task completed, the argument will have been brought full circle, and the demolition of the intellectual credibility of socialism, morally and economically, should be complete."

They somehow fail to realize that the capitalism they espouse is no more 'pure' than it is practical. It's simply an economic version of 'take as much as you can defend'.

In capitalism you cannot take, you must produce. Defense would simply be a part of the market, i.e. security firms would replace police departments. There is nothing about the theory of division of labor which precludes private police forces.

In pure capitalism, all affected parties are involved in the process of contracts, including such nebulous ones as 'the environment', 'the future', and more obvious ones like 'your neighbors'. In short, if capitalism is to function efficiently, it needs an infinite set of markets, all agents need standing in all contracts, and no trading can happen until everyone has chosen their consumption for this 'period' and all 'future' periods. And even then it still doens't work!

Private courts and arbitration bodies would exist under capitalism. Please explain how it wouldn't work, people choose their consumption everyday, it is called human action.

BTW pure capitalism and pure socialism both have excellent results on paper. And neither could ever be implemented because they both assume the cost and time involved in processing information is zero. Which is obviously not true.

Wrong. Socialism has horrible results on paper. Ludwig von Mises eviscerated socialism on paper decades ago, and successfully predicted the fall of the Soviet Union. Where does socialism fail miserably on paper? Calculation. Under a system that lacks private ownership and markets, the price of any particular good cannot be accurately determined. How can anyone know what anything is worth if there is no market for it? Well, one communist, when asked this question said: "We look at how long the lines are." :disgust:

I can't believe someone took the time to write this - it's going on my wall of shame.

Haha, ok.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: biostud666

Originally posted by: Dissipate
2. The free market is actually the most efficient anti-poverty program ever created. For this reason reduction of taxes on the "rich" actually benefit wage earners. More on that here.

And why does 12.1% of US citizens live in poverty?

First of all poverty is relative. If you compared that 12.1% to people living 600 years ago, you would notice that even those considered wealthy 600 years ago didn't live as well off as those considered impoverished today. How did this radical change come about? Only one way: technology developed, mass produced and mass distributed in the free market. All of the toys and gadgets that are only available to the wealthy eventually come down in price and become available to everyone. It happened with radios, televisions and cars. It will continue to happen in spite of the enormously hampering of the market.

Those 12.1% of U.S. citizens live in "poverty" mostly because they made poor life decisions, such as poor family planning but they also live in "poverty" because of minimum wage laws and the other millions of regulations that cost businesses $900 billion a year. When the government taxes and regulates, it is the poorest people who suffer as a result, because the free market is stripped of its means to produce more & better opportunities.

The laissez-affair economy of the 1920's must have been right up your alley. Of course, it was followed by the worst depression in our nations history. I'm sure the poor were better off though. Especially since they're were so many new ones.

Some government regulation that protect consumers and employees are neccesary and do contribute to the quality of life of the poor and middle class. You have to have a balance between regulation and free market.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: biostud666

Originally posted by: Dissipate
2. The free market is actually the most efficient anti-poverty program ever created. For this reason reduction of taxes on the "rich" actually benefit wage earners. More on that here.

And why does 12.1% of US citizens live in poverty?

First of all poverty is relative. If you compared that 12.1% to people living 600 years ago, you would notice that even those considered wealthy 600 years ago didn't live as well off as those considered impoverished today. How did this radical change come about? Only one way: technology developed, mass produced and mass distributed in the free market. All of the toys and gadgets that are only available to the wealthy eventually come down in price and become available to everyone. It happened with radios, televisions and cars. It will continue to happen in spite of the enormously hampering of the market.

Those 12.1% of U.S. citizens live in "poverty" mostly because they made poor life decisions, such as poor family planning but they also live in "poverty" because of minimum wage laws and the other millions of regulations that cost businesses $900 billion a year. When the government taxes and regulates, it is the poorest people who suffer as a result, because the free market is stripped of its means to produce more & better opportunities.

The laissez-affair economy of the 1920's must have been right up your alley. Of course, it was followed by the worst depression in our nations history. I'm sure the poor were better off though. Especially since they're were so many new ones.

Absolutely not. The 1920s was a period of false prosperity brought about by an enormous expansion of credit by the Federal Reserve. Once the credit expansion ended at the end of the '20s the economy collapsed, then the Great Depression was prolonged for years by the government's protectionist policies and the Federal Reserve. Check out America's Great Depression.

Some government regulation that protect consumers and employees are neccesary and do contribute to the quality of life of the poor and middle class. You have to have a balance between regulation and free market.

That is a complete myth/lie. The quality of life of the middle class/poor is severely hampered by government intervention.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: tss4
The laissez-affair economy of the 1920's must have been right up your alley. Of course, it was followed by the worst depression in our nations history. I'm sure the poor were better off though. Especially since they're were so many new ones.

Some government regulation that protect consumers and employees are neccesary and do contribute to the quality of life of the poor and middle class. You have to have a balance between regulation and free market.

Good points. I'd go even further and say that you can't have a free market without regulation. After all, what is a market, but a system of rules for trading? Without such rules, you do end up with the private security forces mentioned by another poster above. Of course, history has shown that a few problems exist with such private security forces, and few would look back to the era they dominated, which we call the feudal system, as a preferred way of life.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: tss4
The laissez-affair economy of the 1920's must have been right up your alley. Of course, it was followed by the worst depression in our nations history. I'm sure the poor were better off though. Especially since they're were so many new ones.

Absolutely not. The 1920s was a period of false prosperity brought about by an enormous expansion of credit by the Federal Reserve. Once the credit expansion ended at the end of the '20s the economy collapsed, then the Great Depression was prolonged for years by the government's protectionist policies and the Federal Reserve. Check out America's Great Depression.

The Great Depression was mainly caused by unequal distribution of wealth. Markets with too few economic actors of importance are always unstable and supply tends to overrun demand as too few people have the ability to buy the products of the large actors. The larger your middle class, the more stable your economy will be, but government policies around that time period favored large corporations, gutting many of the reforms made in prior decades like the Sherman Antitrust Act. However, you're right that protectionist policies in the UK, US, and elsewhere helped to prolong it.

 

[Genx87]

I actually find it to be a political tool. If everybody got taxed the same, when a tax cut came all people will be affected the same. Right now people can twist the facts around and say the rich always get off.

I always find it amazing those rich people. They always seem to find a way to not be hit by higher taxes and always get the tax rebates. /sarcasm off

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I actually find it to be a political tool. If everybody got taxed the same, when a tax cut came all people will be affected the same. Right now people can twist the facts around and say the rich always get off.

I always find it amazing those rich people. They always seem to find a way to not be hit by higher taxes and always get the tax rebates. /sarcasm off

Its not that they get off, its just that when you consider all taxes (yes even sales tax, etc) and tax shelters. The actual taxes paid as a percentage of income is very similar across the board on average. Poor peoples taxes percentage goes up due to the fact that they use a large percentage on goods which are taxed and rich peoples go down overall due to clever investment schemes. I'm not poo-pooing them for this. Its smart use of their money.

But anyway, the overall, tax rates are very close. If you made income tax a flat tax like you seem to advocate then poor people would actually pay a higher tax rat eon their income since they use more of it on purchases which carry an additional sales tax.

Here's some evidence of what I'm talking about:
http://www.discourse.net/archives/pix/flat-tax.html

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: tss4
The laissez-affair economy of the 1920's must have been right up your alley. Of course, it was followed by the worst depression in our nations history. I'm sure the poor were better off though. Especially since they're were so many new ones.

Absolutely not. The 1920s was a period of false prosperity brought about by an enormous expansion of credit by the Federal Reserve. Once the credit expansion ended at the end of the '20s the economy collapsed, then the Great Depression was prolonged for years by the government's protectionist policies and the Federal Reserve. Check out America's Great Depression.

The Great Depression was mainly caused by unequal distribution of wealth. Markets with too few economic actors of importance are always unstable and supply tends to overrun demand as too few people have the ability to buy the products of the large actors. The larger your middle class, the more stable your economy will be, but government policies around that time period favored large corporations, gutting many of the reforms made in prior decades like the Sherman Antitrust Act. However, you're right that protectionist policies in the UK, US, and elsewhere helped to prolong it.

Many factors played a role in bringing about the depression; however, the main cause for the Great Depression was the combination of the greatly unequal distribution of wealth throughout the 1920's, and the extensive stock market speculation that took place during the latter part that same decade.

Bwahahaha! Yeah, and I suppose that long term inflation is caused by wild speculators in the oil futures markets as well!

For an economy to function properly, total demand must equal total supply. In an economy with such disparate distribution of income it is not assured that demand will always equal supply.

This is Keynesian B.S. that has been debunked for a better part of a century now.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: tss4
The laissez-affair economy of the 1920's must have been right up your alley. Of course, it was followed by the worst depression in our nations history. I'm sure the poor were better off though. Especially since they're were so many new ones.

Absolutely not. The 1920s was a period of false prosperity brought about by an enormous expansion of credit by the Federal Reserve. Once the credit expansion ended at the end of the '20s the economy collapsed, then the Great Depression was prolonged for years by the government's protectionist policies and the Federal Reserve. Check out America's Great Depression.

The Great Depression was mainly caused by unequal distribution of wealth. Markets with too few economic actors of importance are always unstable and supply tends to overrun demand as too few people have the ability to buy the products of the large actors. The larger your middle class, the more stable your economy will be, but government policies around that time period favored large corporations, gutting many of the reforms made in prior decades like the Sherman Antitrust Act. However, you're right that protectionist policies in the UK, US, and elsewhere helped to prolong it.

Many factors played a role in bringing about the depression; however, the main cause for the Great Depression was the combination of the greatly unequal distribution of wealth throughout the 1920's, and the extensive stock market speculation that took place during the latter part that same decade.

Bwahahaha! Yeah, and I suppose that long term inflation is caused by wild speculators in the oil futures markets as well!

For an economy to function properly, total demand must equal total supply. In an economy with such disparate distribution of income it is not assured that demand will always equal supply.

This is Keynesian B.S. that has been debunked for a better part of a century now.

Just because you choose to believe only the articles you read supporting your case does not make it true. There's evidence on both sides. You are far from prooving your point. If a completely free market was so perfect then why has it never been implemented and suceeded in history?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Wow... that's some drivel. Did you know the author managed to write well over 100 pages of this thing without mentioning externalities, and claims that there is no such thing as a monopoly?

For a critique of the concept of monopolies read chapter 10 of Man, Economy & State. For a critique of the externalities doctrine go to page 96 of Capitalism

[/quote]
Pick and choose... pick and choose... pick and choose. This is no more a 'pure' capitalism than my coffee is pure water. Alrighty then, from Chapter 10:

"For this ?in­elasticity? is simply a label for a situation in which consumers spend more money on a good at a higher than at a lower price. If the consumers were really opposed to the cartel action, and if the resulting exchanges really hurt them, they would boycott the ?monopolistic? firm or firms, they would lower their pur­chasing so that the demand curve became elastic, and the firm would be forced to increase its production and reduce its price again."

Please go read the definition of 'fallacy of composition'. Your hero is here claiming that consumers act as a body by spending more money in the face of correctly implemented monopoly pricing. This is patently false: some consumers purchase less (some may purchase as much if their demand for the good in the relevent price range is entirely inelatsic; think buying gas for your car; price is irrelevant within reason) than at the competitive price of the good, albeit at a higher price; others purchase much less, or drop out of the market entirely. Yet your hero commits the composition fallacy by treating the entire population as a single entity, which spends more in the face of a higher price, and has the power to do otherwise. This would require agents who buy at the high price to refuse to buy goods at a price which they are willing to spend, in order to bring about betterment for other people, and is fundamentally opposite to the tenets of capitalism. IF people acted in this way, your hero would label them as behaving irrationaly!

Socialistic action is not possible under pure capitalism, therefore this argument against monopoly fails completely. Calling this 'proof' disingenuous would be an insult to liars everywhere. And this is without touching the jump back and forth between efficiency arguments and moral ones; they aren't tied through any necessary relationship, and this partcular argument gets even worse for you when you examine the efficiency of monopolies.

"It will be argued that, contrary to much that has been written in the economics literature on
monopoly and public goods, neither problem exists or, if they did exist, would still not suffice in any meaningful sense to prove any economic deficiency in a pure market system. Rather, a capitalist order always, without exception and necessarily so, provides in the most efficient way for the most urgent wants of voluntary consumers, including the areas of police and the courts. With this constructive task completed, the argument will have been brought full circle, and the demolition of the intellectual credibility of socialism, morally and economically, should be complete."

They somehow fail to realize that the capitalism they espouse is no more 'pure' than it is practical. It's simply an economic version of 'take as much as you can defend'.

In capitalism you cannot take, you must produce. Defense would simply be a part of the market, i.e. security firms would replace police departments. There is nothing about the theory of division of labor which precludes private police forces.

What's the market value of me not taking everything you own by force? Don't tell me you will hire private security to stop me - all I need to do is get ahead of you once and I can afford to stay ahead of you forever.

In pure capitalism, all affected parties are involved in the process of contracts, including such nebulous ones as 'the environment', 'the future', and more obvious ones like 'your neighbors'. In short, if capitalism is to function efficiently, it needs an infinite set of markets, all agents need standing in all contracts, and no trading can happen until everyone has chosen their consumption for this 'period' and all 'future' periods. And even then it still doens't work!

Private courts and arbitration bodies would exist under capitalism. Please explain how it wouldn't work, people choose their consumption everyday, it is called human action.

How does this handle the externalities you exert on people and non-human agents outside the bounds of your private courts. See above: what stops me from trampling all over you if I can more affor 'justice' than you can? This is yet more bunk.

BTW pure capitalism and pure socialism both have excellent results on paper. And neither could ever be implemented because they both assume the cost and time involved in processing information is zero. Which is obviously not true.

Wrong. Socialism has horrible results on paper. Ludwig von Mises eviscerated socialism on paper decades ago, and successfully predicted the fall of the Soviet Union. Where does socialism fail miserably on paper? Calculation. Under a system that lacks private ownership and markets, the price of any particular good cannot be accurately determined. How can anyone know what anything is worth if there is no market for it? Well, one communist, when asked this question said: "We look at how long the lines are." :disgust:

The price of any good cannot be accurately determined under capitalism either. For this to happen you need to have markets for all goods, including all future goods. And you can't allow trading to take place until all consumers (including ones who are born yet) have had their chance to make all their decisions for all periods based on the perfectly symetrical information available to, and understood by, everyone.

Good try on the USSR - predicting the downfall of a non-socialist country due to the real world effects of not implementing pure socialism. I'll give him this much: he's able to correctly conclude that economics based on ideology is pretty much doomed to fail. Makes one appreciate the surprising effectiveness of the hypocrisy and confusion inherent in the Western market/socialism jumble, doesn't it?

I can't believe someone took the time to write this - it's going on my wall of shame.

Haha, ok.

At least we agree on something.

 

[chess9]

Actually, we are all Socialists. Do you like your Fire Department and Police Department? How about those roads you think you should be able to drive 100 mph on? Do you want them repaired? Will you be repairing the roads in your neighborhood? Will you be fighting the next neighborhood fire?

Uh, please, enough of the sophomoric ramblings of the uninformed.

Why didn't you bother to get a clue before you posted this nonsense?

And, tax policy actually favors the wealthy in this country, particularly in comparison with other industrialized nations. Have you checked the tax rates in Germany, France, Japan and Britain lately?

<Groan>

-Robert

 

[piasabird]

Tax rate is irrelevent when large corporations hide what they make through legal and illegal means and end up paying half the tax they owe. There is a tax loophole for almost every activity you could possibly be involved in. Without a flat tax, the rate is really irrelevent.

Everytime you turn around some corporation is either demanding their tax be reduced or they are leaving, or demanding relief from tax if a community wants them to move in. Somehow I doubt if they city or the state would lower taxes for me If I threatened to move out. Hee Hee.

The government could survive on 10% if everyone paid it.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Tax rate is irrelevent when large corporations hide what they make through legal and illegal means and end up paying half the tax they owe. There is a tax loophole for almost every activity you could possibly be involved in. Without a flat tax, the rate is really irrelevent.

Everytime you turn around some corporation is either demanding their tax be reduced or they are leaving, or demanding relief from tax if a community wants them to move in. Somehow I doubt if they city or the state would lower taxes for me If I threatened to move out. Hee Hee.

The government could survive on 10% if everyone paid it.

10%? Not likely, since the average tax burden is 16-20% after all taxes and deductions for the average person in America are accounted for.

Perhaps, we could if we slashed our military too.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: biostud666

Originally posted by: Dissipate
2. The free market is actually the most efficient anti-poverty program ever created. For this reason reduction of taxes on the "rich" actually benefit wage earners. More on that here.

And why does 12.1% of US citizens live in poverty?

First of all poverty is relative. If you compared that 12.1% to people living 600 years ago, you would notice that even those considered wealthy 600 years ago didn't live as well off as those considered impoverished today. How did this radical change come about? Only one way: technology developed, mass produced and mass distributed in the free market. All of the toys and gadgets that are only available to the wealthy eventually come down in price and become available to everyone. It happened with radios, televisions and cars. It will continue to happen in spite of the enormously hampering of the market.

Those 12.1% of U.S. citizens live in "poverty" mostly because they made poor life decisions, such as poor family planning but they also live in "poverty" because of minimum wage laws and the other millions of regulations that cost businesses $900 billion a year. When the government taxes and regulates, it is the poorest people who suffer as a result, because the free market is stripped of its means to produce more &amp; better opportunities.

But still US is the western country with highest percentage of people living in poverty, funny enough it's also the country with lowest taxes.