For my Libertarian friends

No liberal has addressed my issue of the government being one massive screw up after another.

Why should the government be trusted with health care or any other facet of business after we've seen what havoc its initiatives have wreaked on the housing industry (just to name one)- what good reason is there to trust the US government?

Let me put this another way.  If you were an investor, would you continue to invest in a company that brought in 5000 billion dollars a year yet carried a massive 13.5 trillion dollar debt that grows by the day and must borrow money to pay the interest on this debt?

Would you invest in a company that ran many of its businesses as Ponzi schemes?


Edited by Epignosis - September 27 2010 at 15:42

akamaisondufromage wrote: If the poor don't have enough to live on then that has everything to do with how much the rich earn.    The rich generally make themselves rich by exploiting the poor.  Look at companies like Nike finding the very poorest to make their shoes.

No it doesn't. Rich people earning more money does not cause poor people to earn less money. If anything, it's the other way around. Back up your statements, please.

Epignosis wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote: Epignosis wrote:   I was really questioning this as a way of financing a war.  I suspect the amount we (you) use for war would not be funded by this kind of tax especially if people are not spending much.  Income would still be high and easier to raise funds with income Tax if needed.    So you would put a tax on food though?    I think an ever growing gap in incomes is a problem.  Especially if that earned by the poor isn't enough to live on and that earned by the rich is so high that it in no way reflects what they give back to society.  You're just making problems for the future.    Welfare takes up about 40% of our current budget.  Get rid of that and a bunch of other useless government waste, and I don't think you'd have problems financing a war with a modest consumption tax in place.  No, I would not tax food. Why do rich people have to "give back" to society?  Rich people provide the jobs that lets poor people make a living.  If it weren't for some rich guy I've never met, I would probably have lost my home by now.  As for poor people not making enough to live on, you should blame the constant rise in minimum wage, which is largely responsible for the rises in cost of living.  When companies are forced to pay their workers more, they raise prices.  If the government has the power to enact or raise a minimum wage, and has done so multiple times, why are there still tons of people unable to pay their bills?  As for "you're just making problems for the future," what problems would my system create?  Don't just paint vague strokes with a broad brush.

 

akamaisondufromage wrote: Epignosis wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote: Epignosis wrote:   I was really questioning this as a way of financing a war.  I suspect the amount we (you) use for war would not be funded by this kind of tax especially if people are not spending much.  Income would still be high and easier to raise funds with income Tax if needed.    So you would put a tax on food though?    I think an ever growing gap in incomes is a problem.  Especially if that earned by the poor isn't enough to live on and that earned by the rich is so high that it in no way reflects what they give back to society.  You're just making problems for the future.    Welfare takes up about 40% of our current budget.  Get rid of that and a bunch of other useless government waste, and I don't think you'd have problems financing a war with a modest consumption tax in place.  No, I would not tax food. Why do rich people have to "give back" to society?  Rich people provide the jobs that lets poor people make a living.  If it weren't for some rich guy I've never met, I would probably have lost my home by now.  As for poor people not making enough to live on, you should blame the constant rise in minimum wage, which is largely responsible for the rises in cost of living.  When companies are forced to pay their workers more, they raise prices.  If the government has the power to enact or raise a minimum wage, and has done so multiple times, why are there still tons of people unable to pay their bills?  As for "you're just making problems for the future," what problems would my system create?  Don't just paint vague strokes with a broad brush.   Just you gave the impression that some people (not you) thought taxing on food might me unfair?  So why not put a tax on food after all they should pay the same as a rich man No? Rich people do indeed provide jobs.  But they should realise that providing jobs and improving society is a job in itself and is not one which should be used purely to make their own bank acounts bigger so they can die rich.  But is one where they can make a real difference to others lives and make jobs that last and communities that last.    I remember when we started a minimum wage and the Tories were saying that loads of jobs would be lost etc.  Made no difference at all.  What has made a difference is a bunch of bankers carrying on without any checks on what they are up to.  Bills go up becaus companies do as they want and there is not a proper competition.    There are always problems in times of depression.  More violence etc.

Can you provide evidence for your claim that the minimum wage act did not cause unemployment to rise? I find that hard to believe. Also, according to wikipedia there were a number of exemptions under the national minimum wage act (such as for young people) that would have made the impact less dramatic, since teenagers are a large group of people who hold minimum wage jobs.

akamaisondufromage wrote: Any Colour You Like wrote: thellama73 wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote: If the poor don't have enough to live on then that has everything to do with how much the rich earn.    The rich generally make themselves rich by exploiting the poor.  Look at companies like Nike finding the very poorest to make their shoes. No it doesn't. Rich people earning more money does not cause poor people to earn less money. If anything, it's the other way around. Back up your statements, please. Touche, mon ami.   I am saying that you shouldn't have people without enough to live on in a country full of rich people.  there is no excuse for this.  I never said Rich people earning more money cause poor people to earn less.

There are lots of excuses for this.  Like government meddling.

Epignosis wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote: Any Colour You Like wrote: thellama73 wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote: If the poor don't have enough to live on then that has everything to do with how much the rich earn.    The rich generally make themselves rich by exploiting the poor.  Look at companies like Nike finding the very poorest to make their shoes. No it doesn't. Rich people earning more money does not cause poor people to earn less money. If anything, it's the other way around. Back up your statements, please. Touche, mon ami.   I am saying that you shouldn't have people without enough to live on in a country full of rich people.  there is no excuse for this.  I never said Rich people earning more money cause poor people to earn less.  There are lots of excuses for this.  Like government meddling.

 

" The magority of the tax would come from basics and from the poor or middle class."

Again, you're just guessing. You have nothing to back that statement up except antipathy towards people who make more money than you do.

About the income gap... let's say the income gap is too wide and a minuscule percentage of the population control a gigantic amount of wealth... the rich keep getting richer, the poor keep getting poorer, and specially, their ranks increase continuously. Wouldn't the ones in the top of the income scale be pretty much in control of the market, being able to exploit workers without these last ones being able to benefit from a full free job market? Is a big income gap really desirable? How is it good for society that the ranks of poor people keep getting bigger and the ranks of wealthy people getting smaller? How does it benefit society the disappearance of the middle class? 

I can see your point on consumption tax Robert... I might be ready to vote for you on that issue... 

The T wrote: About the income gap... let's say the income gap is too wide and a minuscule percentage of the population control a gigantic amount of wealth... the rich keep getting richer, the poor keep getting poorer, and specially, their ranks increase continuously. Wouldn't the ones in the top of the income scale be pretty much in control of the market, being able to exploit workers without these last ones being able to benefit from a full free job market? Is a big income gap really desirable? How is it good for society that the ranks of poor people keep getting bigger and the ranks of wealthy people getting smaller? How does it benefit society the disappearance of the middle class?

The poor don't keep getting poorer. The poor haven't gotten poorer in hundreds of years. The poor just get richer more slowly than the rich.