That assumes people are treated equally. Economically that isn't true. Our system favors rich people. I just want balance.
No no no. It's more like this:
One kid's family has connections and gets him a job pulling weeds for $2. He then hires the other kid to pull the weeds for a quarter. Then the first kid pocket the $1.75, goes and buys two candy bars, eats both of them and then tells the other kid that if he works hard and saves his money then one day he might be able to afford a candy bar.
The important part being that the kid could eventually get experience and prove himself pulling weeds and start his own weed pulling company. Assuming that all rich people are rich because they had connections is a bad assumption. Bill Gates, who you used as an example of people who don't deserve tax breaks is a good example of this. He didn't start out rich, he built a business, it isn't inheritance or anything like that.
Amusingly, when I was 11 or 12 I brought home lawn mowers out of the garbage and fixed them (Some of them, some I just ripped apart while 'learning' lol) I then sold those lawnmowers and also began mowing yards with them by going door to door. Eventually, I had about 20 lawns to mow a week at like 10-20 dollars a yard. My mother loaned me 500 dollars for a riding mower and a small trailer. After doing this a few of the people I was mowing yards for asked me if I could pull weeds and rake also for more money. I couldn't do it alone at this point. One of the kids down the street came to help me mow, and my little brother and his little brother pulled weeds. This left me open for actual landscaping, I was 13-14 at this point, and I started planting flowers and whatever else they needed. I paid them per the job. I might get 50 bucks for mowing, weedeating, and cleaning up a flower bed, raking, and generally cleaning up an abused yard. 2 people would help me. Id take half and the other two would split half. Eventually that summer I got to where I didn't have to do a part of every job myself, but I still got my cut of each job. I didn't start out with a bunch, I just saw a need and did my best to fulfill it. One of my workers at one point broke off and started their own business to compete with mine, I suppose because they wanted more money. They did not succeed in doing what I did, and eventually came back to work for me as a second crew. My parents decided to move, and I was making 500 a week after I payed for gas and everything and I wasn't 15 yet. One of the other kids bought my equipment and everything. They tried briefly to keep it together like I had and failed miserably. It was just something I excelled at.
lol. That's insane gibberish. Taxing is perfectly legal and the constitution does not say otherwise.
Misunderstanding of our constitution is very rampant. Until the 16th amendment taxation was illegal. Our constitution outlines things that the government is allowed to do, not what it cannot. All other powers are granted to the states and the people. The issue is not that the Constitution otherwise forbids an income tax, but that it does not otherwise permit one. Without an amendment to specifically state that an income tax was constitutional, any income tax proposed by the Congress would be subject to judicial review, and possible overturning by the Court. Income taxes were overturned by the court until the 16th amendment. This happened in 1913.
Great. I say we take what was historically considered their fair share. 50% tax on people making over a million dollars per year is about right.
Historically that share is something around 0. Before the 16th Amendment taxes were around 2-5% and every tax was almost immediately repealed as being illegal for the government to do. So in historical context taxes have not existed for most of the history of America, especially in the insanely high % they are today.
I have no interest in theoretical economic morality. I'm interested in the practical reality of our economy.
Well, Hitler had a lot of mental defectives and such murdered in Germany during WW2 and that improved the gene pool for Germans and lowered the instances of retardation in their population. However, at some point you have to stop and say that the benefit from an immoral action is wrong. The morality does not just apply to economics, it is more of a ideal that people should be free to make their own decisions.
That reality is that when the rich were taxed more and unions were stronger the majority of Americans were better off than they are today, our economy was stronger overall, and our debt was low. I want to go back to that tax rate. You know, the one that made America the greatest economic superpower on the planet. Lets do that again.
The tax rate never had anything to do with making America great. After WW2, when America came into its power, it was because we were the only country in the world who really retained any of its manufacturing facilities. So for the following decades we produced most of the worlds supply and took in money from all over the world because we were the only one they could buy from. Taxes were raised because greedy politicians thought they could take more since we were very prosperous during those times. The only way we can get back to that is to bomb every other countries manufacturing ability back to the stone age. We can help the situation by harnessing America's own demand - which is huge - and blocking the supply from other countries. Imposing tariffs and getting rid of free trade would help the demand for American goods. Taxing more can increase demand in short term, but it decreases supply in the long term as it raises business costs and makes them go over seas. It is like using your rent money to buy beer. Sure, you like beer and it feels great to buy it, but in a few weeks when your rent is due its going to suck ass.
Then you're wrong. You also have an unreasonable opinion on this subject. Without taxes we would have anarchy. The mandate of the constitution is clearly to promote the general welfare. To do so requires tax dollars.
There has to be taxes, and there is the mandate to promote the general welfare in the constitution. However, you can read Madison's notes that he took when they were writing the constitution and see what they talked about when they were doing each part of it. They did not intend for the things we are doing now. The government was never intended to be able to tax a mans income. Nor is the income tax a majority of our government's operating fun. Income tax could be completely abolished and we would still have enough money to run our government if we had a few cuts to the military and others. Not to mention the fact that all that money would be back in the private sector being used to buy things and the savings from not having the IRS or even having to keep track of incomes.
I never said it did.
When you cut spending that decreases services to the middle class/poor that has the same effect as taxing them. Taxing the middle/poor classes more so we can give tax cuts to the rich does decrease demand and stunts job creation.
You admit that giving money to the poor sends money overseas basically. This amounts to a temporary fix that continues to make the problem worse. We have to fix the base problem to fix the situation. Money has to stop moving out of the USA. Even if it didn't move in to the USA, we could at least put a tourniquet on it to stem the bleading.
This I agree with very much. Solid point.
Im glad we agree on this. Raising the tariffs would do so many things. 1) Make American products competitive in America. 2) Increase tax money from the tariffs 3) Increase the number of tax payers in the US as companies higher more to make up for the increased demand.
You're not entirely wrong here. However some of that money does go to the store and the employees of the store. Also with most services purchased, the money stays in America. Also there is the fact that poor people are more likely to spend that money on food which is primarily domestic.
Neither are a great option. I think we could easily cut enough from programs including the military to balance our budget. My issue isn't so much about it being wrong helping the poor, my issue is that it is a waste of money in the long term and isn't addressing the issue.
I understand your point, but it's much more complicated than that. Over all if you give $100 to 10,000 poor people, a higher percentage of that money will recirculate back through the domestic economy than if you give $1,000,000 to one rich person.
Maybe. Maybe not. If a rich person has 1,000,000 they are putting it into stocks and bonds. I doubt anyone has a million in unused money just sitting around. The issue is they are investing it in China and other 3rd world countries because that is where the return is. Our poor 10,000 would be investing it in China too. You are giving some material stuff to the poor but in the end all the money is leaving the country.
And if you understood the big picture you'd understand that this money is insignificant compared to the billions we hand out in corporate welfare.
You're also making the mistake of thinking of all government services in terms of handing out welfare checks to poor people. That's only a small piece of it.
Billions in wasted money is never insignificant. I don't think either rich or poor should get a tax break at this time because we don't have that money to give. I understand the picture as well as anyone could. Welfare isn't just checks, and I include EIC, CHIPS, ect ect ect when I say Welfare.
In terms of economic stimulation and jobs creation that is irrelevant. The money is still more stimulative in the hands of poor people than in the hands of rich people.
I think all the money being spent could of been used to actually fix the problem instead of trying to limp along the problematic system we currently have. Giving to the poor may or may not be more stimulative than the rich. I really don't honestly believe people know for sure either way - we have done it both ways and nothing has ever changed.
I don't understand what you're saying here. Perhaps you could say it a different way for me.
Well, what do we consider the 'poor'? We(myself included) seem to be lumping people who make 100,000 a year into that catagory. Our median income is around 50k. These people are solidly in the middle yet still get EIC and the other 'helping' things. Why help people who are already on solid footing?
If you think the comparisons were invalid, state why, otherwise you really aren't saying much here.
You were comparing giving money to the rich with giving money to the poor. The issue with it, and why you can't compare it is this: It isn't giving them their own money, they already have it. You are talking about taking less from the rich or taking more to give it to the poor. You can compare the results of these actions, but you cannot compare them as actions that are like. You are not comparing giving vs giving, you are comparing taking vs giving. Neither of which probably makes any real long term difference. You are not transferring wealth when you give the rich tax breaks, you are leaving with the people who made it. You are transferring it when you take it from the rich and give it to the poor though. I object as much to the pointlessness of both of those actions as much to the very idea that you are giving someone something they already have. Once again, raising tariffs would accomplish having more tax money to give to the poor, more jobs to give to them, and promote the wealthy in the country opening business all in one shot.
No no no. Stating something does not make it a fact.
Spending cuts do not need to happen. That is just one option. That is an option that would regress the economy and kill job creation.
Instead of killing job creation by cutting spending we could raise taxes on the rich. By increasing revenue we wouldn't need to cut spending. We could even increase spending and create more jobs! yay!
Increasing spending doesn't directly correlate with more jobs being made. You could not increase taxes enough to pay for what we are doing right now. We are spending our way to bankruptcy. That is the same thinking the irresponsible people who bought 500k houses and maxed their credit cards out had. They were less worried about the future than they were about today. We really have to focus on the future in what we are doing. Eventually even those people with 500k houses and credit cards they can't pay realize they did wrong, and try to right themselves. If we tried right now, we could fix it in the next 10-15 years. If we don't then collapse is in our future.
For the military, I agree. We don't need to spend more than the rest of the world combined. That's obscene.
As far as foreign aid, that depends what that money got us in return. Most of that info is probably classified, so I can't really say until you guys elect me president.
Do we need to support Israel? It has cost us a lot of money. All the wars, all the issues with the middle east, ect ect. In large part this is because we support Israel against its enemies (you know, the entire middle east lol) Those people never gave 2 shits about America until we went out of our way to dick them.
I'm all for efficiency. Give me an example.
Department of Education covers about 55 million students. Budget is 77 billion. 1400 a student in cost, Im willing to bet half that goes to funding itself. This entire department could be cut, as it serves no real function. 5000 employees and not a one of them actually teaches a student. Every state has a department of education. Education is a state issue, not a federal issue.
Hell yeah I do! We'd all be better off. Good plan.
Prices go up because they are controlled by OPEC and cartels, both create artificial shortages, creating demand.
They lower supply, and demand stays the same, thus the cost rises. That being said, they pump enough oil to keep us in oil. So there isn't a shortage, so the cost only goes up because people are jerking off over the future of oil and trying to make money. I say they should have to take delivery if they want to trade in commodities like this. Commodities trading has always existed. When the farmer grew wheat, if it was a bad year and everyone knew it, the price of wheat went up because there would be more demand than supply. Pork bellies are traded for the future since they really only butchered them once a year in the old days or something along those lines. This stuff makes sense, if you are the one who is actually buying the wheat or pork. How can you own something you never see? It is kind of pointless and is really just a manipulation of a system that isn't supposed to work that way.
We can use shale, it's just expensive. Rather than spending money to develop better shale processing I'd rather spend the money on solar R&D.
We can use shale, it is more expensive, yes. However, it would be American companies, and American workers, and the oil we spend on money would stay in the USA. Which would make a huge difference. Even if it was 10 dollars more a barrel it would make sense to produce it domestically. This would improve our economy. I agree solar panels should be supported, but unfortunately we don't know when it will pay off. We could start producing shale immediately and make it into an energy source that could last us for the 200 years. This will get us through until we really harness the solar power, use some sort of nuclear that is safe, or mine the moon.
[/quote]
I don't see improving the quality of life for the majority of Americans at the expense of people who are prospering more than they ever have and can afford to do so as immoral. I guess we just have different values.
We do. I understand your position, I just don't agree with it. However, without the type of people you, the type of people like me might go too far, and vice verse. We really need to aim for something that works for everyone. Never know, maybe some day we won't need manufacturing because energy will be so easily attainable and controlled that everyone will be completely rich and all powerful. Until then, we struggle on.
