• Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views




    View Poll Results: Which is the most functional economic structure?

    Voters
    42. You may not vote on this poll
    • Free Market

      13 30.95%
    • Mixed Economy

      20 47.62%
    • Socialism

      9 21.43%
    Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
    Results 26 to 50 of 153
    1. #26
      Member
      Join Date
      Feb 2004
      Posts
      5,165
      Likes
      708
      There is a lot of competition in that area today. You can find an alternative to nearly everything as far as hardware goes.

    2. #27
      peaceful warrior tkdyo's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2007
      Gender
      Posts
      1,691
      Likes
      68
      Quote Originally Posted by ninja9578 View Post
      The problem is that competition disappears in pure capitalism, big companies get rid of their competitors and create monopolies. Once they have a monopoly, they cut back on quality. This is the Microsoft business model, and it works, but reduces quality and eliminates choice. The current state of Microsoft is the fault of 8 years of unrestrained capitalism.

      The more powerful a company gets, the more it influences politics, essentially buying the country. You know who the most powerful man in Florida is right now? It's not a politician, it's Robert Iger. Capitalism would only work if politicians weren't corruptible, but that's not that case.
      indeed, thats why I said mixed. all of either will inevitably result in corruption and negative trends. The two have to compete to stay healthy. However...I wouldnt be opposed to a good idea for states to run all the socialized thing rather than the national government. thats a kind of soft competition between the states then.
      <img src=http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q50/mckellion/Bleachsiggreen2.jpg border=0 alt= />


      A warrior does not give up what he loves, he finds the love in what he does

      Only those who attempt the absurd can achieve the impossible.

    3. #28
      The Supreme Echelon Absolute's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2006
      Gender
      Location
      Western Arizona, USA
      Posts
      275
      Likes
      0
      The problem with socialism is not just the fact of an illegitimate form of government, but the absolute pricing of goods entirely. In a free market, the products are priced based on demand and inflation is justified by the amount of money circulating in the economy as well as the collateral that's backing the national currency of a sovereign economy. Countries have tried printing money without a commodity backing it, such as gold, to make sure it has standing value. These economies went into a state of panic as inflation rose substantially. Socialism essentially outlaws any sense of allowing the market to correct its inflation and deflation.

      When we look at a mixed economy, such as Canada (although the USA is technically considered a mixed economy), specific industries are socialized. Usually, a mixed economy primarily has regulations set in play with the government having a minor role in any type of industry ownership. The only thing I disagree with is if education is owned by the state, then it needs to be provided in a much better way. In the USA, honestly, it is crap. Generals that you take in secondary schools such as a common university is something you all ready learn in a European high school. So, in other words, to get a bachelors in most European countries it's only three years. The system of college in the US is founded on excess waste of students spending money and putting themselves in debt. Debt is a primary thing that the common consumer lives with because that's what we're raised on, unfortunately.

      The one thing that has been pointed out in an absolutely free market is that there will be corporations that will profit so much, that they will become a monopoly. Shell Oil was an example of this, and, I haven't done the number myself, but from what I recall they were making equivalent or more of the United States government back in their day. John D. Rockefeller is also an individual who was another example of the monopolistic regimes that existed back in the day. He was forced to split his company into multiple ones since it had become so big (he owned 90% of the worlds oil).

      If regulations aren't put into place, essentially, a single company can take over an entire industry or multiple industries, so long as competitors are willing to accept any bid to be bought out. Usually, they're not going to say no when they are going to get a paycheck in the eight to ten digit range. Plus, monopolies have the resources to compete faster and better than their competitors. If a free market truly rained, countries would eventually be operated by or governed as a corporation.
      -Absolute Wisdom

      "Life is much like a barren road. You can choose to leave it and end up in a deserted wasteland, or you can follow the road to see what is beyond the horizon."

    4. #29
      Member
      Join Date
      Mar 2008
      Gender
      Posts
      354
      Likes
      0
      Capitalism should be like a football game. Competition should be bound by rules and regulations. Government's role should only be as a referee, making sure all sides are playing by the rules, so that one team can't bring bats to a football game. Or in other words, one team can't become a monopoly. They have to use fair business practices.

      Government should not be a player, because they make the rules, therefore, cannot be an objective enforcer of those rules. In the end, business are free to succeed or fail based on merits and drive by playing within those rules.

      Even within the U.S. government, it was set up with three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial, so that no one branch could essentially become a 'monopoly'.
      Last edited by Exhalent; 09-26-2009 at 02:25 PM.

    5. #30
      Banned
      Join Date
      Apr 2007
      Location
      Out Chasing Rabbits
      Posts
      15,193
      Likes
      929
      Quote Originally Posted by tkdyo View Post
      indeed, thats why I said mixed. all of either will inevitably result in corruption and negative trends. The two have to compete to stay healthy. However...I wouldnt be opposed to a good idea for states to run all the socialized thing rather than the national government. thats a kind of soft competition between the states then.
      There already is, on less of a level. The more progressive states have more state regulations, and the conservative ones have less. State legislature is one of the largest reasons that progressive states tend to be far more wealthy than the conservative ones, and less of a class gap. If Silicon Valley had been located in Texas, the computer companies would have grown out of control and eventually crumbled under the class gap that they created.

      Remember "The Bubble?" If not: damn you kids. Part of why that happened was because it was a new field and lots of companies tried to get in on it, but another large reason is that because the industry was so new (and international,) there were almost no regulations on it.

      Quote Originally Posted by Exhalent View Post
      Capitalism should be like a football game. Competition should be bound by rules and regulations. Government's role should only be as a referee, making sure all sides are playing by the rules, so that one team can't bring bats to a football game. Or in other words, one team can't become a monopoly. They have to use fair business practices.

      Government should not be a player, because they make the rules, therefore, cannot be an objective enforcer of those rules. In the end, business are free to succeed or fail based on merits and drive by playing within those rules.

      Even within the U.S. government, it was set up with three branches: legislative, executive, judicial, so that no one branch could essentially become a 'monopoly'.
      I love this analogy.

    6. #31
      Member Hercuflea's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2008
      Gender
      Posts
      868
      Likes
      7
      DJ Entries
      2
      Quote Originally Posted by Alric View Post
      I think free markets are the best, as long as they are actually free. None of this bullshit, its free but the government gives out money and favors to some companies. Its not free if the government is interfering with everything. The only thing the government should be doing is stopping illegal and harmful stuff.

      Though more importantly I think the size of government has to be way smaller. Everyone would be far richer if the government wasn't siphoning off massive amount of money through taxes and inflation. Just image how much you could do if you didn't pay income tax. Ron Paul had a great plan for it.

      Lets see we can have the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, or everyone in the US could have a 35-50% pay increase by removing income tax. Hmm such a hard choice, a pointless war, or 50% increase in my pay. Why the heck are people picking war! That would end the economic problems we are having right there, it would be a huge boost to the economy. The best part is everyone is getting money but there is no inflation, because its money that was already there.
      Hey i dont want to be devil's advocate, and I agree with you, ("and imma let you finish," lol) but I'm pretty darn sure that every last cent of the federal income tax is used to pay theinterest on the national debt. We're not even paying the debt off, we're just giving free money to the international banks because our debt has accumulated so much that our entire income tax revenue hasd to be used just to pay the interest. All of the physical spending the government does in Iraq or Afghanistan or here on or own soil, or wherever else is either on borrowed or printed money.

      But, for the sake of argument, and assuming we werent buried in debt, i completely agree with you.

      Capitalism should be like a football game. Competition should be bound by rules and regulations. Government's role should only be as a referee, making sure all sides are playing by the rules, so that one team can't bring bats to a football game. Or in other words, one team can't become a monopoly. They have to use fair business practices.

      Government should not be a player, because they make the rules, therefore, cannot be an objective enforcer of those rules. In the end, business are free to succeed or fail based on merits and drive by playing within those rules.

      Even within the U.S. government, it was set up with three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial, so that no one branch could essentially become a 'monopoly'.
      This analogy is kind of misinterpreting the situation. Sure, there should be regulations. They're called anti-fraud laws. They're called anti-money laundering laws. They're called anti-collusion and price manipulation laws. NOT dictating how much money a person or company can make in a year, or how many employees you can have, or what kind of benefits you have to give, or how large you can expand your operations too, or any of the other socialist myopic fallacies.

      Do you people not understand that the richest people in the world, the ones you claim to be wanting to restrict, the Rockefellers, the Gates', the Buffets, among others, DO NOT EVEN PAY AS MUCH TAXES AS SOMEONE IN THE MIDDLE CLASS, even after all of the taxes that have been levied upon them. They have been able to beat all of the taxes that have been valiantly levied in the name of equality by simply creating foundations such as the Gates Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Warren Buffet contributed a ton of his personal wealth to the Gates Foundation, AND IT SURE AS HECK AINT BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE ARE PHILANTHROPISTS. They put all their money into family-established foundations because they are tax free, and they end up paying a miniscule amount of tax.
      Last edited by Hercuflea; 09-26-2009 at 03:23 PM.
      "La bellezza del paessa di Galilei!"

    7. #32
      Member
      Join Date
      Feb 2004
      Posts
      5,165
      Likes
      708
      Well my point wasn't really where the money is going but how much is spent. If we are spending more on the wars, than we are gaining from income tax, if we get rid of the wars we can get rid of the income tax. If we get rid of all the foreign aid we can get rid of even more taxes. Though eventually instead of just cutting taxes, we should also be cutting the amount of money we print to get rid of inflation as well.

      All the feat mongering has to stop. Eventually people need to decide, do we want this false type of protection that wars give, or do we want an to remain a competitive economy in the world? As we are going right now, eventually our country will bankrupt, hyper inflation will hip and wipe out most people's savings, then eventually we will have stop all the wars anyway, and our economy will be in ruins for atleast the next 10 to 20 years.

      The biggest problem people and governments have as far as economy goes, is that people are so worried about the downsides, that they ignore the long term effects of everything in order to keep short term growth high. Its far better for the economy, long term for business to fail and die, than to prop them up and stuff.

      We bailed out all the banks, and spent all that stimulus money, in order to try and manipulate the short term and it really didn't help us any. It would of been far better if the companies that would have went under got wiped out. It would of really sucked short term but we would of bounced back fairly quickly. 2 or 3 years of pain now, is far better than 10 years of pain later.

      Anyone company that needs to bailed out, almost always ends up either needing more money or failing later anyway. They were failing for a reason, because they are not competitive in this market, and so they have no place in it.

    8. #33
      peaceful warrior tkdyo's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2007
      Gender
      Posts
      1,691
      Likes
      68
      ohhh yes, I remember the bubble. sad day for us all through those optimistic 90s. millionaires were made and destroyed over night lol.

      also, that football analogy is win lol.
      <img src=http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q50/mckellion/Bleachsiggreen2.jpg border=0 alt= />


      A warrior does not give up what he loves, he finds the love in what he does

      Only those who attempt the absurd can achieve the impossible.

    9. #34
      Member Hercuflea's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2008
      Gender
      Posts
      868
      Likes
      7
      DJ Entries
      2
      Quote Originally Posted by Alric View Post
      Well my point wasn't really where the money is going but how much is spent. If we are spending more on the wars, than we are gaining from income tax, if we get rid of the wars we can get rid of the income tax. If we get rid of all the foreign aid we can get rid of even more taxes. Though eventually instead of just cutting taxes, we should also be cutting the amount of money we print to get rid of inflation as well.

      All the feat mongering has to stop. Eventually people need to decide, do we want this false type of protection that wars give, or do we want an to remain a competitive economy in the world? As we are going right now, eventually our country will bankrupt, hyper inflation will hip and wipe out most people's savings, then eventually we will have stop all the wars anyway, and our economy will be in ruins for atleast the next 10 to 20 years.

      The biggest problem people and governments have as far as economy goes, is that people are so worried about the downsides, that they ignore the long term effects of everything in order to keep short term growth high. Its far better for the economy, long term for business to fail and die, than to prop them up and stuff.

      We bailed out all the banks, and spent all that stimulus money, in order to try and manipulate the short term and it really didn't help us any. It would of been far better if the companies that would have went under got wiped out. It would of really sucked short term but we would of bounced back fairly quickly. 2 or 3 years of pain now, is far better than 10 years of pain later.

      Anyone company that needs to bailed out, almost always ends up either needing more money or failing later anyway. They were failing for a reason, because they are not competitive in this market, and so they have no place in it.
      Totally agreed
      "La bellezza del paessa di Galilei!"

    10. #35
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      Who here believes in grade distribution? Should each student get the grade he or she earned, the average class grade, or close to the earned grade with a few points taken away from or given to other students? Which one of those systems has students working the hardest and getting the best educations?

      I do believe in giving money to the truly disabled, but I think with real capitalism the volunteer organizations could handle that.

      For the record, a healthcare system in which people wait eons to get necessary treatment because so many people are abusing their freebies and the government denies access to certain life saving drugs because the government flips the bill on them is NOT a good healthcare system. If people want socialism, there are plenty of places you can move and have it. Don't screw up this country too. Our public school system and Department of Motor Vehicles should tell you plenty about what socialized medicine would be like here.
      Last edited by Universal Mind; 09-26-2009 at 10:45 PM.
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    11. #36
      This is my title. Licity's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2008
      Gender
      Posts
      632
      Likes
      2
      How does this sound:
      Remove income taxes and add a federal sales tax hike to make up the balance.
      More closely ensure that businesses do not commit fraud, but remove all checks/balances that break monopolies because "they aren't fair". If a company pushes other companies out of business without breaking any law, it's because they are better at business than the competition. If they decide to raise prices ridiculously, the stage is set for a different company to arrive with lower prices. The only reason a government should intervene in the free market is to break a monopoly in power due to illegal activity, or if the prices go up and no new competition rises up to stop the standard of living from dropping too much (if the monopoly sells primarily staple products).
      198.726% of people will not realize that this percentage is impossible given what we are measuring. If you enjoy eating Monterey Jack cheese, put this in your sig and add 3^4i to the percentage listed.

    12. #37
      Rational Spiritualist DrunkenArse's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2009
      Gender
      Location
      Da Aina
      Posts
      2,941
      Likes
      1091
      It sounds terrible. Income tax is much better than a sales tax. The sales tax hits the poor people harder than rich people.

      On the whole, it sounds like your goal is to make sure that everybody can get as rich as they want. Why shouldn't the primary goal be to make sure that everybody has food, healthcare and education?

      You are aware that less than 5% of the population controls around 95% of the wealth right? Do you think that that is reasonable? How hard to these people actually work?
      Previously PhilosopherStoned

    13. #38
      Member Hercuflea's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2008
      Gender
      Posts
      868
      Likes
      7
      DJ Entries
      2
      Quote Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned View Post
      It sounds terrible. Income tax is much better than a sales tax. The sales tax hits the poor people harder than rich people.

      On the whole, it sounds like your goal is to make sure that everybody can get as rich as they want. Why shouldn't the primary goal be to make sure that everybody has food, healthcare and education?

      You are aware that less than 5% of the population controls around 95% of the wealth right? Do you think that that is reasonable? How hard to these people actually work?
      And...you're also aware that that 5% of the population has gotten to that point through collusion with the government? It's called crony capitalism: where big business gets the government to legislate competition out of existence. Socialism hits small businesses the hardest, running most of them out of business, taking with them the middle class, while the larger companies and more wealthy families are able to withstand the blow. Thus, the gap between rich and poor becomes larger and more sparse, completely contrary to the aims of the self proclaimed socialists.
      "La bellezza del paessa di Galilei!"

    14. #39
      Rational Spiritualist DrunkenArse's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2009
      Gender
      Location
      Da Aina
      Posts
      2,941
      Likes
      1091
      Quote Originally Posted by Hercuflea View Post
      And...you're also aware that that 5% of the population has gotten to that point through collusion with the government? It's called crony capitalism: where big business gets the government to legislate competition out of existence. Socialism hits small businesses the hardest, running most of them out of business, taking with them the middle class, while the larger companies and more wealthy families are able to withstand the blow. Thus, the gap between rich and poor becomes larger and more sparse, completely contrary to the aims of the self proclaimed socialists.
      Yes, I'm aware of that. That's what capitalism grows towards.

      Tax the hell out of the rich, don't tax the poor and lightly tax the middle class. What's wrong with that? Better schools means a better educated populace which means a government that is held accountable.

      Do you know that there are people that are so stupid that they actually believe that "It's a good thing that stephen hawking is american because they never would have given him healthcare in britain."?!?!? No wonder these people don't vote the republicrats out of office.
      Previously PhilosopherStoned

    15. #40
      Member Hercuflea's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2008
      Gender
      Posts
      868
      Likes
      7
      DJ Entries
      2
      What i said earlier...the super rich are tax cheats. They have all their money in tax free foundations to preserve their wealth such as the gates' foundation, rockefeller foundation, planned parenthood, etc. Crony capitalism is not real capitalism, its a fraudulent form of capitalism designed to aid the super rich and put everyone else on bottom. In a true free market the government protects the rights of ALL businesses and persons, not just the ones with a significant bribe or lobbying power. In fact, if the politicians had any backbone they wouldn't submit to lobbyist at all, no matter where they're from.

      Also, sales taxes work at the local level.

      And, the national government in America is not even supposed to be able to directly tax its citizens. Before the 16th amendment, nearly all federal money was supplied directly by the states.
      "La bellezza del paessa di Galilei!"

    16. #41
      Rational Spiritualist DrunkenArse's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2009
      Gender
      Location
      Da Aina
      Posts
      2,941
      Likes
      1091
      Quote Originally Posted by Hercuflea View Post
      What i said earlier...the super rich are tax cheats. They have all their money in tax free foundations to preserve their wealth such as the gates' foundation, rockefeller foundation, planned parenthood, etc. Crony capitalism is not real capitalism, its a fraudulent form of capitalism designed to aid the super rich and put everyone else on bottom. In a true free market the government protects the rights of ALL businesses and persons, not just the ones with a significant bribe or lobbying power. In fact, if the politicians had any backbone they wouldn't submit to lobbyist at all, no matter where they're from.
      But don't you see that the same can be said about socialism? There has never been a real socialist government just like there has never been a real capitalist government.

      So, why are all these big corporations so terrified of socialism if it's good for the rich? Answer that.
      Quote Originally Posted by Hercuflea View Post
      Also, sales taxes work at the local level.
      They are still regressive just like payroll taxes. Eliminate sales taxes and payroll taxes and adjust the income tax. If the rich want to cheat, change the rules so they cant.

      Quote Originally Posted by Hercuflea View Post
      And, the national government in America is not even supposed to be able to directly tax its citizens. Before the 16th amendment, nearly all federal money was supplied directly by the states.
      That's irrelevant. The income tax is here and it's a good thing. It just needs to be adjusted so the rich can't cheat on it.
      Previously PhilosopherStoned

    17. #42
      Member Hercuflea's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2008
      Gender
      Posts
      868
      Likes
      7
      DJ Entries
      2
      I cant think of any corporation that is not in favor of the current presidents plan for "fixing" the economy. In fact, the ones who support it the most are the ones you would least expect to. Microsoft, the banks, insurance companies, disney, Timewarner, Hearst, the list goes on.
      "La bellezza del paessa di Galilei!"

    18. #43
      Rational Spiritualist DrunkenArse's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2009
      Gender
      Location
      Da Aina
      Posts
      2,941
      Likes
      1091
      I said socialism. Not this half assed thing that obama is proposing.

      I mean sandinista style stuff where the people actually get to control stuff instead of corporations.
      Previously PhilosopherStoned

    19. #44
      Member Hercuflea's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2008
      Gender
      Posts
      868
      Likes
      7
      DJ Entries
      2
      The people dont get to control squat in any of the classical socialist nations. They just pay for it. The government controls it. If you consider being forced to pay for something you dont even want control, then you've got issues. And yes there has been real socialism in the past, but there has never been real capitalism, except maybe in the early days after the american revolution. Mao, Stalin, Kim jung il, Chavez, Mexico are all examples of socialism, and look where it got them. Mao and stalin killed tens of millions of people, Chavez is trying to shut his country off from the rest of the world, while his people starve, and its obvious the state of misery that Mexico has been and still is under.
      "La bellezza del paessa di Galilei!"

    20. #45
      Consciousness in the Void Universal Mind's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2004
      Gender
      Location
      The Eternal Paradox
      Posts
      12,853
      Likes
      1031
      There are a lot of states that don't have income tax. They just have sales tax. It works. It's also fair. It's a flat tax, which is what is fair. Anything else is class discrimination.

      Don't forget that property should be respected. What belongs to you belongs to you. Socialists don't respect that. I think socialists are very steal happy, and I don't trust them not to steal shit out of my house. Why wouldn't they? The fact that something belongs to somebody means absolutely nothing to a socialist. They don't even think it is anything to consider for two seconds.

      Everybody should pay the same percentage in taxes. I hate the idea of punishing success, and so does the economy. The neurotic obsession a certain faction of the population has with being rich is what makes the system happen. Let's not screw with that. I know they're crazy and shallow, but let them be crazy and shallow. They create business all over the place and stimulate the economy big time. If you take away their rewards, everything starts dying. Greed is what fuels the system. What could realistically take the place of greed? Even petrifying fear of a ruthless dictator is worlds less economically effective than greed. Nothing can take its place. Let's not kill it.
      Quote Originally Posted by really View Post
      God cannot destroy himself because He is Omnipotent.


    21. #46
      Member
      Join Date
      Feb 2004
      Posts
      5,165
      Likes
      708
      Income tax isn't a good thing, its a horrible thing. In fact taxes in general are horrible. Paying half your pay in taxes each year is ridiculous. Depending on where and how you spend your money, its realistically possible for a person to be paying 80-90 of everything they make into taxes, in one form or another. Be it income tax, social security, sales tax, property tax, inflation or what have you. People are being sucked dry in the US. No offense but anyone who thinks high taxes are good is a moron.

      We have run away huge government spending and that is why we are being so hammered by taxes in this country. People have grown up being taxed into poverty, they don't even realize it anymore.

      There isn't a single reason you shouldn't have 50% more money than you do right now. All it would take is to cut spending and you would have it. You don't even have to cut spending in the US, you just cut spending on foreign aid and military spending overseas.

    22. #47
      peaceful warrior tkdyo's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2007
      Gender
      Posts
      1,691
      Likes
      68
      I have to agree here. the income tax is bs. punishing people for bettering themselves is bs. Of course...to support all our government run programs we "need" one. then again...there is always trimming the fat off the government and putting it where the government is actually needed or would be effective...but that would be too much work for our so called representatives.
      <img src=http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q50/mckellion/Bleachsiggreen2.jpg border=0 alt= />


      A warrior does not give up what he loves, he finds the love in what he does

      Only those who attempt the absurd can achieve the impossible.

    23. #48
      This is my title. Licity's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2008
      Gender
      Posts
      632
      Likes
      2
      Quote Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned View Post
      It sounds terrible. Income tax is much better than a sales tax. The sales tax hits the poor people harder than rich people.

      On the whole, it sounds like your goal is to make sure that everybody can get as rich as they want. Why shouldn't the primary goal be to make sure that everybody has food, healthcare and education?
      Apply a 5% sales tax to everything purchased, and remove income taxes. Now the rich can't hide their money in charitable organizations to avoid taxation.

      Everybody should be able to get as rich as they want. You're saying the government has the right to arbitrarily suspend free trade for the sake of making sure that we support people that don't work, therefore do not make money, therefore don't spend money, therefore don't pay sales tax to the government?
      198.726% of people will not realize that this percentage is impossible given what we are measuring. If you enjoy eating Monterey Jack cheese, put this in your sig and add 3^4i to the percentage listed.

    24. #49
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3082
      In my opinion the vast amount of taxes are just political devices created so that parties can argue with each other.

      I'd just put a flat tax on income and have done with it, with 0% for those earning under something like 10,000 a year, and then rising in a bell curve to some larger figure for the very rich.

      The simplicity would also cut out a large amount of pointless bureaucracy and loopholes.

    25. #50
      The Supreme Echelon Absolute's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2006
      Gender
      Location
      Western Arizona, USA
      Posts
      275
      Likes
      0
      Apply a 5% sales tax to everything purchased, and remove income taxes. Now the rich can't hide their money in charitable organizations to avoid taxation.
      Income tax isn't a good thing, its a horrible thing. In fact taxes in general are horrible. Paying half your pay in taxes each year is ridiculous. Depending on where and how you spend your money, its realistically possible for a person to be paying 80-90 of everything they make into taxes, in one form or another. Be it income tax, social security, sales tax, property tax, inflation or what have you. People are being sucked dry in the US. No offense but anyone who thinks high taxes are good is a moron.
      In my opinion the vast amount of taxes are just political devices created so that parties can argue with each other.
      If you abolished income taxes, you're going to destroy a primary source of revenue that the government uses to function it's economic activity for purchasing power of currency, commodities, and it's existence of governmental agencies. I'm not saying all agencies are legitimate or needed, but you'd be seeing a dramatic drop that primarily aids in what could be considered a surplus if government spending wasn't at an all time high as well as the strength of our dollar in the currency market. If presidential administrations were doing things differently, we could create a surplus and also develop enough capital/resources to downsize our owed debt to other countries.

      But, this is where I also have to stand in and say income taxes are bullshit. I find myself as an individual who will be located in the rich bracket when I'm in my 30's, and I don't like forfeiting over 1/3 of what I earn to the government so it can use it for other illegitimate goals. 1/3 of $1 billion could produce so many types of businesses, which would in turn develop jobs and income for employees to spend. I find it ludicrous!

      Also, if one thing was also realized, the less taxes there are, the more money there is to flow in the economy. Progress and production booms. Other issues of inflation come into play, though, depending on how much money was being pushed into the economy. It's a frustrating thing to compromise what to do in a world where consumer market behavior can either be predictable or unpredictable.

      I'd just put a flat tax on income and have done with it, with 0% for those earning under something like 10,000 a year, and then rising in a bell curve to some larger figure for the very rich.
      I don't understand. The US Economy all ready is operating under a flat tax income. Did you mean you just want a difference in the tax brackets themselves?

      I said socialism. Not this half assed thing that obama is proposing.

      I mean sandinista style stuff where the people actually get to control stuff instead of corporations.
      What you would be referring to is not socialism, but communism. The only problem with Karl Marx's communism is that it was a theory never put into place. His ideology was not just economic, but politically structured, too. People just called Stalin and other "Red Countries" communism since their political regimes stemmed from Karl's ideas. Communism was originally a classless society where every has equal ownership, everyone pitches in for work that they are physically or mentally capable of doing, and the government's power is completely decentralized. There is no president or anything like that.

      Commun-ism came from community. The communities of each city would hold power over themselves with probably a chain of other members going up a further sociocratic order to make sure cooperation and knowledge would be exchanged between the world. This type of ideology could never function, though, because every nation in the world functions on a type of currency.

      Socialism is where everything is controlled by the government. The people have no say, unless you're an individual in the government that's part of the regulatory policies that the controlling system institutes.

      I cant think of any corporation that is not in favor of the current presidents plan for "fixing" the economy. In fact, the ones who support it the most are the ones you would least expect to. Microsoft, the banks, insurance companies, disney, Timewarner, Hearst, the list goes on.
      You know what's also funny about that is now since this entire economic mess has happened, the government itself has invested into major global companies, from the car industries and real estate, to the financial industry (Citigroup). If you recall history, this is what a lot of tyrants did: They slowly invested control into the economy.

      If you also recall, the Obama Administration is wanting to turn the Federal Reserve into a "Super-Regulatory System" which would ultimately be the power for a more socialist regime. It's quite scary. Whoever is really pulling the strings is someone above the white house. All of this economic mess seems too engineered for my views... but that's just me.
      Last edited by Absolute; 09-28-2009 at 06:36 PM.
      -Absolute Wisdom

      "Life is much like a barren road. You can choose to leave it and end up in a deserted wasteland, or you can follow the road to see what is beyond the horizon."

    Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •