Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Republican

5 (6%)

Democrat

8 (9.5%)

Libertarian

11 (13.1%)

Undecided/Independent

38 (45.2%)

Other (Anarchist, Communist, Green, ect.)

22 (26.2%)

Total Members Voted: 84

[Pistolero]

A flat tax would be great if we were all communists. In a capitalist system money makes money.

If you earn 100k and pay 20k tax, 50k expenses, you have 30k left. Say it's invested @10%, next year you earn 103k. If you earn 200k and pay twice as much tax (no progressive tax system is that punitive btw), you have 110k left. Next year you earn 211k. After three years, your relative tax burden is lower than the guy making 100k, and shrinking. That's an oversimplification due to capital gains taxes of course, it actually takes a little longer Worth noting is that fluctuating investment returns only have a short term effect. You will never lose in the long run unless the entire system completely collapses. Risk vs reward does not apply to diversified investing in a stable economy, even if you put all your money in startups, and the only criteria for stable here is 'will be around longer than you'.

Against that I'm not sure what the argument in favour of a flat tax is. The wealthier you are, the less tax you pay relative to that. Progressive tax systems are designed to counter that effect somewhat, not completely, in order to maintain that social mobility I mentioned. Without them, your entire economy decays. The only other way to stop all the wealth slowly gathering to fewer and fewer people (eventually reaching one, who pays everyone else a subsistence wage) is 100% capital gains tax, which obviously doesn't work.

[Bauglir]

YES, THERE IS A LAW, VIDEO. THE LAW SAYS THAT TAXES ARE A LEGITIMATE TOOL OF GOVERNMENT. SEE: THE CONSTITUTION, AND AMENDMENTS THEREOF.

Or, wait, did you mean is there a law against answering that question? No. That couldn't be it. Nobody could be that stupid and have the attention span required to edit together a 2 hour video. Gonna have to go with my gut here and assume Cruise Control for Cool guided me to the relevant answer.

[Criptfeind]

JUST IN: AMERICA ONLY HAVE 3,000 RESIDENTS!

ALSO IN NEWS: 115% OF AMERICANS WANT BACK YARD CHICKENS!

[mainiac]

Isn't chicken waste rather unhealthy in an urban environment?  Moreso then dog, cat, horse, etc?  I thought it was.

[Criptfeind]

You Sir. Are -0.03% of America.

Or -.038.

Or -.028.

Not quite sure how that works out.

[mainiac]

I pride myself on that fact.

[Vector]

It appears that the OP has no idea what "power" means.

Negotiations between the employer and the employee as the sole regulator of employee rights are non-functional.

[DeathsDisciple]

It appears that the OP has no idea what "power" means.

Negotiations between the employer and the employee as the sole regulator of employee rights are non-functional.

Negotiations should be the sole regulator of employee rights.

@Everyone who does not believe the video/never watched it:
Show me the damn law. So simple. Just the damn law. Post a link. And not a article that says its real, the exact section of the law.

[Pistolero]

It appears that the OP has no idea what "power" means.

Negotiations between the employer and the employee as the sole regulator of employee rights are non-functional.

Yeah it's pretty straightforward supply and demand. There will always be more potential employees than employers, and in a properly managed economy there will also be more potential employees than jobs, otherwise you face exponential inflation. Nonetheless, there is potential for them to work properly where the state acts as an employer of last resort.

[Virex]

@Everyone who does not believe the video/never watched it:
Show me the damn law. So simple. Just the damn law. Post a link. And not a article that says its real, the exact section of the law.

What? All 40-something of them?
BTW, in case you've obtained wikipediaphobia from your local high school teacher, it's Title 26 from the US code of laws. Not being from the US, I can't vouch for the legality of the US code of laws, but my gut feeling says it is pretty legal, with it being the code of laws and all.

[Aqizzar]

@Everyone who does not believe the video/never watched it:
Show me the damn law. So simple. Just the damn law. Post a link. And not a article that says its real, the exact section of the law.

According to the text of the Constitution available on the Senate's website...

Amendment XVI (1913)

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
      

In 1895 the Supreme Court had declared a federal income tax law unconstitutional. This amendment reversed that decision and authorized a tax on income.

[Vector]

Exactly.

I prefer an economy in which I would actually have a chance of getting a job.

[Bauglir]

Note also Amendment 16. Between the fact that the IRS' primary function is as the execution of that amendment, and the links provided by Virex, I'd say the ball is in your court to supply proof that the IRS is "illegal". In fact, since it's established by legitimately-passed laws, you have to find a contradiction with a higher law than those in order for "illegal" to make sense.

EDIT: ninja'd

[Pistolero]

Negotiations should be the sole regulator of employee rights.

Do you understand what happens to the price of something when there is too much of it? It bottoms out. Do you understand that there needs to be too much labour in the economy? With 100% employment, inflation hits a feedback loop. If you want one to one negotiations to be the sole regulator of employee rights, you want to be a serf, paid subsistence so you can survive, barely. Whatever education, skills, or training you have will only make it more likely that you can keep your position, it won't raise your standard of living, since there is always someone ready to step in and do it cheaper.

[Eagle_eye]

That doesn't make sense... employee rights are more protected in a labor shortage, than in a labor surplus. The more people there are looking for jobs, the more competition, and the lower the benefits to the work. On the other hand, if there were somehow a labor shortage, then businesses would be competing for workers, raising wages to the maximum level where a profit can still be turned.