Tell us how you would tax society

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5
 

DrVornoff:

Big_Willie_Styles:
Not the biggest fan of the Federal Reserve, which technically is not a part of the government.

So where does the currency come from? Do you want each state to have their own mint?

Human rights is a sticky subject. The inalienable rights argument, the one I think is most apt, argues the government is only the protector of our rights, not their originator.

Not buying it. We're currently leaving gay rights up to the states right now and that's not working out so hot.

That's their problem. It is easier to move between states than to relocate to another country, eh?

"I have what I want, so fuck you."

Ah, the 'Paradox of Thrift' argument. Nope, not so. There's a really complicated answer to this, but I'm currently on waking hour 18, so I'm going to bed shortly.

Experience tells me that answer is never coming.

Not a fan of a VAT. That's not a very transparent tax. It needs to be clear what percentage of one's purchases are going to taxes. For instance, the government profits off of gasoline taxes per gallon much, much more than the actual oil companies.

Point stands. A consumption tax would require a huge amount of overhead, thus increasing paperwork geometrically.

How about a more free market for currency, interest rates, and inflation? The suppression of the interest rate in the '00s was a contributing factor to the housing bust.

"Gay rights" is also a difficult subject to broach. If their were no government benefits to being married, this debate would end. If those benefits existed but were not called marriage (any other word in the English language would do) so that any two (or more if you want to get into the polygamy argument, which would require a sliding scale for benefits as the number of people got larger) people could apply for them, this debate could end. Taken down to its base precepts, this is more a war over a word than anything.

As I said, it is easier to move between states within a country than to move between countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift#Austrian_School_criticism -- Best answer I can give can be found here and in its citations. The response is simple: If demand dips, prices will as well as will future levels of supply. That's a point Keynes did not really have an answer for. It should be noted at this point that FDR forced farmers to let crops rot and to slaughter pigs (and not sell them to vendors) so that prices would stay stable or go up instead of falling, as they're supposed to in a recession.

It depends on what levels the goods are taxed. Also, in an age of increasing reliance on "virtual money" in the form of credit and debit cards, it could be set up so that the taxes are immediately transferred to the government, reducing overhead and paperwork to nothing. The amount that taxes are part of the cost could then be reflected in the product's bar code, much like RFID tags.

Big_Willie_Styles:
The Laffer Curve is a good place to start. I didn't really add much more to that. Let's look at Paul Ryan's tax reforms he's proposed then.

Do I have to explain why I consider Paul Ryan a fucking lousy source for economics?

Yes, and the very poor may deserve some government assistance.

HELLO. The first sensible thing I've heard from you this discussion (unless this was the discussion where I brought up Norquist. These things kinda blend together after half a bottle of cheap vodka).

The 'Paradox of Thrift' is a poor argument because investment is not considered spending for some reason under the reasoning of the PoT.

Remind me to get back to this when I'm not totally drunk.

Big_Willie_Styles:
How about a more free market for currency, interest rates, and inflation? The suppression of the interest rate in the '00s was a contributing factor to the housing bust.

That doesn't answer my question. Start over and try it again.

"Gay rights" is also a difficult subject to broach.

No it isn't. If you think it's morally right to treat gay people like second class citizens and allow gay kids to get bullied just for being what they are, you're a monster and you don't belong in the 21st century.

As I said, it is easier to move between states within a country than to move between countries.

"I have what I want, so fuck you."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift#Austrian_School_criticism -- Best answer I can give can be found here and in its citations. The response is simple: If demand dips, prices will as well as will future levels of supply. That's a point Keynes did not really have an answer for. It should be noted at this point that FDR forced farmers to let crops rot and to slaughter pigs (and not sell them to vendors) so that prices would stay stable or go up instead of falling, as they're supposed to in a recession.

Nothing I haven't heard before. Didn't convince me then either.

Also, in an age of increasing reliance on "virtual money" in the form of credit and debit cards, it could be set up so that the taxes are immediately transferred to the government, reducing overhead and paperwork to nothing.

Yeah. That'll happen.

Doesn't change the fact that it's still going to hit the poor harder than anyone else and prevent class mobility.

TWAT TAX, fairly simple idea anyone caught being a TWAT has their level of tax increase

offenses include (but not limited too):

traffic TWATS (+ 1% per offense):
- excessive use of the middle or outside lane
- anyone who adds aftermarket components to their car (+10% tax)
- people who don't indicate (signal)
- parking on or close to the next parking space (wide vehicles excepted)
- cyclists who get of their bikes and cross at traffic lights

non-traffic TWATS:
- x factor contestants/judges (100% tax)
- anyone who [deliberately] listens to an x factor contestant's songs (+5%)
- people who use stupid phrases like "you only live once" (+0.5% per use)
- anyone using the phrase "reem" or anyone who watches "the only way is essex" and similar programs (+20 %)
- chavs (100% tax)
- people who say "they shouldn't allow immigrants into this country" then say "Britain's national dish is curry" (80% tax)
- similar to above, people who complain about "foreigners coming here and not abiding by our traditions" then going to Spain and saying "oi, Pedro get me some chips" (80% tax)

My Tax Plan for America Currently:

-Income Tax: I would love to decrease the income tax. But with such a huge spending and taxing problem America has, it needs to, temporarily, increase. I don't know how much the Bush Tax Cuts actually affected the Income Tax, but I do know the current rate is about 35%. What I would favor is a temporary increase of the rate up to 42-45%. When America starts reducing it's debt down to about 3 Trillion Dollars, then we can talk about reducing the Income Tax Rates again.

-Tariffs: Now, I believe that this is the best thing we can do for America right now. America's economic stability was founded with Tariffs. We need to reintroduce Tariffs. According to This graph, as of 2010, it is 2.98%, and it has probably lowered since then. We need to crank it up, insanely. I would say, raise the Tariffs to about 90-95%. For Imported Materials, while I don't know what it's current rate is, I would say we introduce an Imported Materials Tax of about 50%, on everything except Gasoline and other Petroleum Products (Because, living in the real world, Gas will still be needed).

-Social Security: Turn Social Security into a Private, Non-Taxable, Non-Government Interventionist system known as an "American Dream Plan". It can't be taxed, funds can't be taken from it by the government, and 401k's will become obsolete. It will also increase with Inflation, so that way, your currency is still good if the Dollar keeps being printed at a fast rate. As our largest expenditure, if we simply get out of it, we stop paying a high price for it.

-Welfare Checks: Turn Welfare Checks into a Workers Program, that are basically Shovel-And-Pick, Green Jobs, that provide single mothers with day care, and living places for the Hobos (With the National Guard to crack down on any illegal activity). Those who are disabled will still receive a Welfare Check. The Workers Program will give these people work and a wage for 3 years, and when they're 3 year limit is over, the Program will help those people get a real, private sector job, based on both the persons input into the workers program, as well as their educational level.

-Medicare/Medicaid: Replace the system, with one of two things. The first choice I would like is to simply make health care really really cheap: By forcing companies to produce drugs and medical equipment at a larger scale then they are, as well as buying doctors and nurses from other countries to fix our medical staff crises (Like Cuba does), reducing the ability to sue doctors, and forcing Companies to accept anyone, regardless of their financial record of medical history (While allowing the people to choose whether they want to have insurance or not. Basically, I want Insurance to be more like coupons then Insurance). The second choice is to just introduce a Public Health Care system only for the poor and elderly.

-Minimum Wage: Transform Minimum Wage into a Living Wage, as well as introducing laws that would deny governments the right to fire people unless they are terrible at their jobs.

-Unions: Remove Public Unions. Give more power to Private Unions.

-Marijuana/Other Drugs: Introduce almost every drug, excluding Date Rape drugs. Tax them up high. Decrease the tax on Tobacco products. Continue the tax level on Alcoholic Beverages.

-Deserters Tax/Non-Voting Tax/Outsourcing Tax: Introduce three new taxes; A Deserters Tax, for those who choose to leave America, those making less then 200,000 Dollars will have to pay 15% of their income to leave, and those making more, will have to pay 50%. A Non-Voting Tax, for people who choose not to vote in Federal/State elections, those making less then 200,000 dollars will pay a small fine of about 1,200 dollars, while those making over 200,000 dollars will pay a fine of 12,000 dollars. Also, an Outsourcing Tax, for business leaders who outsource jobs with the intention of bringing those outsourced products back, the rate shall be 100,000 for each business outsourced, plus 15% Of all income those outsourced jobs make. Also, I would introduce a law that pays the new laborers the same as us in America.

-I would also remove a lot of Regulations within America. For Example; the EPA would not be able to deny the construction of Nuclear Power Plants unless they are constructed on Federally Owned Lands that are not allowed to be built upon. Also, I would allow for Offshore drilling, while defending national forests and parks from anyone who wants to drill there.

-Lastly, I would force Congress and all Presidential Offices (including the President) to take a pay break, pension break, and a reduction of their benefits. I would also seek a constitutional amendment, keeping all aspects of Business out of Politics (No More "Money is Speech". Businesses, Unions, and Special-interest groups should not be allowed to buy candidates, nor should Lobbyists or PACs exist).

Mr.Mattress:
My Tax Plan for America Currently:

-Income Tax: I would love to decrease the income tax. But with such a huge spending and taxing problem America has, it needs to, temporarily, increase. I don't know how much the Bush Tax Cuts actually affected the Income Tax, but I do know the current rate is about 35%. What I would favor is a temporary increase of the rate up to 42-45%. When America starts reducing it's debt down to about 3 Trillion Dollars, then we can talk about reducing the Income Tax Rates again.

-Tariffs: Now, I believe that this is the best thing we can do for America right now. America's economic stability was founded with Tariffs. We need to reintroduce Tariffs. According to This graph, as of 2010, it is 2.98%, and it has probably lowered since then. We need to crank it up, insanely. I would say, raise the Tariffs to about 90-95%. For Imported Materials, while I don't know what it's current rate is, I would say we introduce an Imported Materials Tax of about 50%, on everything except Gasoline and other Petroleum Products (Because, living in the real world, Gas will still be needed).

-Social Security: Turn Social Security into a Private, Non-Taxable, Non-Government Interventionist system known as an "American Dream Plan". It can't be taxed, funds can't be taken from it by the government, and 401k's will become obsolete. It will also increase with Inflation, so that way, your currency is still good if the Dollar keeps being printed at a fast rate. As our largest expenditure, if we simply get out of it, we stop paying a high price for it.

-Welfare Checks: Turn Welfare Checks into a Workers Program, that are basically Shovel-And-Pick, Green Jobs, that provide single mothers with day care, and living places for the Hobos (With the National Guard to crack down on any illegal activity). Those who are disabled will still receive a Welfare Check. The Workers Program will give these people work and a wage for 3 years, and when they're 3 year limit is over, the Program will help those people get a real, private sector job, based on both the persons input into the workers program, as well as their educational level.

-Medicare/Medicaid: Replace the system, with one of two things. The first choice I would like is to simply make health care really really cheap: By forcing companies to produce drugs and medical equipment at a larger scale then they are, as well as buying doctors and nurses from other countries to fix our medical staff crises (Like Cuba does), reducing the ability to sue doctors, and forcing Companies to accept anyone, regardless of their financial record of medical history (While allowing the people to choose whether they want to have insurance or not. Basically, I want Insurance to be more like coupons then Insurance). The second choice is to just introduce a Public Health Care system only for the poor and elderly.

-Minimum Wage: Transform Minimum Wage into a Living Wage, as well as introducing laws that would deny governments the right to fire people unless they are terrible at their jobs.

-Unions: Remove Public Unions. Give more power to Private Unions.

-Marijuana/Other Drugs: Introduce almost every drug, excluding Date Rape drugs. Tax them up high. Decrease the tax on Tobacco products. Continue the tax level on Alcoholic Beverages.

-Deserters Tax/Non-Voting Tax/Outsourcing Tax: Introduce three new taxes; A Deserters Tax, for those who choose to leave America, those making less then 200,000 Dollars will have to pay 15% of their income to leave, and those making more, will have to pay 50%. A Non-Voting Tax, for people who choose not to vote in Federal/State elections, those making less then 200,000 dollars will pay a small fine of about 1,200 dollars, while those making over 200,000 dollars will pay a fine of 12,000 dollars. Also, an Outsourcing Tax, for business leaders who outsource jobs with the intention of bringing those outsourced products back, the rate shall be 100,000 for each business outsourced, plus 15% Of all income those outsourced jobs make. Also, I would introduce a law that pays the new laborers the same as us in America.

-I would also remove a lot of Regulations within America. For Example; the EPA would not be able to deny the construction of Nuclear Power Plants unless they are constructed on Federally Owned Lands that are not allowed to be built upon. Also, I would allow for Offshore drilling, while defending national forests and parks from anyone who wants to drill there.

-Lastly, I would force Congress and all Presidential Offices (including the President) to take a pay break, pension break, and a reduction of their benefits. I would also seek a constitutional amendment, keeping all aspects of Business out of Politics (No More "Money is Speech". Businesses, Unions, and Special-interest groups should not be allowed to buy candidates, nor should Lobbyists or PACs exist).

-If the government got its finances in order or at the very fucking least had a damn plan on how to do so that they are forced to follow under punishment of death, sure taxes could go up. We need one before the other. Just like we need to secure the southern border before we should even discuss blanket amnesty.

-No, tariffs are bad. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 is seen as the great spark that lit the powder-keg of the Great Depression. Free trade, dude. It's all the rage. Tell China to stop manipulating its currency, sure, but tariffs are a bad first response. It comes off as protectionist and just hurts the American consumer.

-401Ks will still exist because people will still want to have a pension plan outside of government. Your idea sounds good only on the surface. Those kind of centrally-planned operations generally don't turn out so well.

-Well, that's an interesting formulation, but I see that getting buried in lawsuits from the unions. You don't like them either, I see.

-Yeah, that won't work. Drug research is insanely expensive, and only one in six drugs is profitable. Remember, drug companies only have like 15-20 years from the filing of the FDA paperwork (which usually takes five or more years before approval to sell) to recoup the research investment.

-God, that's just asking for problems. "Living wage" is a bad characteristic because you're forgetting teenagers and college students with summer or part-time jobs. And what about general part-time jobs? The solution is to move the federal minimum wage to the states. Different states have different standards of living, so let's make it easier for the states to respond to their own incentives. Oh, the lawsuits that people will file to create the standard for job suckatude will get as bad as the standard that exists for public school teachers in some states (took six years to fire a teacher in NY who sent a sexually explicit e-mail to a student, who was a minor, and they had the e-mail as evidence -- Guy got paid leave throughout the entire process.)

-Private unions don't need anymore help, but I'm with you on the public employee unions.

-That makes sense, but standards for "driving while high" and such will have to be implemented, as well as a technology for easily being able to tell if a person is on drugs, like a breathalyzer for cocaine.

-No, that's not being in the spirit of a global economy. That's punishing people for daring to leave the United States. Besides, the IRS would have no authority overseas. Punishing people for not voting will just cause a lot more uninformed people voting, which is not something anyone should want. God, an outsourcing tax is also a terrible idea. We have a global economy. You're throwing a wrench into free trade which would only serve to severely increase prices in America. Besides, they'd just switch to shadow companies and mysterious subsidiaries. What's with all the ill-advised patriotic jingoism?

-Fine for the most part on regulation, although some national parks cover very large areas, like ANWR.

-You're not keeping business out of politics as long as the government regulates the economy. What you're asking for would be impossible to implement and enforce. Also, only individuals can give directly to candidates.

The "give me your women" tax.

I shall ride out on my horse, my Olde English speak (good sir), a good peasant beating stick, and demand either all the money of a person's house or the most ten most beautiful women of the village, 100 of the town, and 1,000 of a city.

With the forceful opening of so many jobs, the decreased money spent on female beauty products, and me having a grand all time in my castle of doom, the economy will be fixed in no time!

Big_Willie_Styles:

-If the government got its finances in order or at the very fucking least had a damn plan on how to do so that they are forced to follow under punishment of death, sure taxes could go up. We need one before the other. Just like we need to secure the southern border before we should even discuss blanket amnesty.

-No, tariffs are bad. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 is seen as the great spark that lit the powder-keg of the Great Depression. Free trade, dude. It's all the rage. Tell China to stop manipulating its currency, sure, but tariffs are a bad first response. It comes off as protectionist and just hurts the American consumer.

-401Ks will still exist because people will still want to have a pension plan outside of government. Your idea sounds good only on the surface. Those kind of centrally-planned operations generally don't turn out so well.

-Well, that's an interesting formulation, but I see that getting buried in lawsuits from the unions. You don't like them either, I see.

-Yeah, that won't work. Drug research is insanely expensive, and only one in six drugs is profitable. Remember, drug companies only have like 15-20 years from the filing of the FDA paperwork (which usually takes five or more years before approval to sell) to recoup the research investment.

-God, that's just asking for problems. "Living wage" is a bad characteristic because you're forgetting teenagers and college students with summer or part-time jobs. And what about general part-time jobs? The solution is to move the federal minimum wage to the states. Different states have different standards of living, so let's make it easier for the states to respond to their own incentives. Oh, the lawsuits that people will file to create the standard for job suckatude will get as bad as the standard that exists for public school teachers in some states (took six years to fire a teacher in NY who sent a sexually explicit e-mail to a student, who was a minor, and they had the e-mail as evidence -- Guy got paid leave throughout the entire process.)

-Private unions don't need anymore help, but I'm with you on the public employee unions.

-That makes sense, but standards for "driving while high" and such will have to be implemented, as well as a technology for easily being able to tell if a person is on drugs, like a breathalyzer for cocaine.

-No, that's not being in the spirit of a global economy. That's punishing people for daring to leave the United States. Besides, the IRS would have no authority overseas. Punishing people for not voting will just cause a lot more uninformed people voting, which is not something anyone should want. God, an outsourcing tax is also a terrible idea. We have a global economy. You're throwing a wrench into free trade which would only serve to severely increase prices in America. Besides, they'd just switch to shadow companies and mysterious subsidiaries. What's with all the ill-advised patriotic jingoism?

-Fine for the most part on regulation, although some national parks cover very large areas, like ANWR.

-You're not keeping business out of politics as long as the government regulates the economy. What you're asking for would be impossible to implement and enforce. Also, only individuals can give directly to candidates.

- Yes, I understand we need to focus first on Spending Cuts, then fallow that with a Tax Increase. However, it is very important to know that America does indeed have a taxation problem, though It is definitely second to our Spending Problem. America has some of the lowest tax rates in the world! Just like how France needs to up it's Retirement age, and just like Greece has to fallow Austerity Measures, we need to up our Tax Rates, as well as cut spending.

- Tariffs have worked for America from the start. We gained so much power and influence because we were once really protectionist. While Europe might not have been able to survive on Tariffs, not only did America survive from them, but they prospered. I'm an America First kind of guy; Fix America first, forget the rest of the world till later. And it's not like every other country at the time didn't have or wasn't getting new Tariffs. The point is, I support Tariffs. It will make American businesses stronger again. If that's protectionist, so be it.

- Hmmmm, you might have a point there... But I was thinking of privatizing social security, so it really wouldn't be governmental anymore.

- Thanks for liking this idea; but I don't think Unions would sue. And it's not that I don't like Unions. I think Private Unions are a necessity for any business, and that they should have the power to deal with Businesses if they start doing unfair things. I just think Public Unions are a waste of time and money, because the Government isn't really gonna screw you over.

- Drug Research can stay as expensive as it wants to, I'm not touching that. What I am touching is the actual Manufacturing of the Drug. Ever notice how you get more bang for your buck if a product is in large quantities instead of limited quantities? That's what I would basically do; Instead of, say, 50$ for a Canister of 25 Test Strips, why not pay 50$ for 5 Canisters of 50 Test Strips? Or instead of 3$ for 10 pills of Viagra, you pay 3$ for 65 Pills of Viagra? That is basically what I am saying.

- Teenagers and Part-Time Jobs deserve A living Wage too. America is a working nation, we love work. If that means working at a Burger Joint, then so be it. But you know, they should at least be able to live off the money they make a Burger Joint. The Minimum Wage to state Idea is bad simply because a number of states would simply drop Minimum Wage all together, and thus you would end up getting Working Slaves (Unless the Unions can convince Businesses to provide a Working Wage, which I'm thinking in certain areas they can, but in others, it would be difficult to impossible). And as for your example, that's another reason why I think Public Unions are a waste. Bureaucracy in general is a waste too, and we need less Bureaucratic.

- Mkay.

- Well, here is what I was thinking about that actually; I think the Police are too hard on Drunk Drivers. Sure, there are a ton of Reckless Drunk Drivers out there, those who even accidentally kill people or themselves. But you know, people are going to drink, and people are going to drive, and obviously, punishing them isn't being a deterrent. What I would do, is instead of arresting everyone who is drunk while Driving, I would rather the Police act like a Towing Company for those people. If a Person is caught drunk while driving, but they haven't caused any death or destruction, instead of arresting those people, why not let the police take them home, and charge them for the cost of taking them home? It would be much easier, and a better deterrent because Americans love their money, and having to pay a high price to get home will certainly make them stop and think next time. Those who do kill while drinking and driving will obviously be arrested.

- Well, I'm not in the spirit of a Global Economy. I don't think Corporate executives, who wanna flee America's tax system by any means necessary, deserve the money they make here. They wanna go somewhere else? They better be willing to pay, just like our ancestors were willing to pay to get here in the first place. As for voting, I understand that it would lead to a lot of uninformed voters, but this is a Democratic Republic, and we need people to vote in the system for the system to work. Also, I'm not saying Companies like McDonalds, where they have stores in Russia that sells their food to Russians, would be fined. What I am saying is companies like Nike, who has workshops over in Asia and brings the shoes back when they are done, would. I'm America First, forget the world till later. That is just how I am.

- Well, The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would be protected from Oil Companies.

- No, Regulations are Politics in Business, and like I said, I would start cutting Regulations to their bare minimum (Or what I consider the bare minimum) in almost 90% Of businesses (With the 10% being the Healthcare Field). Business has no place in Politics, though, because Businesses aren't people; they're an organization like a Union or a PAC. If what you say is true, that only individuals can give to candidates, then PACs wouldn't be able to exist, but they do, as well as Super-PACs. Also, reducing Federal Executive Pay is as easy as an executive order, but I will agree with you that Congress won't wanna cut it's pay, and that it would be hard for a Constitutional Amendment to pass that says "Money =/= Speech and Businesses =/= People."

Other things I forgot to mention on my Taxing System:

-Reduce Military Spending to only support the National Guard and Military Tech. Sell all Foreign Bases in every country except Israel, The Palestinian Territories and South Korea. Also, begin to auction some higher tech machinery for money.

-End giving Foreign Aid to countries that don't need it or that won't help their people.

-Remove the Departments of Homeland Security, Transportation, and Energy.

Hey Big Willie, if I may make a recommendation: quote blocks. It makes it so much easier to understand what point you're addressing at any given time. I would respond to your post, but I honestly don't know what some of those things are addressing. And this isn't exactly an isolated problem. Watch how I do it.
EDIT: Same to you, Mattress.

Mr.Mattress:
My Tax Plan for America Currently:

-Income Tax: [snip]

This is entirely sensible.

-Tariffs: Now, I believe that this is the best thing we can do for America right now. America's economic stability was founded with Tariffs. We need to reintroduce Tariffs. According to This graph, as of 2010, it is 2.98%, and it has probably lowered since then. We need to crank it up, insanely. I would say, raise the Tariffs to about 90-95%. For Imported Materials, while I don't know what it's current rate is, I would say we introduce an Imported Materials Tax of about 50%, on everything except Gasoline and other Petroleum Products (Because, living in the real world, Gas will still be needed).

This is not. Tariffs are a terrible idea, mainly because the only result is that things get more expensive for consumers. Unless you think the country can do ENTIRELY without anything not made in America, then this creates real issues. If you do think that... Well, I'm not buying it, you're gonna have to back that up.

-Social Security: Turn Social Security into a Private, Non-Taxable, Non-Government Interventionist system known as an "American Dream Plan". It can't be taxed, funds can't be taken from it by the government, and 401k's will become obsolete. It will also increase with Inflation, so that way, your currency is still good if the Dollar keeps being printed at a fast rate. As our largest expenditure, if we simply get out of it, we stop paying a high price for it.

...Okay, and what makes you think any private institution will take that over? Think for a moment, here. We're apparently talking about a system that is obscenely unprofitable (otherwise it wouldn't be an issue in this discussion). How in the world would you make it profitable without absolutely slashing benefits for the elderly? I can already tell you how - making risky decisions and cutting corners! And if it is already profitable, why the hell shouldn't the government keep tabs on it?

-Welfare Checks: Turn Welfare Checks into a Workers Program, that are basically Shovel-And-Pick, Green Jobs, that provide single mothers with day care, and living places for the Hobos (With the National Guard to crack down on any illegal activity). Those who are disabled will still receive a Welfare Check. The Workers Program will give these people work and a wage for 3 years, and when they're 3 year limit is over, the Program will help those people get a real, private sector job, based on both the persons input into the workers program, as well as their educational level.

This is a really good idea, and it's rather shameful we don't already have this. The main issue in my eyes, though, is the people that cannot work. I assume welfare/disabilities is still available for them?

-Medicare/Medicaid: Replace the system, with one of two things. The first choice I would like is to simply make health care really really cheap: By forcing companies to produce drugs and medical equipment at a larger scale then they are, as well as buying doctors and nurses from other countries to fix our medical staff crises (Like Cuba does), reducing the ability to sue doctors, and forcing Companies to accept anyone, regardless of their financial record of medical history (While allowing the people to choose whether they want to have insurance or not. Basically, I want Insurance to be more like coupons then Insurance). The second choice is to just introduce a Public Health Care system only for the poor and elderly.

The former option is not really possible without nationalizing the institutions as a whole. The latter option is a really fucking good idea. But I wouldn't just leave it to the poor and elderly. Know why? Because in the long run, systems like the Krankenversicherungskasse and NHS save money and lives.

-Minimum Wage: Transform Minimum Wage into a Living Wage, as well as introducing laws that would deny governments the right to fire people unless they are terrible at their jobs.

...Deny governments? Do you mean companies? While the living wage idea is a great idea, there is definitely problems with making it harder to fire people. Last I heard, France had real issues with this.

-Unions: Remove Public Unions. Give more power to Private Unions.

What's wrong with Public Unions?

-Marijuana/Other Drugs: Introduce almost every drug, excluding Date Rape drugs. Tax them up high. Decrease the tax on Tobacco products. Continue the tax level on Alcoholic Beverages.

Do you understand the concept that desperation leads to crime? Marijuana? Sure. LSD? Maybe. Opiates, Barbiturates, and the like? Not a good idea. They're so cripplingly addictive that an addiction is hard to reconcile with society as a whole.

-Deserters Tax/Non-Voting Tax/Outsourcing Tax: Introduce three new taxes; A Deserters Tax, for those who choose to leave America, those making less then 200,000 Dollars will have to pay 15% of their income to leave, and those making more, will have to pay 50%. A Non-Voting Tax, for people who choose not to vote in Federal/State elections, those making less then 200,000 dollars will pay a small fine of about 1,200 dollars, while those making over 200,000 dollars will pay a fine of 12,000 dollars. Also, an Outsourcing Tax, for business leaders who outsource jobs with the intention of bringing those outsourced products back, the rate shall be 100,000 for each business outsourced, plus 15% Of all income those outsourced jobs make. Also, I would introduce a law that pays the new laborers the same as us in America.

The Deserters tax doesn't make much sense. We're going to punish people for leaving? Why? Because they can't pay taxes to us any more? Well, guess what - they can't use our resources any more either. Of course, this isn't as clear in cases where it's done explicitly for the sake of avoiding taxation... But in general? I don't see why this is a good idea.
The non-voting tax is also a bad idea. A few issues with it:
- Many people don't vote because they cannot easily reach a polling location, or have to work, or cannot manage their schedule around voting
- Most of the people who fall into the above category are relatively poor
- What about people who neglect to register?
- What about people who conscientiously object to voting entirely, or just don't give a fuck and don't want to vote?
It's a bad idea. You want more people voting? Make election day a national holiday and fine businesses who try to keep workers in on it.

-I would also remove a lot of Regulations within America. For Example; the EPA would not be able to deny the construction of Nuclear Power Plants unless they are constructed on Federally Owned Lands that are not allowed to be built upon.

Do I have to explain why building a nuclear power plant in Palm Springs (along the San Andreas faultline) is a bad idea? Or why building a plant in Florida is unwise? The fact is, nuclear power plants are a GIGANTIC liability under the wrong conditions, and the government is entirely within its rights to say, "hey, you can't build that there!"

Also, I would allow for Offshore drilling, while defending national forests and parks from anyone who wants to drill there.

Deepwater Horizon says hello.

-Lastly, I would force Congress and all Presidential Offices (including the President) to take a pay break, pension break, and a reduction of their benefits. I would also seek a constitutional amendment, keeping all aspects of Business out of Politics (No More "Money is Speech". Businesses, Unions, and Special-interest groups should not be allowed to buy candidates, nor should Lobbyists or PACs exist).

Actually, it's not that simple. Keeping corporate money out of government and ending the equation of money to free speech is a really, REALLY good idea, and cutting wages on congress and the executive is a good plan, but lobbyists are important. As much as we hate them, the fact is that businesses need to be able to communicate with politicians.

Stagnant:
Hey Big Willie, if I may make a recommendation: quote blocks. It makes it so much easier to understand what point you're addressing at any given time. I would respond to your post, but I honestly don't know what some of those things are addressing. And this isn't exactly an isolated problem. Watch how I do it.
EDIT: Same to you, Mattress.

Mr.Mattress:
My Tax Plan for America Currently:

-Income Tax: [snip]

This is entirely sensible.

-Tariffs: Now, I believe that this is the best thing we can do for America right now. America's economic stability was founded with Tariffs. We need to reintroduce Tariffs. According to This graph, as of 2010, it is 2.98%, and it has probably lowered since then. We need to crank it up, insanely. I would say, raise the Tariffs to about 90-95%. For Imported Materials, while I don't know what it's current rate is, I would say we introduce an Imported Materials Tax of about 50%, on everything except Gasoline and other Petroleum Products (Because, living in the real world, Gas will still be needed).

This is not. Tariffs are a terrible idea, mainly because the only result is that things get more expensive for consumers. Unless you think the country can do ENTIRELY without anything not made in America, then this creates real issues. If you do think that... Well, I'm not buying it, you're gonna have to back that up.

-Social Security: Turn Social Security into a Private, Non-Taxable, Non-Government Interventionist system known as an "American Dream Plan". It can't be taxed, funds can't be taken from it by the government, and 401k's will become obsolete. It will also increase with Inflation, so that way, your currency is still good if the Dollar keeps being printed at a fast rate. As our largest expenditure, if we simply get out of it, we stop paying a high price for it.

...Okay, and what makes you think any private institution will take that over? Think for a moment, here. We're apparently talking about a system that is obscenely unprofitable (otherwise it wouldn't be an issue in this discussion). How in the world would you make it profitable without absolutely slashing benefits for the elderly? I can already tell you how - making risky decisions and cutting corners! And if it is already profitable, why the hell shouldn't the government keep tabs on it?

-Welfare Checks: Turn Welfare Checks into a Workers Program, that are basically Shovel-And-Pick, Green Jobs, that provide single mothers with day care, and living places for the Hobos (With the National Guard to crack down on any illegal activity). Those who are disabled will still receive a Welfare Check. The Workers Program will give these people work and a wage for 3 years, and when they're 3 year limit is over, the Program will help those people get a real, private sector job, based on both the persons input into the workers program, as well as their educational level.

This is a really good idea, and it's rather shameful we don't already have this. The main issue in my eyes, though, is the people that cannot work. I assume welfare/disabilities is still available for them?

-Medicare/Medicaid: Replace the system, with one of two things. The first choice I would like is to simply make health care really really cheap: By forcing companies to produce drugs and medical equipment at a larger scale then they are, as well as buying doctors and nurses from other countries to fix our medical staff crises (Like Cuba does), reducing the ability to sue doctors, and forcing Companies to accept anyone, regardless of their financial record of medical history (While allowing the people to choose whether they want to have insurance or not. Basically, I want Insurance to be more like coupons then Insurance). The second choice is to just introduce a Public Health Care system only for the poor and elderly.

The former option is not really possible without nationalizing the institutions as a whole. The latter option is a really fucking good idea. But I wouldn't just leave it to the poor and elderly. Know why? Because in the long run, systems like the Krankenversicherungskasse and NHS save money and lives.

-Minimum Wage: Transform Minimum Wage into a Living Wage, as well as introducing laws that would deny governments the right to fire people unless they are terrible at their jobs.

...Deny governments? Do you mean companies? While the living wage idea is a great idea, there is definitely problems with making it harder to fire people. Last I heard, France had real issues with this.

-Unions: Remove Public Unions. Give more power to Private Unions.

What's wrong with Public Unions?

-Marijuana/Other Drugs: Introduce almost every drug, excluding Date Rape drugs. Tax them up high. Decrease the tax on Tobacco products. Continue the tax level on Alcoholic Beverages.

Do you understand the concept that desperation leads to crime? Marijuana? Sure. LSD? Maybe. Opiates, Barbiturates, and the like? Not a good idea. They're so cripplingly addictive that an addiction is hard to reconcile with society as a whole.

-Deserters Tax/Non-Voting Tax/Outsourcing Tax: Introduce three new taxes; A Deserters Tax, for those who choose to leave America, those making less then 200,000 Dollars will have to pay 15% of their income to leave, and those making more, will have to pay 50%. A Non-Voting Tax, for people who choose not to vote in Federal/State elections, those making less then 200,000 dollars will pay a small fine of about 1,200 dollars, while those making over 200,000 dollars will pay a fine of 12,000 dollars. Also, an Outsourcing Tax, for business leaders who outsource jobs with the intention of bringing those outsourced products back, the rate shall be 100,000 for each business outsourced, plus 15% Of all income those outsourced jobs make. Also, I would introduce a law that pays the new laborers the same as us in America.

The Deserters tax doesn't make much sense. We're going to punish people for leaving? Why? Because they can't pay taxes to us any more? Well, guess what - they can't use our resources any more either. Of course, this isn't as clear in cases where it's done explicitly for the sake of avoiding taxation... But in general? I don't see why this is a good idea.
The non-voting tax is also a bad idea. A few issues with it:
- Many people don't vote because they cannot easily reach a polling location, or have to work, or cannot manage their schedule around voting
- Most of the people who fall into the above category are relatively poor
- What about people who neglect to register?
- What about people who conscientiously object to voting entirely, or just don't give a fuck and don't want to vote?
It's a bad idea. You want more people voting? Make election day a national holiday and fine businesses who try to keep workers in on it.

-I would also remove a lot of Regulations within America. For Example; the EPA would not be able to deny the construction of Nuclear Power Plants unless they are constructed on Federally Owned Lands that are not allowed to be built upon.

Do I have to explain why building a nuclear power plant in Palm Springs (along the San Andreas faultline) is a bad idea? Or why building a plant in Florida is unwise? The fact is, nuclear power plants are a GIGANTIC liability under the wrong conditions, and the government is entirely within its rights to say, "hey, you can't build that there!"

Also, I would allow for Offshore drilling, while defending national forests and parks from anyone who wants to drill there.

Deepwater Horizon says hello.

-Lastly, I would force Congress and all Presidential Offices (including the President) to take a pay break, pension break, and a reduction of their benefits. I would also seek a constitutional amendment, keeping all aspects of Business out of Politics (No More "Money is Speech". Businesses, Unions, and Special-interest groups should not be allowed to buy candidates, nor should Lobbyists or PACs exist).

Actually, it's not that simple. Keeping corporate money out of government and ending the equation of money to free speech is a really, REALLY good idea, and cutting wages on congress and the executive is a good plan, but lobbyists are important. As much as we hate them, the fact is that businesses need to be able to communicate with politicians.

1: Thanks.

2: America, in fact, did live off of tariffs, from about 1800-the 70's. Only recently has America started buying products from other countries, and only recently have businesses left America for cheaper labor. Of course, if it were immediately implemented, America would be screwed in seconds. I would make it were it would start in 3-5 years, which would allow companies like Nike to come back here before they are hit.

3: Hmmmm... That is true, but from what I've heard, in countries like Brazil, where they privatized their Social Security, it works really well. Also, Social Security doesn't make, money, it's America's largest Expenditure!

4: Yes, those who are disabled will be able to simply receive a check. However, everyone who is able bodied will work for pay.

5: True, the first one is hard to achieve, but I prefer that system because it's fair, people couldn't get screwed any way they want to, and health care would over all go down, and it would still be very capitalistic. The second system would be easier to implement if it were just for the poor and old, but in a country like America's, anything more would amount to Socialism, and American's really hate Socialism.

6: Yeah, my mistake (Ha XD). The reason I would make it so people can't be fired unless they suck, is because too many people get fired because of an increase on the Minimum Wage, or because of a Recession period. If a person can do their job, you shouldn't fire them for economic reasons. Only for Work reasons.

7: No, I think they're a waste. The government is not going to screw with it's own workers, so A public Union is not needed in the slightest. Also, as we can see, Public Unions, like Bureaucracies, like to hold onto their people as long as they can, and won't let go of them until absolutely necessary.

8: Well that's why they would be taxed very high. However, I believe it should be people's rights to choose if they want to do them or not. For every one person who does, 6-7 won't.

9: No, it's not that they can't pay taxes to us, it's that they don't [b]Want[b] to pay taxes to us, and they can find a place where they can make more and pay less. I'm very much an America First kind of guy, and anyone who wants to leave, can, they just gotta pay, just like their ancestors paid to get here in the first place. As for your points on a Voting Tax:
-Provide them with Transportation, and make Voting Day a National Holiday.
-Doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
-Allow them to register on Election Day.
-Then they can pay the $1,200 fine, can't they?

10: So, businesses can't build things to resist Earth Quakes? Everything is destroyed by an Earth Quake? The point is, a Business can easily build Earth Quake buffers, Tsunami Buffers, and other natural disaster resistant things to support a building, as well as a nuclear building.

11: That is just a small incident, that, while environmentally damaging, is isolated. Other Oil companies won't make the same mistake, and if they due, they will be sued worse then BP.

12: Businesses can ask Politicians "Hey, I would like it if you didn't do this!" without resorting to Bribery. That is what Lobbyism is, a legal form of Bribery. If a Business wants to get his point across to Politicians, he doesn't need to do it by sending money their way, he can just do it by asking, and a Politician can choose to accept or deny the plea.

Mr.Mattress:
3: Hmmmm... That is true, but from what I've heard, in countries like Brazil, where they privatized their Social Security, it works really well. Also, Social Security doesn't make, money, it's America's largest Expenditure!

You've heard or you know? Kind of an important distinction to make.

And why does everything have to turn a profit?

5: True, the first one is hard to achieve, but I prefer that system because it's fair, people couldn't get screwed any way they want to, and health care would over all go down, and it would still be very capitalistic. The second system would be easier to implement if it were just for the poor and old, but in a country like America's, anything more would amount to Socialism, and American's really hate Socialism.

Despite the fact that they don't know what it is.

7: No, I think they're a waste. The government is not going to screw with it's own workers,

... Seriously? Seriously?!

8: Well that's why they would be taxed very high. However, I believe it should be people's rights to choose if they want to do them or not. For every one person who does, 6-7 won't.

Decriminalize them, but I don't want you handing fucking heroin out. I lost a friend to that shit. I don't want it to be illegal, but that doesn't mean I want it to be sold at a 7-11. And you think just taxing it is going to make it okay? You believe that?

10: So, businesses can't build things to resist Earth Quakes? Everything is destroyed by an Earth Quake? The point is, a Business can easily build Earth Quake buffers, Tsunami Buffers, and other natural disaster resistant things to support a building, as well as a nuclear building.

The problem is that business will do the math and see if paying out settlements and repairs costs less than improving safety. It usually does.

11: That is just a small incident, that, while environmentally damaging, is isolated. Other Oil companies won't make the same mistake, and if they due, they will be sued worse then BP.

See above.

Jesus christ what is so hard about quote blocks, people?

I'll see about responding later, I have to shower up and get ready for a date tonight. ^_^

DrVornoff:

Mr.Mattress:
3: Hmmmm... That is true, but from what I've heard, in countries like Brazil, where they privatized their Social Security, it works really well. Also, Social Security doesn't make, money, it's America's largest Expenditure!

You've heard or you know? Kind of an important distinction to make.

And why does everything have to turn a profit?

5: True, the first one is hard to achieve, but I prefer that system because it's fair, people couldn't get screwed any way they want to, and health care would over all go down, and it would still be very capitalistic. The second system would be easier to implement if it were just for the poor and old, but in a country like America's, anything more would amount to Socialism, and American's really hate Socialism.

Despite the fact that they don't know what it is.

7: No, I think they're a waste. The government is not going to screw with it's own workers,

... Seriously? Seriously?!

8: Well that's why they would be taxed very high. However, I believe it should be people's rights to choose if they want to do them or not. For every one person who does, 6-7 won't.

Decriminalize them, but I don't want you handing fucking heroin out. I lost a friend to that shit. I don't want it to be illegal, but that doesn't mean I want it to be sold at a 7-11. And you think just taxing it is going to make it okay? You believe that?

10: So, businesses can't build things to resist Earth Quakes? Everything is destroyed by an Earth Quake? The point is, a Business can easily build Earth Quake buffers, Tsunami Buffers, and other natural disaster resistant things to support a building, as well as a nuclear building.

The problem is that business will do the math and see if paying out settlements and repairs costs less than improving safety. It usually does.

11: That is just a small incident, that, while environmentally damaging, is isolated. Other Oil companies won't make the same mistake, and if they due, they will be sued worse then BP.

See above.

1: Well, sadly, I've only heard. I haven't gotten around to looking it up, though I will later today. Also, the reason it has to be about profit is because, currently, America has such a large Deficit, that we can't not think about making money for the government anymore. Every penny counts.

2: I know, but hey, what can you do? No one in America is going to run TV ads saying "Socialism Is Good!" You can educate the youth all you want, but the adults are just gonna complain about it and then the schools will have to stop, and the Adults will just tell their kids Socialism sucks.

3: Yes, seriously. Plus, you ignored my second valid point.

4: I'm sorry to hear your friend died of Heroin. I do believe Taxes help somewhat, and Legalizing it helps much much more, because it removes Crime and Prisoners.

5 (and 6): True, but I would force them to build these Safety Procedures or else they wouldn't be allowed to build them there. Plus, there are one or two businesses that indeed do choose Safety Measures instead of waiting to be sued.

Mr.Mattress:
1: Well, sadly, I've only heard. I haven't gotten around to looking it up,

I'll just let this speak for itself.

Also, the reason it has to be about profit is because, currently, America has such a large Deficit, that we can't not think about making money for the government anymore. Every penny counts.

You don't balance the books on a federal budget the same way you do a business. Because contrary to what the Republicans like to tell us, a government and a business are not the same thing. You don't run one like the other, it doesn't work.

2: I know, but hey, what can you do? No one in America is going to run TV ads saying "Socialism Is Good!" You can educate the youth all you want, but the adults are just gonna complain about it and then the schools will have to stop, and the Adults will just tell their kids Socialism sucks.

... I was saying that people don't know what socialism is, so they just use it as a pejorative against any policy they don't like.

3: Yes, seriously. Plus, you ignored my second valid point.

The current treatment of public sector jobs like firefighters, teachers, and police suggests otherwise.

4: I'm sorry to hear your friend died of Heroin. I do believe Taxes help somewhat, and Legalizing it helps much much more, because it removes Crime and Prisoners.

Decriminalization is not quite the same thing. I want marijuana to be legalized along with most forms of hallucinogens, which have limited side effects and most of which are non-addictive. Heroin however is insanely addictive, second only to pure nicotine and it kills you a lot faster. I don't want to send people to jail for doing heroin, I want to get them some bloody help!

5 (and 6): True, but I would force them to build these Safety Procedures or else they wouldn't be allowed to build them there. Plus, there are one or two businesses that indeed do choose Safety Measures instead of waiting to be sued.

You know what the Republicans would say: that's anti-business.

Better yet, how about we use your idea for a public works welfare program to build green energy infrastructure like windmills and solar cells? Whatever gets us off our dependency on fossil fuels.

Stagnant:

Mr.Mattress:
-Welfare Checks: Turn Welfare Checks into a Workers Program, that are basically Shovel-And-Pick, Green Jobs, that provide single mothers with day care, and living places for the Hobos (With the National Guard to crack down on any illegal activity). Those who are disabled will still receive a Welfare Check. The Workers Program will give these people work and a wage for 3 years, and when they're 3 year limit is over, the Program will help those people get a real, private sector job, based on both the persons input into the workers program, as well as their educational level.

This is a really good idea, and it's rather shameful we don't already have this. The main issue in my eyes, though, is the people that cannot work. I assume welfare/disabilities is still available for them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_the_Dole

close to it i guess. some people dont think its a good idea but meh giving people things to do that will only increase the likelihood of employment in the future can't hurt.

you may also note that it says "It is one means by which job seekers can satisfy their mutual obligation requirements. Other means include accredited study, part-time work and volunteer work." that is pretty much how it works in australia, if you are ablebodied and unemployed you get your money with no time limit, but you do not just get it for free, you actually have to do stuff that will help you get a job in the future.

reonhato:
some people dont think its a good idea but meh giving people things to do that will only increase the likelihood of employment in the future can't hurt.

It's a great idea but it is easily corrupted into having unemployed people work for private corporations and having them get paid by the government, then not providing any actual training while doing the work there and instead simply switching them out for the next round of unemployed people. I guess all I'm saying is: It's a good idea that can be royally screwed up to screw over both the unemployed and the rest of the taxpayers, so be careful when and especially what exactly people propose in regards to it.

Stagnant:

Big_Willie_Styles:
The Laffer Curve is a good place to start. I didn't really add much more to that. Let's look at Paul Ryan's tax reforms he's proposed then.

Do I have to explain why I consider Paul Ryan a fucking lousy source for economics?

Yes, and the very poor may deserve some government assistance.

HELLO. The first sensible thing I've heard from you this discussion (unless this was the discussion where I brought up Norquist. These things kinda blend together after half a bottle of cheap vodka).

The 'Paradox of Thrift' is a poor argument because investment is not considered spending for some reason under the reasoning of the PoT.

Remind me to get back to this when I'm not totally drunk.

I'd love to hear it. I wonder how much of your view is impacted by the writings of Paul Krugman (who called Paul Ryan a "flim-flam man covered in flim-flam sauce," making Krugman a terrible writer.)

I've said many things that were sensible. Able-bodied people are not the "very poor," the people with severe mental problems like paranoid schizophrenia are. The people who could not work because they're just not all there mentally.

Yes, please get back to it.

DrVornoff:

Big_Willie_Styles:
How about a more free market for currency, interest rates, and inflation? The suppression of the interest rate in the '00s was a contributing factor to the housing bust.

That doesn't answer my question. Start over and try it again.

"Gay rights" is also a difficult subject to broach.

No it isn't. If you think it's morally right to treat gay people like second class citizens and allow gay kids to get bullied just for being what they are, you're a monster and you don't belong in the 21st century.

As I said, it is easier to move between states within a country than to move between countries.

"I have what I want, so fuck you."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_thrift#Austrian_School_criticism -- Best answer I can give can be found here and in its citations. The response is simple: If demand dips, prices will as well as will future levels of supply. That's a point Keynes did not really have an answer for. It should be noted at this point that FDR forced farmers to let crops rot and to slaughter pigs (and not sell them to vendors) so that prices would stay stable or go up instead of falling, as they're supposed to in a recession.

Nothing I haven't heard before. Didn't convince me then either.

Also, in an age of increasing reliance on "virtual money" in the form of credit and debit cards, it could be set up so that the taxes are immediately transferred to the government, reducing overhead and paperwork to nothing.

Yeah. That'll happen.

Doesn't change the fact that it's still going to hit the poor harder than anyone else and prevent class mobility.

Yes, it does. We could have private currencies that are evaluated for their strength just like the U.S. dollar (even though there is nothing backing up said dollar.)

Yes, it is. The solution is one that I think is rather simple: Rid the government of the benefits of being married. Then, government has no business and gives nothing for it. It is no longer the government's business. That's the easiest way to cut government out of it.

Yeah, because the height of intelligent debate is reached by writing a "pithy" sentence and putting quote marks around it.

Yeah, then try dismantling it. You're not exactly giving reasoning to discount what I said.

With the inefficient government behemoth we have now, yes, I doubt it. But, there must always be hope for a change.

Big_Willie_Styles:
Yes, it does. We could have private currencies that are evaluated for their strength just like the U.S. dollar (even though there is nothing backing up said dollar.)

Do you want currency to be minted by the states instead of the federal government? Yes or no will do.

Yes, it is. The solution is one that I think is rather simple: Rid the government of the benefits of being married. Then, government has no business and gives nothing for it. It is no longer the government's business. That's the easiest way to cut government out of it.

That's a stupid idea. What about visitation rights? The handling of the estate? The inheritance of property? Getting rid of those benefits would make marriage licenses utterly useless.

Yeah, because the height of intelligent debate is reached by writing a "pithy" sentence and putting quote marks around it.

If the shit fits...

Yeah, then try dismantling it. You're not exactly giving reasoning to discount what I said.

How about you try explaining it instead of quoting a Wikipedia article at me? You can put one word in front of the other.

With the inefficient government behemoth we have now, yes, I doubt it. But, there must always be hope for a change.

Still not going to fuckin' happen. I'm not paying a bigger percent of my income in a consumption tax to satisfy your delusions of convenience.

Mr.Mattress:

Big_Willie_Styles:

-If the government got its finances in order or at the very fucking least had a damn plan on how to do so that they are forced to follow under punishment of death, sure taxes could go up. We need one before the other. Just like we need to secure the southern border before we should even discuss blanket amnesty.

-No, tariffs are bad. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 is seen as the great spark that lit the powder-keg of the Great Depression. Free trade, dude. It's all the rage. Tell China to stop manipulating its currency, sure, but tariffs are a bad first response. It comes off as protectionist and just hurts the American consumer.

-401Ks will still exist because people will still want to have a pension plan outside of government. Your idea sounds good only on the surface. Those kind of centrally-planned operations generally don't turn out so well.

-Well, that's an interesting formulation, but I see that getting buried in lawsuits from the unions. You don't like them either, I see.

-Yeah, that won't work. Drug research is insanely expensive, and only one in six drugs is profitable. Remember, drug companies only have like 15-20 years from the filing of the FDA paperwork (which usually takes five or more years before approval to sell) to recoup the research investment.

-God, that's just asking for problems. "Living wage" is a bad characteristic because you're forgetting teenagers and college students with summer or part-time jobs. And what about general part-time jobs? The solution is to move the federal minimum wage to the states. Different states have different standards of living, so let's make it easier for the states to respond to their own incentives. Oh, the lawsuits that people will file to create the standard for job suckatude will get as bad as the standard that exists for public school teachers in some states (took six years to fire a teacher in NY who sent a sexually explicit e-mail to a student, who was a minor, and they had the e-mail as evidence -- Guy got paid leave throughout the entire process.)

-Private unions don't need anymore help, but I'm with you on the public employee unions.

-That makes sense, but standards for "driving while high" and such will have to be implemented, as well as a technology for easily being able to tell if a person is on drugs, like a breathalyzer for cocaine.

-No, that's not being in the spirit of a global economy. That's punishing people for daring to leave the United States. Besides, the IRS would have no authority overseas. Punishing people for not voting will just cause a lot more uninformed people voting, which is not something anyone should want. God, an outsourcing tax is also a terrible idea. We have a global economy. You're throwing a wrench into free trade which would only serve to severely increase prices in America. Besides, they'd just switch to shadow companies and mysterious subsidiaries. What's with all the ill-advised patriotic jingoism?

-Fine for the most part on regulation, although some national parks cover very large areas, like ANWR.

-You're not keeping business out of politics as long as the government regulates the economy. What you're asking for would be impossible to implement and enforce. Also, only individuals can give directly to candidates.

- Yes, I understand we need to focus first on Spending Cuts, then fallow that with a Tax Increase. However, it is very important to know that America does indeed have a taxation problem, though It is definitely second to our Spending Problem. America has some of the lowest tax rates in the world! Just like how France needs to up it's Retirement age, and just like Greece has to fallow Austerity Measures, we need to up our Tax Rates, as well as cut spending.

- Tariffs have worked for America from the start. We gained so much power and influence because we were once really protectionist. While Europe might not have been able to survive on Tariffs, not only did America survive from them, but they prospered. I'm an America First kind of guy; Fix America first, forget the rest of the world till later. And it's not like every other country at the time didn't have or wasn't getting new Tariffs. The point is, I support Tariffs. It will make American businesses stronger again. If that's protectionist, so be it.

- Hmmmm, you might have a point there... But I was thinking of privatizing social security, so it really wouldn't be governmental anymore.

- Thanks for liking this idea; but I don't think Unions would sue. And it's not that I don't like Unions. I think Private Unions are a necessity for any business, and that they should have the power to deal with Businesses if they start doing unfair things. I just think Public Unions are a waste of time and money, because the Government isn't really gonna screw you over.

- Drug Research can stay as expensive as it wants to, I'm not touching that. What I am touching is the actual Manufacturing of the Drug. Ever notice how you get more bang for your buck if a product is in large quantities instead of limited quantities? That's what I would basically do; Instead of, say, 50$ for a Canister of 25 Test Strips, why not pay 50$ for 5 Canisters of 50 Test Strips? Or instead of 3$ for 10 pills of Viagra, you pay 3$ for 65 Pills of Viagra? That is basically what I am saying.

- Teenagers and Part-Time Jobs deserve A living Wage too. America is a working nation, we love work. If that means working at a Burger Joint, then so be it. But you know, they should at least be able to live off the money they make a Burger Joint. The Minimum Wage to state Idea is bad simply because a number of states would simply drop Minimum Wage all together, and thus you would end up getting Working Slaves (Unless the Unions can convince Businesses to provide a Working Wage, which I'm thinking in certain areas they can, but in others, it would be difficult to impossible). And as for your example, that's another reason why I think Public Unions are a waste. Bureaucracy in general is a waste too, and we need less Bureaucratic.

- Mkay.

- Well, here is what I was thinking about that actually; I think the Police are too hard on Drunk Drivers. Sure, there are a ton of Reckless Drunk Drivers out there, those who even accidentally kill people or themselves. But you know, people are going to drink, and people are going to drive, and obviously, punishing them isn't being a deterrent. What I would do, is instead of arresting everyone who is drunk while Driving, I would rather the Police act like a Towing Company for those people. If a Person is caught drunk while driving, but they haven't caused any death or destruction, instead of arresting those people, why not let the police take them home, and charge them for the cost of taking them home? It would be much easier, and a better deterrent because Americans love their money, and having to pay a high price to get home will certainly make them stop and think next time. Those who do kill while drinking and driving will obviously be arrested.

- Well, I'm not in the spirit of a Global Economy. I don't think Corporate executives, who wanna flee America's tax system by any means necessary, deserve the money they make here. They wanna go somewhere else? They better be willing to pay, just like our ancestors were willing to pay to get here in the first place. As for voting, I understand that it would lead to a lot of uninformed voters, but this is a Democratic Republic, and we need people to vote in the system for the system to work. Also, I'm not saying Companies like McDonalds, where they have stores in Russia that sells their food to Russians, would be fined. What I am saying is companies like Nike, who has workshops over in Asia and brings the shoes back when they are done, would. I'm America First, forget the world till later. That is just how I am.

- Well, The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would be protected from Oil Companies.

- No, Regulations are Politics in Business, and like I said, I would start cutting Regulations to their bare minimum (Or what I consider the bare minimum) in almost 90% Of businesses (With the 10% being the Healthcare Field). Business has no place in Politics, though, because Businesses aren't people; they're an organization like a Union or a PAC. If what you say is true, that only individuals can give to candidates, then PACs wouldn't be able to exist, but they do, as well as Super-PACs. Also, reducing Federal Executive Pay is as easy as an executive order, but I will agree with you that Congress won't wanna cut it's pay, and that it would be hard for a Constitutional Amendment to pass that says "Money =/= Speech and Businesses =/= People."

Other things I forgot to mention on my Taxing System:

-Reduce Military Spending to only support the National Guard and Military Tech. Sell all Foreign Bases in every country except Israel, The Palestinian Territories and South Korea. Also, begin to auction some higher tech machinery for money.

-End giving Foreign Aid to countries that don't need it or that won't help their people.

-Remove the Departments of Homeland Security, Transportation, and Energy.

-Not on the corporate tax rate side, where we have the world's highest. Also, why exactly is having the lowest a bad thing exactly? I see that as a plus not a negative.

-Tariffs are a bad idea economically. It sets off a chain reaction. Our decision to do so will make other countries do it to us. You really think a country wouldn't punish us for imposing tariffs on its exported goods? You'd have to be crazy to think that. And again, the people that get hurt in all this is the American consumer. The prices of goods will skyrocket.

-Yes, the Fatal Conceit tends to prove itself quite often.

-Unions have been dying for a very long time as their reasons for coming into existence in the first place have largely been dealt with through the legislative system. Things like child labor laws and workplace safety and such. Unions hurt our ability to stay competitive with the rest of the world on prices.

-Yes, but like food, drugs have expiration dates. You can't store most drugs for too long before they either no longer work or would make people sick if they took them. Besides, that's more central planning by the government. Production is done to meet demand. Your problem is on the purchasing side, not the manufacturing side.

-No, teenagers do not. And no one is hiring someone who's never worked before to a living wage. That just doesn't happen. Also, poor people have an astonishing amount of stuff. Look at what it means to be poor in America. Cars, a T.V., Internet access, a computer, a microwave, a refrigerator, an oven, a stove, cable, a satellite dish, a dishwasher, a washer/dryer, etc. The poor in this country have things kings did not have 100 years ago. Stossel did a good special on this for his show last Thursday. "A Nation of Moochers" is what it was called, I believe.

-That same logic on drinking and driving could be applied to murderers. See how that makes it sound?

-Doesn't matter if your mindset isn't there. We have a global economy.

-No, it shouldn't. That's not using a resource that we could be exploiting. ANWR is huge. The amount of space planned for the drilling is a few acres of a several thousand acre large park.

-Super-PACs, by law, can have absolutely no communication or involvement with the candidate they promote. That's how it works. Chinese wall and all that.

-Yeah, you literally said what I said about foreign bases.

-Part of the Department of Energy's budget is keeping our nuclear arms from exploding, so not all of the Department of Energy can be removed without major problems. Shift it over to the DoD and I think we'd be fine.

DrVornoff:

Big_Willie_Styles:
Yes, it does. We could have private currencies that are evaluated for their strength just like the U.S. dollar (even though there is nothing backing up said dollar.)

Do you want currency to be minted by the states instead of the federal government? Yes or no will do.

Yes, it is. The solution is one that I think is rather simple: Rid the government of the benefits of being married. Then, government has no business and gives nothing for it. It is no longer the government's business. That's the easiest way to cut government out of it.

That's a stupid idea. What about visitation rights? The handling of the estate? The inheritance of property? Getting rid of those benefits would make marriage licenses utterly useless.

Yeah, because the height of intelligent debate is reached by writing a "pithy" sentence and putting quote marks around it.

If the shit fits...

Yeah, then try dismantling it. You're not exactly giving reasoning to discount what I said.

How about you try explaining it instead of quoting a Wikipedia article at me? You can put one word in front of the other.

With the inefficient government behemoth we have now, yes, I doubt it. But, there must always be hope for a change.

Still not going to fuckin' happen. I'm not paying a bigger percent of my income in a consumption tax to satisfy your delusions of convenience.

It could be an interesting experiment to try out in the 21st century as it failed when it was tried in the 18th century.

It would work if tried. Any two people can apply for what is no longer called marriage, say, it's now called "chicken" or "supercala-(I'm not finishing that)" or "bacon." Yes, it would, and?

You told me to provide a source. I did and provided analysis of said source. Use your brain to analyze my analysis.

Even if you'll pay nothing in any other taxes on the federal level?

shootthebandit:
TWAT TAX, fairly simple idea anyone caught being a TWAT has their level of tax increase

offenses include (but not limited too):

traffic TWATS (+ 1% per offense):
- excessive use of the middle or outside lane
- anyone who adds aftermarket components to their car (+10% tax)
- people who don't indicate (signal)
- parking on or close to the next parking space (wide vehicles excepted)
- cyclists who get of their bikes and cross at traffic lights

non-traffic TWATS:
- x factor contestants/judges (100% tax)
- anyone who [deliberately] listens to an x factor contestant's songs (+5%)
- people who use stupid phrases like "you only live once" (+0.5% per use)
- anyone using the phrase "reem" or anyone who watches "the only way is essex" and similar programs (+20 %)
- chavs (100% tax)
- people who say "they shouldn't allow immigrants into this country" then say "Britain's national dish is curry" (80% tax)
- similar to above, people who complain about "foreigners coming here and not abiding by our traditions" then going to Spain and saying "oi, Pedro get me some chips" (80% tax)

this is a good idea, however, what if I'm at work and I need to ream something on the pillar drill?
I'd be like "hey I'm just gunna ........ this hole I've drilled"
chaos would follow as nobody would know what the hell I'm on about for fear of being twat taxed,
perhaps even the fabric of the universe would unravel!!
you would need to insert a clause that means you won't get taxed if you use the word in the correct context.

I suppose the daily mail-esc benefit cheats would just take advantage of it though

Big_Willie_Styles:
It could be an interesting experiment to try out in the 21st century as it failed when it was tried in the 18th century.

So yes, then. I don't see that ending too well.

It would work if tried. Any two people can apply for what is no longer called marriage, say, it's now called "chicken" or "supercala-(I'm not finishing that)" or "bacon." Yes, it would, and?

You can't just tell me it would work. You have to explain why.

And if you're honestly suggesting making it the exact same thing as a marriage with all the associated benefits but with a different name... Why? What would that accomplish other than changing the title on some paperwork?

And why are you kowtowing to the demands of people who don't even belong in the 21st century? What is your problem with gay people that you'll let a bunch of religious psychopaths change the whole system to justify continuing to treat them like inferiors? What kind of sick mind operates like that? The way I see, your desire to be complicit in this means you're just as much a selfish aberration as they are, with the only difference being that your motivations are more mercenary than dogmatic.

Actually, you know what? I take that back. You are being dogmatic. You're treating the concepts of states' rights like scripture. It must be followed absolutely. So much so that you are willing to sell out a chunk of the population to socially regressive assholes whose arguments don't have a leg to stand on in a secular society rather than say, "This is an exception to the rule. Gay people have rights too. This is one of those times where the federal government should step in to protect the rights of these citizens over the convenience of their antagonists." You won't say that. You won't stand up and do the right thing because you think you have to stick to your absolutist view of states' rights.

You told me to provide a source. I did and provided analysis of said source. Use your brain to analyze my analysis.

You didn't really provide an analysis. You basically just told me, "Hayek said so, so fuck you." Let me hear it in your own words.

Even if you'll pay nothing in any other taxes on the federal level?

I already don't pay federal income tax because I don't make enough to tax. I play lots of state and local taxes. I pay sales tax.

Being from Pennsylvania, I pay a sales tax on prepared foods. Groceries, drugs (prescription and OTC), and clothing are exempt from general sales tax. Under your proposed system, all of those would be taxed. Do I get a reach-around with that screwjob?

The icing on the cake is that this would override the state's ability to decide what goods and services get taxes because it would be up to the federal government to levy the consumption tax and fix a rate. So much for those states' rights you're such a fan of.

carlsberg export:

this is a good idea, however, what if I'm at work and I need to ream something on the pillar drill?
I'd be like "hey I'm just gunna ........ this hole I've drilled"
chaos would follow as nobody would know what the hell I'm on about for fear of being twat taxed,
perhaps even the fabric of the universe would unravel!!
you would need to insert a clause that means you won't get taxed if you use the word in the correct context.

I suppose the daily mail-esc benefit cheats would just take advantage of it though

anyone who actual knows what the correct term for reem is get a tax deduction.

daily mail-esc benefit cheats will be taxed by removal of possessions, after all the government pays for their possessions

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked