Survey: which way do you lean on each political issue?

[The Ozzman]

It was based more on financial philosophy since I kinda know a lot about that. I mean, financial economics is a perfect example of how past performance doesn't indicate future results because of the countless variables (CPI, futures markets, world affairs, etc). I guess it's one of the only times where it's not an indicator

I can't quit you, Dodens.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

This.

Flat Tax is better though

No, because it doesn't take into account the individual's disposable income, which has a huge effect on quality of life. With a flat tax, the people at the bottom are left with virtually no disposable income, while the people at the top likely have the vast majority of their income leftover to spend on whatever. A graduated tax system causes a negligible decrease in the quality of life for a tiny fraction of people, and a enormous increase in quality of life for most people. I think that's a far more important guideline for taxation than just "it's my money, so I should get to keep it".

What's awesome about the Fair Tax is that how much someone pays is largely affected by their disposable income. Rich people who make exorbitant purchases with their extra money will be taxed much more - but if they don't want to pay all those taxes, they can alternatively invest their money (good for the economy) or, if the tax code gives exemptions for business-related purchases, they could spend it on business capital (also good for the economy).

 

[The Ozzman]

So, are you saying that if people invest their money, there should be no taxes assessed on the proceeds from these investments?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I don't know, I didn't think about that. I guess there should be. But at least under the Fair Tax one isn't being taxed twice on their initial investment capital if it came from their paycheck (i.e. income + capital gains).

edit: but they are if they then withdraw their investment money and buy something with it, so never mind.

I'm really not sure how investment profit should be handled. I guess it would have to be changed/eliminated under the Fair Tax since it's a form of income.

 

[The Ozzman]

I don't know, I didn't think about that. I guess there should be. But at least under the Fair Tax one isn't being taxed twice on their initial investment capital if it came from their paycheck (i.e. income + capital gains).

edit: but they are if they then withdraw their investment money and buy something with it, so never mind.

I'm really not sure how investment profit should be handled. I guess it would have to be changed/eliminated under the Fair Tax since it's a form of income.

How would you handle corporations since they are essentially taxed twice currently?

I mean, if you tax people's investment income/capital gains/dividends at the same 'Fair Tax' rate, there's really no incentive to sell shares, get dividends or what have you. I think if you're going to tax anything, it should be the income from security sales, but there shouldn't be a capital gains tax or a dividend tax if you reinvest the dividends into the same mutual fund, stock, etc.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I'm going to reserve opinion on how to tax corporations or investments under a Fair Tax system until I've done more reading up on that stuff.

That aside, though, I still don't think there's any good reason why personal taxes shouldn't be adjusted according to one's disposable income.

 

[The Ozzman]

I'm going to reserve opinion on how to tax corporations or investments under a Fair Tax system until I've done more reading up on that stuff.

That aside, though, I still don't think there's any good reason why personal taxes shouldn't be adjusted according to one's disposable income.

It should go by their consumption. There are some rich people who just 'hoarde' their money so to speak and don't spend any of it, so why should they be taxed because of their disposable income level?

Also, you can't really get disposable income until after you tax someone, so it doesn't really make any sense to do it that way. Same goes with discretionary income

 

[zabu of nΩd]

It should go buy their consumption. There are some rich people who just 'hoarde' their money so to speak and don't spend any of it, so why should they be taxed because of their disposable income level?

Also, you can't really get disposable income until after you tax someone, so it doesn't really make any sense to do it that way. Same goes with discretionary income

Sorry, that's what I meant. In practice, the Fair Tax will probably be fairly proportional to disposable income, so that's why I was using that term. I do think the tax system should be based on consumption, though.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

To Nec: obviously, but this is finance where that isn't always the case.

 

[Valdincan]

I don't care about NASA, I think it's a waste of time to talk about unless they do something really cool and useful.

Dur, my brain hurts.

 

[Einherjar86]

In that case, I propose this to you. Which is the graver injustice, that those equipped to do so are asked to bear a larger percent of the tax burden than those who can't, or that millions of people are left behind, treated unfairly, treated differently in general, do not have the means to progress due to the position in which they are situated by the capitalist system, or simply never had a chance? Which group of people should I have greater sympathy for, the top 1% who control about 40% of the total monetary value in the country, or the bottom 80% who don't control even a quarter of that? I think it is more prudent for a just society to lean toward those who are in need of help when the free market has proven time and time again that it is far from a level playing field where everybody has the same opportunities and advantages to 'make it.'

I just can't agree with you. I completely understand what you're saying, but I don't believe in it. Collectivism is not the proper method of economy. I don't believe in this ideal society where, by governmental regulation, we try and make every human being equal/have equal opportunities. I believe in individual progress. If it then benefits us to extend an arm to our fellow man, we will. And I assure you, people will see the benefit in helping each other (if they don't already). The idea of community must prevail. That's all the faith we can have in humanity. I don't believe in forcing a collective welfare system which caters to the less fortunate.

A great deal of money lies with the middle/upper-middle class. It's those people we have to put our faith in. Collective systems which hurt the middle and upper-middle class will be ultimately detrimental to our economy.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

There's a difference between "make every human being equal" and "make sure the poor have enough for basic necessities". You can provide a security net for the less fortunate without destroying the drive for competition and profit. We already have tons of programs like that anyway.

 

[Einherjar86]

Very true, and good point; but I still stand by the latter half of my post. I just don't believe government should have the right to possess funds of wealthy citizens and deposit it among the poor.

 

[The Ozzman]

I don't believe in (forceful) redistribution of wealth

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Very true, and good point; but I still stand by the latter half of my post. I just don't believe government should have the right to possess funds of wealthy citizens and deposit it among the poor.

I don't believe in (forceful) redistribution of wealth

First off, it already fucking happens, and it's not going to change.

Second, as long as there aren't rampant poverty problems in the country in question (and there aren't in the U.S.), it's not going to put a significant dent in the wealthier people's wallets.

Third, we're talking about saving lives and preserving people's health in exchange for a minor, almost unnoticeable inconvenience to the wealthy. As Dodens said, the free market is not a level playing field, and it's only fitting to ask those who have benefited so greatly from it to help ensure that those who are left behind aren't suffering or dying for it.

 

[waif]

If anything, some way of verifying that voters are actually well-informed about what they're voting on would be good. I'm not about to make any assumptions on how that could be done, but what comes to my mind is some sort of test people would have to take which asks questions about the background and positions of the candidates for public office. It would be retakeable, so if someone screwed up they could go read up on the candidates and take it again later. But you would have to pass a test relevant to an upcoming election before you could vote in that election.

I'll be honest, I was all set to shit all over your idea. But this actually seems like a decent idea. It should be ludicrously easy and federally standardized and a bunch of other shit but yeah, I'd consider it.

Seriously...how can you even think that?

I'm not saying that that's something that applies to every single situation. Obviously it doesn't apply to finance. But pattern recognition and anticipation is a pretty significant part of human function. How you can not think that, I don't understand.

Dur, my brain hurts.

Look, in times of peace and prosperity I'm down with sending monkeys into space simply because it's awesome, but when we have such a massive deficit this really shouldn't be a priority.

Third, we're talking about saving lives and preserving people's health in exchange for a minor, almost unnoticeable inconvenience to the wealthy. As Dodens said, the free market is not a level playing field, and it's only fitting to ask those who have benefited so greatly from it to help ensure that those who are left behind aren't suffering or dying for it.

This pretty much expresses my view as well. The rich can still have their toilet of solid gold, they just need to give the platinum studded plunger back to the community. Meanwhile the poor aren't exactly kicking back and living it up off of government handouts.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I'll be honest, I was all set to shit all over your idea. But this actually seems like a decent idea. It should be ludicrously easy and federally standardized and a bunch of other shit but yeah, I'd consider it.

Sweet. I'm glad I didn't just come off as some radical kook with that idea.

This pretty much expresses my view as well. The rich can still have their toilet of solid gold, they just need to give the platinum studded plunger back to the community. Meanwhile the poor aren't exactly kicking back and living it up off of government handouts.

Well said.

 

[skeptik]

Second, as long as there aren't rampant poverty problems in the country in question (and there aren't in the U.S.), it's not going to put a significant dent in the wealthier people's wallets.

This is actually partially due to the convenient ways in which the US has arbitrarily decided to define what poverty is within the United States (which, notably, is very different from the way it is defined in Canada and throughout Europe).

I just can't agree with you. I completely understand what you're saying, but I don't believe in it. Collectivism is not the proper method of economy. I don't believe in this ideal society where, by governmental regulation, we try and make every human being equal/have equal opportunities. I believe in individual progress. If it then benefits us to extend an arm to our fellow man, we will. And I assure you, people will see the benefit in helping each other (if they don't already). The idea of community must prevail. That's all the faith we can have in humanity. I don't believe in forcing a collective welfare system which caters to the less fortunate.

A great deal of money lies with the middle/upper-middle class. It's those people we have to put our faith in. Collective systems which hurt the middle and upper-middle class will be ultimately detrimental to our economy.

IIRC the people disadvantaged by the very nature of the system in which they are forced to dwell do not have a choice as to whether or not they want to suffer the disadvantages that they do. As vhris-gari said, I am not at all talking about equality of economic levels. I'm not even talking about equality of opportunity. Everybody and their dog knows that equality of opportunity in a flawed society is impossible. Everybody and their dog (and Adam Smith) also know that prgoressive taxation is an inevitable necessity of a flawed society in which the reigning economic principles are that of a free market capitalism. The only thing that I suggested was that progressive taxation is one small measure that has been weaved into the framework of free market capitalism as an attempt to limit the effects of the inherent biases within the system. Progressive taxation exists to help those who not only in large part cannot help themselves, but are in fact unjustly disadvantaged. Given that this is the nature of the very system through which the upper class has profited, I see not how it is any less just to, within the same core framework of capitalism, ask those who can contribute more to do so than it is to leave so many millions of people behind when they can't do anything about it.

Very true, and good point; but I still stand by the latter half of my post. I just don't believe government should have the right to possess funds of wealthy citizens and deposit it among the poor.

I don't believe in (forceful) redistribution of wealth

I don't believe government should maintain a social construct by which an enormous percentage of its populous is inherently disadvantaged, so we can't win 'em all, can we? I favor forceful redistribution, if that is the diction you wish to use to convey just how evil it is, over forceful and systematic repression (see, I can use scary phrases too).

 

[waif]

IIRC the people disadvantaged by the very nature of the system in which they are forced to dwell do not have a choice as to whether or not they want to suffer the disadvantages that they do. As vhris-gari said, I am not at all talking about equality of economic levels. I'm not even talking about equality of opportunity. Everybody and their dog knows that equality of opportunity in a flawed society is impossible. Everybody and their dog (and Adam Smith) also know that prgoressive taxation is an inevitable necessity of a flawed society in which the reigning economic principles are that of a free market capitalism. The only thing that I suggested was that progressive taxation is one small measure that has been weaved into the framework of free market capitalism as an attempt to limit the effects of the inherent biases within the system. Progressive taxation exists to help those who not only in large part cannot help themselves, but are in fact unjustly disadvantaged. Given that this is the nature of the very system through which the upper class has profited, I see not how it is any less just to, within the same core framework of capitalism, ask those who can contribute more to do so than it is to leave so many millions of people behind when they can't do anything about it.

I see progressive taxation as an absolute necessity in any sustainable capitalistic system. When the rich take all the money and don't give any back, it tends to end badly. Trickle down doesn't work, because money trickles up.

I don't believe government should maintain a social construct by which an enormous percentage of its populous is inherently disadvantaged, so we can't win 'em all, can we? I favor forceful redistribution, if that is the diction you wish to use to convey just how evil it is, over forceful and systematic repression (see, I can use scary phrases too).

.

of course, there are steps that could be used to level the playing field. One of the biggest disadvantages is education; many if not most inner city public schools are shit, and of course poor people can't afford college (hell, middle class people barely can these days) except for maybe state colleges. If the government took over higher education the way they do in many European nations and gave decent funding to schools that need it, I think it would go a long way towards leveling the playing field in the next generation or two.

 

[Einherjar86]

Money trickles both ways. There's a certain philosophy behind capitalism, and it's the philosophy that I believe works best. When we start making exceptions we risk relinquishing more control than we previously anticipated. I don't trust any government with that much control. I realize this is a "slippery slope" argument; but it does work that way.