Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Income Taxes - Adam Smith vs Karl Marx

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 9:52:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I thought it might be fun to cross examine the socialist and capitalist tax systems.
The champion of the socialists is Karl Marx (author of the manifesto for the communist party)
The champion of the capitalists is Adam Smith (author of the wealth of nations)

Adam Smith wrote in the book 5 chapter 2 of the Wealth of nations;

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. "
http://www.econlib.org...
"Proportion according to revenue", of course describes a flat income tax.

If 50 people make $100,000 a year, while 100 people make $50,000 a year, and a flat tax of 10% was instituted; than the 50 people making $100,000 a year would pay $10,000 each, and the 100 people making $50,000 a year would pay $5,000 each.
The total private revenue would be $10,000,000, and the total tax revenue would be $1,000,000.

each of the 50 people making $100,000 a year would own 1% of the private revenue, and pay 1% of the tax revenue.
each of the 50 people making $50,000 a year would own 0.5% of the private revenue, and pay 0.5% of the tax revenue.

Thus a flat tax is proportioned according to revenue

In chapter 2 of the manifesto for the communist party, Karl Marx wrote;

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to...centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state...These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable... A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. "
http://www.anu.edu.au...

Karl Marx thus favored a graduated progressive income tax, as opposed to a proportioned flat tax.

A progressive tax taxes one income at a higher rate than another.

Say 50 people make $100,000 a year, while 100 people make $50,000 a year, and $50,000 is the highest income for the 10% bracket, and all incomes above the 10% bracket fall into the 50% bracket; than the 50 people making $100,000 a year would pay $50,000 each, and the 100 people making $50,000 a year would pay $5,000 each.
The total private revenue would be $10,000,000, and the total tax revenue would be $3,000,000.

each of the 50 people making $100,000 a year would own 1% of the private revenue, and pay 1.66% of the tax revenue.
each of the 50 people making $50,000 a year would own 0.5% of the private revenue, and pay 0.17% of the tax revenue.

Therefore progressive taxation is socialistic, and flat taxation is capitalistic.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 9:53:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Agreed.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 9:57:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
And capitalism will always turn into socialism.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 9:59:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/18/2012 9:57:42 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
And capitalism will always turn into socialism.

Why? If thats true then... I hate them both
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 10:00:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Adam Smith isn't really the best model of a capitalist:

"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce."
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 10:02:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/18/2012 9:59:34 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/18/2012 9:57:42 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
And capitalism will always turn into socialism.

Why? If thats true then... I hate them both

Because think about it. Capitalism provides the perfect platform for a race to the top so-to-speak. Everyone gets along and gets stoned a hippied out at first and are happy. But then someone gets greedy. The cycle goes round and round, and before you know it you're dealing with a very small group at the very top of a now socialistic society, because they figured out the game perfectly and inherited all the dough.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 10:16:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/18/2012 10:02:38 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/18/2012 9:59:34 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/18/2012 9:57:42 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
And capitalism will always turn into socialism.

Why? If thats true then... I hate them both

Because think about it. Capitalism provides the perfect platform for a race to the top so-to-speak. Everyone gets along and gets stoned a hippied out at first and are happy. But then someone gets greedy. The cycle goes round and round, and before you know it you're dealing with a very small group at the very top of a now socialistic society, because they figured out the game perfectly and inherited all the dough.

I thought socialism was everyone was even (ish), except the government.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
CrazyPerson
Posts: 1,114
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 10:22:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/18/2012 10:16:24 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/18/2012 10:02:38 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
At 4/18/2012 9:59:34 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 4/18/2012 9:57:42 PM, CrazyPerson wrote:
And capitalism will always turn into socialism.

Why? If thats true then... I hate them both

Because think about it. Capitalism provides the perfect platform for a race to the top so-to-speak. Everyone gets along and gets stoned a hippied out at first and are happy. But then someone gets greedy. The cycle goes round and round, and before you know it you're dealing with a very small group at the very top of a now socialistic society, because they figured out the game perfectly and inherited all the dough.

I thought socialism was everyone was even (ish), except the government.

Yeah. lol. It's kind of like that.
But we try to pretend, you see, that the external world exists altogether independently of us.
- - - Watts
The moralist is the person who tells people that they ought to be unselfish, when they still feel like egos, and his efforts are always and invariably futile.
- - - Watts
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 10:58:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/18/2012 9:52:18 PM, DanT wrote:
I thought it might be fun to cross examine the socialist and capitalist tax systems.
The champion of the socialists is Karl Marx (author of the manifesto for the communist party)
The champion of the capitalists is Adam Smith (author of the wealth of nations)

Adam Smith wrote in the book 5 chapter 2 of the Wealth of nations;

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. "
http://www.econlib.org...
"Proportion according to revenue", of course describes a flat income tax.

If 50 people make $100,000 a year, while 100 people make $50,000 a year, and a flat tax of 10% was instituted; than the 50 people making $100,000 a year would pay $10,000 each, and the 100 people making $50,000 a year would pay $5,000 each.
The total private revenue would be $10,000,000, and the total tax revenue would be $1,000,000.

each of the 50 people making $100,000 a year would own 1% of the private revenue, and pay 1% of the tax revenue.
each of the 50 people making $50,000 a year would own 0.5% of the private revenue, and pay 0.5% of the tax revenue.

Thus a flat tax is proportioned according to revenue


In chapter 2 of the manifesto for the communist party, Karl Marx wrote;

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to...centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state...These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable... A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. "
http://www.anu.edu.au...

Karl Marx thus favored a graduated progressive income tax, as opposed to a proportioned flat tax.

A progressive tax taxes one income at a higher rate than another.

Say 50 people make $100,000 a year, while 100 people make $50,000 a year, and $50,000 is the highest income for the 10% bracket, and all incomes above the 10% bracket fall into the 50% bracket; than the 50 people making $100,000 a year would pay $30,000 each, and the 100 people making $50,000 a year would pay $5,000 each.
The total private revenue would be $10,000,000, and the total tax revenue would be $2,000,000.

each of the 50 people making $100,000 a year would own 1% of the private revenue, and pay 1.5% of the tax revenue.
each of the 50 people making $50,000 a year would own 0.5% of the private revenue, and pay 0.25% of the tax revenue.



Therefore progressive taxation is socialistic, and flat taxation is capitalistic.

I noticed some errors... fixed...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2012 7:21:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/18/2012 9:52:18 PM, DanT wrote:
I thought it might be fun to cross examine the socialist and capitalist tax systems.
The champion of the socialists is Karl Marx (author of the manifesto for the communist party)
The champion of the capitalists is Adam Smith (author of the wealth of nations)

Adam Smith wrote in the book 5 chapter 2 of the Wealth of nations;

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. "

If it wasn't for all that government, and ultimately, the rest of the nation, the wealthy would not have been able to amass their riches. They should give back to the community.

http://www.econlib.org...
"Proportion according to revenue", of course describes a flat income tax.

If 50 people make $100,000 a year, while 100 people make $50,000 a year, and a flat tax of 10% was instituted; than the 50 people making $100,000 a year would pay $10,000 each, and the 100 people making $50,000 a year would pay $5,000 each.
The total private revenue would be $10,000,000, and the total tax revenue would be $1,000,000.

each of the 50 people making $100,000 a year would own 1% of the private revenue, and pay 1% of the tax revenue.
each of the 50 people making $50,000 a year would own 0.5% of the private revenue, and pay 0.5% of the tax revenue.

Thus a flat tax is proportioned according to revenue


In chapter 2 of the manifesto for the communist party, Karl Marx wrote;

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to...centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state...These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable... A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. "
http://www.anu.edu.au...

Karl Marx thus favored a graduated progressive income tax, as opposed to a proportioned flat tax.

A progressive tax taxes one income at a higher rate than another.

Say 50 people make $100,000 a year, while 100 people make $50,000 a year, and $50,000 is the highest income for the 10% bracket, and all incomes above the 10% bracket fall into the 50% bracket; than the 50 people making $100,000 a year would pay $50,000 each, and the 100 people making $50,000 a year would pay $5,000 each.
The total private revenue would be $10,000,000, and the total tax revenue would be $3,000,000.

each of the 50 people making $100,000 a year would own 1% of the private revenue, and pay 1.66% of the tax revenue.
each of the 50 people making $50,000 a year would own 0.5% of the private revenue, and pay 0.17% of the tax revenue.



Therefore progressive taxation is socialistic, and flat taxation is capitalistic.

Adam Smith also wrote in his book:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich . . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

"It must always be remembered, however, that it is the luxuries, and not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people, that ought ever to be taxed."


Sounds a lot like the progressive income tax. The rich can pay more because they can afford it, and have much money to spend after necessities.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 12:13:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/19/2012 7:21:41 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/18/2012 9:52:18 PM, DanT wrote:
I thought it might be fun to cross examine the socialist and capitalist tax systems.
The champion of the socialists is Karl Marx (author of the manifesto for the communist party)
The champion of the capitalists is Adam Smith (author of the wealth of nations)

Adam Smith wrote in the book 5 chapter 2 of the Wealth of nations;

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. "

If it wasn't for all that government, and ultimately, the rest of the nation, the wealthy would not have been able to amass their riches. They should give back to the community.

http://www.econlib.org...
"Proportion according to revenue", of course describes a flat income tax.

If 50 people make $100,000 a year, while 100 people make $50,000 a year, and a flat tax of 10% was instituted; than the 50 people making $100,000 a year would pay $10,000 each, and the 100 people making $50,000 a year would pay $5,000 each.
The total private revenue would be $10,000,000, and the total tax revenue would be $1,000,000.

each of the 50 people making $100,000 a year would own 1% of the private revenue, and pay 1% of the tax revenue.
each of the 50 people making $50,000 a year would own 0.5% of the private revenue, and pay 0.5% of the tax revenue.

Thus a flat tax is proportioned according to revenue


In chapter 2 of the manifesto for the communist party, Karl Marx wrote;

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to...centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state...These measures will, of course, be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable... A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. "
http://www.anu.edu.au...

Karl Marx thus favored a graduated progressive income tax, as opposed to a proportioned flat tax.

A progressive tax taxes one income at a higher rate than another.

Say 50 people make $100,000 a year, while 100 people make $50,000 a year, and $50,000 is the highest income for the 10% bracket, and all incomes above the 10% bracket fall into the 50% bracket; than the 50 people making $100,000 a year would pay $50,000 each, and the 100 people making $50,000 a year would pay $5,000 each.
The total private revenue would be $10,000,000, and the total tax revenue would be $3,000,000.

each of the 50 people making $100,000 a year would own 1% of the private revenue, and pay 1.66% of the tax revenue.
each of the 50 people making $50,000 a year would own 0.5% of the private revenue, and pay 0.17% of the tax revenue.



Therefore progressive taxation is socialistic, and flat taxation is capitalistic.

Adam Smith also wrote in his book:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich . . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

"It must always be remembered, however, that it is the luxuries, and not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people, that ought ever to be taxed."


Sounds a lot like the progressive income tax. The rich can pay more because they can afford it, and have much money to spend after necessities.

What chapter?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 12:47:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Nvm found the quote. It's about rent not income.

"The inequality with which a [tax upon the house of rent] might fall upon the owners of different ground-rents would arise altogether from the accidental inequality of this division. But the inequality with which it might fall upon the inhabitants of different houses would arise not only from this, but from another cause. The proportion of the expence of house-rent to the whole expence of living is different in the different degrees of fortune. It is perhaps highest in the highest degree, and it diminishes gradually through the inferior degrees, so as in general to be lowest in the lowest degree. The necessaries of life occasion the great expence of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expence of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be any thing very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 12:54:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Thanks for sending me searching in the wrong place by the way. You claimed he was talking of income when really he was speaking of rent. I had to search through everything about income before realizing it sounded like he was speaking of rent.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 1:04:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/19/2012 7:21:41 PM, Contra wrote:
If it wasn't for all that government, and ultimately, the rest of the nation, the wealthy would not have been able to amass their riches. They should give back to the community.

They do though...in the form of campaign donations to the friendly government partners.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 7:12:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 1:04:38 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/19/2012 7:21:41 PM, Contra wrote:
If it wasn't for all that government, and ultimately, the rest of the nation, the wealthy would not have been able to amass their riches. They should give back to the community.

They do though...in the form of campaign donations to the friendly government partners.

I hope you're joking.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 8:22:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 7:12:04 AM, Contra wrote:
At 4/20/2012 1:04:38 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/19/2012 7:21:41 PM, Contra wrote:
If it wasn't for all that government, and ultimately, the rest of the nation, the wealthy would not have been able to amass their riches. They should give back to the community.

They do though...in the form of campaign donations to the friendly government partners.

I hope you're joking.

Joking about what? That the ultra-rich never spend any money on pet politicians in exchange for their services?
yoda878
Posts: 902
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 9:01:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The government doesn't know how to spend money we all know that. Also, hows higher taxes for the rich going to help me. I'm going to pay for it in the end. The thing is people don't look at the big picture. If my boss pays higher taxes, then I'm not going to get a raise latter. If Walmart pays higher taxes their items are going to go up. So here I am no raise and things cost more. :(
I agree with the flat tax, and cut spending.
Me
yoda878
Posts: 902
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2012 9:04:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 9:01:14 AM, yoda878 wrote:
The government doesn't know how to spend money we all know that. Also, hows higher taxes for the rich going to help me. I'm going to pay for it in the end. The thing is people don't look at the big picture. If my boss pays higher taxes, then I'm not going to get a raise latter. If Walmart pays higher taxes their items are going to go up. So here I am no raise and things cost more. :(
I agree with the flat tax, and cut spending.
OOps i meant to put this on a different post.
Me
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2012 12:15:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/20/2012 9:01:14 AM, yoda878 wrote:
The government doesn't know how to spend money we all know that. Also, hows higher taxes for the rich going to help me.

The medical, and scientific establishments. The Internet. The highway and education and judicial systems. Our infrastructure.

I'm going to pay for it in the end. The thing is people don't look at the big picture. If my boss pays higher taxes, then I'm not going to get a raise latter.

Not to put your hopes down, but I don't think this is a valid argument.

If Walmart pays higher taxes their items are going to go up. So here I am no raise and things cost more. :(

I agree with the flat tax, and cut spending.

Cut spending in some areas yes.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2012 1:07:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/21/2012 12:15:48 AM, Contra wrote:
At 4/20/2012 9:01:14 AM, yoda878 wrote:
The government doesn't know how to spend money we all know that. Also, hows higher taxes for the rich going to help me.

The medical, and scientific establishments. The Internet. The highway and education and judicial systems. Our infrastructure.

Yep, none of that is possible for private organizations to do. No such thing as private schools, private hospitals, or inventions created by the private sector.


I'm going to pay for it in the end. The thing is people don't look at the big picture. If my boss pays higher taxes, then I'm not going to get a raise latter.

Not to put your hopes down, but I don't think this is a valid argument.

^Agreed with the above. Employer isn't going to give you a raise just because he/she is making more money. They pay you for your service, not for charity.

If Walmart pays higher taxes their items are going to go up. So here I am no raise and things cost more. :(

I agree with the flat tax, and cut spending.

Cut spending in some areas yes.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2012 9:17:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/21/2012 1:07:36 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/21/2012 12:15:48 AM, Contra wrote:
At 4/20/2012 9:01:14 AM, yoda878 wrote:
The government doesn't know how to spend money we all know that. Also, hows higher taxes for the rich going to help me.

The medical, and scientific establishments. The Internet. The highway and education and judicial systems. Our infrastructure.

Yep, none of that is possible for private organizations to do. No such thing as private schools, private hospitals, or inventions created by the private sector.


I'm going to pay for it in the end. The thing is people don't look at the big picture. If my boss pays higher taxes, then I'm not going to get a raise latter.

Not to put your hopes down, but I don't think this is a valid argument.

^Agreed with the above. Employer isn't going to give you a raise just because he/she is making more money. They pay you for your service, not for charity.


I think the point being argued is that the employer can't afford to pay an earned wage, if taxes are too high
If Walmart pays higher taxes their items are going to go up. So here I am no raise and things cost more. :(

I agree with the flat tax, and cut spending.

Cut spending in some areas yes.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2012 11:14:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/21/2012 9:17:40 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/21/2012 1:07:36 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/21/2012 12:15:48 AM, Contra wrote:
At 4/20/2012 9:01:14 AM, yoda878 wrote:
The government doesn't know how to spend money we all know that. Also, hows higher taxes for the rich going to help me.

The medical, and scientific establishments. The Internet. The highway and education and judicial systems. Our infrastructure.

Yep, none of that is possible for private organizations to do. No such thing as private schools, private hospitals, or inventions created by the private sector.


I'm going to pay for it in the end. The thing is people don't look at the big picture. If my boss pays higher taxes, then I'm not going to get a raise latter.

Not to put your hopes down, but I don't think this is a valid argument.

^Agreed with the above. Employer isn't going to give you a raise just because he/she is making more money. They pay you for your service, not for charity.


I think the point being argued is that the employer can't afford to pay an earned wage, if taxes are too high

How so? If an employee isn't adding any value to the company, then you wouldn't keep him/her regardless of your income tax, unless they're just that charitable.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 9:19:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/21/2012 11:14:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/21/2012 9:17:40 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/21/2012 1:07:36 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/21/2012 12:15:48 AM, Contra wrote:
At 4/20/2012 9:01:14 AM, yoda878 wrote:
The government doesn't know how to spend money we all know that. Also, hows higher taxes for the rich going to help me.

The medical, and scientific establishments. The Internet. The highway and education and judicial systems. Our infrastructure.

Yep, none of that is possible for private organizations to do. No such thing as private schools, private hospitals, or inventions created by the private sector.


I'm going to pay for it in the end. The thing is people don't look at the big picture. If my boss pays higher taxes, then I'm not going to get a raise latter.

Not to put your hopes down, but I don't think this is a valid argument.

^Agreed with the above. Employer isn't going to give you a raise just because he/she is making more money. They pay you for your service, not for charity.


I think the point being argued is that the employer can't afford to pay an earned wage, if taxes are too high

How so? If an employee isn't adding any value to the company, then you wouldn't keep him/her regardless of your income tax, unless they're just that charitable.

Are you reading what I am writing?

The employee earns a raise by adding value to the company. The company cannot afford a raise, because of taxes. The employee who earned the raise does not get his raise, because of taxes.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 11:12:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Are you reading what I am writing?

The employee earns a raise by adding value to the company. The company cannot afford a raise, because of taxes. The employee who earned the raise does not get his raise, because of taxes.


That doesn't make much since. A company is not refuse to give you a wage increase because of high taxes. If that were so, they would raise their prices to gain higher revenue. If the statement you just made actually made logical since, Americans would have been getting raises for years. Taxes for the wealthy have decreased as we all know over the years since the 80s, and the tax on corporations was cut last I believe in 1987, and if your logic fell suit, people would be getting wage increases because productivity has also increased 45% since then. On the contrary, wages have remained stagnant with only a 1% increase (adding inflation).
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
yoda878
Posts: 902
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 12:13:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/21/2012 11:14:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/21/2012 9:17:40 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/21/2012 1:07:36 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/21/2012 12:15:48 AM, Contra wrote:
At 4/20/2012 9:01:14 AM, yoda878 wrote:
The government doesn't know how to spend money we all know that. Also, hows higher taxes for the rich going to help me.

The medical, and scientific establishments. The Internet. The highway and education and judicial systems. Our infrastructure.

Yep, none of that is possible for private organizations to do. No such thing as private schools, private hospitals, or inventions created by the private sector.


I'm going to pay for it in the end. The thing is people don't look at the big picture. If my boss pays higher taxes, then I'm not going to get a raise latter.

Not to put your hopes down, but I don't think this is a valid argument.

^Agreed with the above. Employer isn't going to give you a raise just because he/she is making more money. They pay you for your service, not for charity.


I think the point being argued is that the employer can't afford to pay an earned wage, if taxes are too high

How so? If an employee isn't adding any value to the company, then you wouldn't keep him/her regardless of your income tax, unless they're just that charitable.

Yeah your right they are going to pay more taxes and me more too. lol. Their money will never run out.

In reality, taxes on them will keep going up.

but your right, Washington has a right you their money I mean they are the ones who can balance the books right.

You dip in to our bosses pockets, you dip in to ours aswell.
But your right, they are going to spend it on us...

http://www.dansvilleonline.com...
The U.S. government is spending $750,000 on a new soccer field for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.

well that just one thing your still right, we have all kinds of money, when we tax our rich.

http://www.wnd.com...
The Obama administration plans to spend between 16 and 20 million dollars helping students from Indonesia get master's degrees.

I know your thinking, You aren;t showing me how they are helping us here i know they are spending good money on US people.

Your right they are.

The U.S. government spent $200,000 on "a tattoo removal program" in Mission Hills, California
http://origin.heritage.org...
The federal government has shelled out $3 million to researchers at the University of California at Irvine to fund their research on video games such as World of Warcraft. Wouldn't we all love to have a "research job" like that?

http://content.usatoday.com...

The National Science Foundation once spent $216,000 to study whether or not politicians "gain or lose support by taking ambiguous positions"

http://abcnews.go.com...

The list goes on with all the wonderful ways the government can put that money to better use then our business owners. Heck if were lucky we may even have more business like fannie mae and freddie mac.
you are so right I just needed to see how hard work will keep me in a job, and make me excel. The governments got my back.
Me
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 1:02:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago

That doesn't make much since. A company is not refuse to give you a wage increase because of high taxes. If that were so, they would raise their prices to gain higher revenue.

A company cannot arbitrarily raise price of its product just to finance a raise for its employees. It would lose competition. Plus, I'm not very well versed with the American economy, but I find it hard to believe thae wages haven't increased in so long. The monetary wages would HAVE to increase along with inflation, otherwise the standard of.living would have fallen down quite sharply...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 6:07:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 1:02:32 PM, Cermank wrote:

That doesn't make much since. A company is not refuse to give you a wage increase because of high taxes. If that were so, they would raise their prices to gain higher revenue.

A company cannot arbitrarily raise price of its product just to finance a raise for its employees. It would lose competition. Plus, I'm not very well versed with the American economy, but I find it hard to believe thae wages haven't increased in so long. The monetary wages would HAVE to increase along with inflation, otherwise the standard of.living would have fallen down quite sharply...

The value of wages have in most cases kept up with inflation, but only increased a total of 1% since the 1970s (for the middle class).
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 6:46:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 9:19:00 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/21/2012 11:14:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/21/2012 9:17:40 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/21/2012 1:07:36 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/21/2012 12:15:48 AM, Contra wrote:
At 4/20/2012 9:01:14 AM, yoda878 wrote:
The government doesn't know how to spend money we all know that. Also, hows higher taxes for the rich going to help me.

The medical, and scientific establishments. The Internet. The highway and education and judicial systems. Our infrastructure.

Yep, none of that is possible for private organizations to do. No such thing as private schools, private hospitals, or inventions created by the private sector.


I'm going to pay for it in the end. The thing is people don't look at the big picture. If my boss pays higher taxes, then I'm not going to get a raise latter.

Not to put your hopes down, but I don't think this is a valid argument.

^Agreed with the above. Employer isn't going to give you a raise just because he/she is making more money. They pay you for your service, not for charity.


I think the point being argued is that the employer can't afford to pay an earned wage, if taxes are too high

How so? If an employee isn't adding any value to the company, then you wouldn't keep him/her regardless of your income tax, unless they're just that charitable.

Are you reading what I am writing?

The employee earns a raise by adding value to the company. The company cannot afford a raise, because of taxes. The employee who earned the raise does not get his raise, because of taxes.

But why offer a raise in the first place? Why would (s)he choose to give his/her employer a raise, when he/she can have more money for him/herself? Why would the company give it to person, when any profits are supposed to go to the share owners?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 8:20:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 6:46:56 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/22/2012 9:19:00 AM, DanT wrote:
At 4/21/2012 11:14:05 PM, darkkermi

But why offer a raise in the first place? Why would (s)he choose to give his/her employer a raise, when he/she can have more money for him/herself? Why would the company give it to person, when any profits are supposed to go to the share owners?

To give proper incentive to them to work harder. That's what motivates most of the workforce, higher pay wage.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2012 8:24:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/22/2012 6:07:16 PM, Contra wrote:
At 4/22/2012 1:02:32 PM, Cermank wrote:

A company cannot arbitrarily raise price of its product just to finance a raise for its employees. It would lose competition. Plus, I'm not very well versed with the American economy, but I find it hard to believe thae wages haven't increased in so long. The monetary wages would HAVE to increase along with inflation, otherwise the standard of.living would have fallen down quite sharply...

The value of wages have in most cases kept up with inflation, but only increased a total of 1% since the 1970s (for the middle class).

Value of wage in what profession? How is this calculated? An agrregate of all the professions or a specific basket of jobs?