Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

I just balanced the budget with relative ease

ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 7:27:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am just some 15 year old freshman who has about 6 months of independant economic study. Why can't politicians who have 6+ years of college education do this?

http://splitwise.com...|0|0|0|0|0/14.7|14.9|15.2|15.5|15.5|15.2/params/0|0|0|0|1|10/name/Adam%27s%20Plan

https://docs.google.com...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 7:32:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You gotta show a main page or something on how to do this.

The idea of having months upon months of independent economic study sounds like nirvana for me :D

And, the key is to develop a budget that would be balanced, and politically possible.

At least one of those links were broke.
"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
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2013 7:45:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 7:32:07 PM, Contra wrote:
You gotta show a main page or something on how to do this.

The idea of having months upon months of independent economic study sounds like nirvana for me :D

And, the key is to develop a budget that would be balanced, and politically possible.

At least one of those links were broke.

It isn't politically possible.

I want a flat tax of 15%, cut welfare almost completely and only give to the desolate.

Cut half of 'other government spending'

Eventually privatize social security.

If the government did something similar to this all along, we would have a huge surplus and no deficit.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 2:38:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
How many times have we heard the flat tax idea thrown around in conservative circles? Every time someone proposes something like this conservatives everywhere cheer, then they actually look at the plan and what it would mean and they overwhelmingly reject it.
Cermank
Posts: 3,773
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 4:24:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 7:45:16 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/6/2013 7:32:07 PM, Contra wrote:
You gotta show a main page or something on how to do this.

The idea of having months upon months of independent economic study sounds like nirvana for me :D

And, the key is to develop a budget that would be balanced, and politically possible.

At least one of those links were broke.

It isn't politically possible.

I want a flat tax of 15%, cut welfare almost completely and only give to the desolate.

Cut half of 'other government spending'

Eventually privatize social security.

If the government did something similar to this all along, we would have a huge surplus and no deficit.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...

Who are the desolate?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 6:02:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 4:24:32 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 3/6/2013 7:45:16 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/6/2013 7:32:07 PM, Contra wrote:
You gotta show a main page or something on how to do this.

The idea of having months upon months of independent economic study sounds like nirvana for me :D

And, the key is to develop a budget that would be balanced, and politically possible.

At least one of those links were broke.

It isn't politically possible.

I want a flat tax of 15%, cut welfare almost completely and only give to the desolate.

Cut half of 'other government spending'

Eventually privatize social security.

If the government did something similar to this all along, we would have a huge surplus and no deficit.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...

Who are the desolate?

He probably doesn't think anybody is desolate. They all deserve to die. Only he's allowed to use stolen property.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 6:03:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oh, and might makes right when he profits from it and obtains someone's property through violence, but if the government does that to him, it has committed a travesty.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 6:49:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 2:38:10 AM, Double_R wrote:
How many times have we heard the flat tax idea thrown around in conservative circles? Every time someone proposes something like this conservatives everywhere cheer, then they actually look at the plan and what it would mean and they overwhelmingly reject it.

I am now fully conservative, I am libertarian. The flat tax worked great when I wrote it, I slashed welfare from 500 billion down to 50 billion, and privatized social security. These cut 1.65 trillion from the budget. I put 650 billion back in for education, research& development, and military. I put 1 trillion a year to deficit reduction. Balanced budget.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 6:50:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 4:24:32 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 3/6/2013 7:45:16 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/6/2013 7:32:07 PM, Contra wrote:
You gotta show a main page or something on how to do this.

The idea of having months upon months of independent economic study sounds like nirvana for me :D

And, the key is to develop a budget that would be balanced, and politically possible.

At least one of those links were broke.

It isn't politically possible.

I want a flat tax of 15%, cut welfare almost completely and only give to the desolate.

Cut half of 'other government spending'

Eventually privatize social security.

If the government did something similar to this all along, we would have a huge surplus and no deficit.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...

Who are the desolate?

Those who live in isolated areas and have minimal job opportunity.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 6:51:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 6:02:44 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 3/7/2013 4:24:32 AM, Cermank wrote:
At 3/6/2013 7:45:16 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/6/2013 7:32:07 PM, Contra wrote:
You gotta show a main page or something on how to do this.

The idea of having months upon months of independent economic study sounds like nirvana for me :D

And, the key is to develop a budget that would be balanced, and politically possible.

At least one of those links were broke.

It isn't politically possible.

I want a flat tax of 15%, cut welfare almost completely and only give to the desolate.

Cut half of 'other government spending'

Eventually privatize social security.

If the government did something similar to this all along, we would have a huge surplus and no deficit.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...

Who are the desolate?

He probably doesn't think anybody is desolate. They all deserve to die. Only he's allowed to use stolen property.

lol, Communist bleeding hearts. Let's have the union own everything, then people will definitely be forced to pay union dues to get a job. :P
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 6:52:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 6:03:31 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Oh, and might makes right when he profits from it and obtains someone's property through violence, but if the government does that to him, it has committed a travesty.

How would it take violence to obtain one's property? Why does one have the right to keep something they didn't earn? Why would one take out loans they couldn't pay back for this property to start?

One answer, the central banks that are leading to this nations demise.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 6:54:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 6:03:31 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
Oh, and might makes right when he profits from it and obtains someone's property through violence, but if the government does that to him, it has committed a travesty.

The only reason a private entity can obtain one's property is if they can't afford the fixed payment rates. In this case it is still the businesses property and if the person can't afford to pay the monthly fixed rate for it, the business has the right to confiscate back what is still theirs.

Quit reading all those feminist garbage manifestos, learn economics instead. I recommend Charles Kindleberger.
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 1:01:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/6/2013 7:45:16 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
It isn't politically possible.

I can see why! :P

I want a flat tax of 15%, cut welfare almost completely and only give to the desolate.

Increases income inequality, and poverty.

Cut half of 'other government spending'
Probably kills jobs.

Eventually privatize social security.

Why do people still harp on this?

If the government did something similar to this all along, we would have a huge surplus and no deficit.

Or, if we just reduced defense spending a bit, withdrew troops from overseas locations, and went back to the Clinton-tax brackets, we could also produce a surplus and no deficit. It wasn't hard, and we didn't have to privatize entitlement programs to do it! :P
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 1:27:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 6:49:51 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/7/2013 2:38:10 AM, Double_R wrote:
How many times have we heard the flat tax idea thrown around in conservative circles? Every time someone proposes something like this conservatives everywhere cheer, then they actually look at the plan and what it would mean and they overwhelmingly reject it.

I am now fully conservative, I am libertarian. The flat tax worked great when I wrote it, I slashed welfare from 500 billion down to 50 billion, and privatized social security. These cut 1.65 trillion from the budget. I put 650 billion back in for education, research& development, and military. I put 1 trillion a year to deficit reduction. Balanced budget.

It's not the point whether it works great on paper, it's about whether it works in reality. That is what politicians actually have to deal with. I made the point that the idea gets rejected for a reason. It is easy to tout the positives of what your plan would accomplish while ignoring the consequences. Your ideas would dramatically increase wealth inequality and poverty, and unless implemented gradually over the course of a minimum of a decade, would probably take us into a depression which by the way will not help with the tax revenues projected needed to maintain a surplus.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 5:05:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 1:27:01 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/7/2013 6:49:51 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/7/2013 2:38:10 AM, Double_R wrote:
How many times have we heard the flat tax idea thrown around in conservative circles? Every time someone proposes something like this conservatives everywhere cheer, then they actually look at the plan and what it would mean and they overwhelmingly reject it.

I am now fully conservative, I am libertarian. The flat tax worked great when I wrote it, I slashed welfare from 500 billion down to 50 billion, and privatized social security. These cut 1.65 trillion from the budget. I put 650 billion back in for education, research& development, and military. I put 1 trillion a year to deficit reduction. Balanced budget.

It's not the point whether it works great on paper, it's about whether it works in reality. That is what politicians actually have to deal with. I made the point that the idea gets rejected for a reason. It is easy to tout the positives of what your plan would accomplish while ignoring the consequences. Your ideas would dramatically increase wealth inequality and poverty, and unless implemented gradually over the course of a minimum of a decade, would probably take us into a depression which by the way will not help with the tax revenues projected needed to maintain a surplus.

Wealth inequality is desirable if it occurs naturally; it helps put people in their places and it really shows where people belong. Those who deserve to gain wealth and work hard to get out of the lower socio-economic classes will do so with no welfare. Those who don't work hard will live in abject poverty. It's perfectly fair by being solely based on merit.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 5:15:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 5:05:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Wealth inequality is desirable if it occurs naturally; it helps put people in their places and it really shows where people belong. Those who deserve to gain wealth and work hard to get out of the lower socio-economic classes will do so with no welfare. Those who don't work hard will live in abject poverty. It's perfectly fair by being solely based on merit.

*head desk*
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 5:32:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 5:15:05 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/7/2013 5:05:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Wealth inequality is desirable if it occurs naturally; it helps put people in their places and it really shows where people belong. Those who deserve to gain wealth and work hard to get out of the lower socio-economic classes will do so with no welfare. Those who don't work hard will live in abject poverty. It's perfectly fair by being solely based on merit.

*head desk*

Problem?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 5:37:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 5:32:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/7/2013 5:15:05 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/7/2013 5:05:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Wealth inequality is desirable if it occurs naturally; it helps put people in their places and it really shows where people belong. Those who deserve to gain wealth and work hard to get out of the lower socio-economic classes will do so with no welfare. Those who don't work hard will live in abject poverty. It's perfectly fair by being solely based on merit.

*head desk*

Problem?

It'd be great if the US were actually a meritocracy. We aren't. I take it you're libertarian?
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 5:38:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 5:37:08 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/7/2013 5:32:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/7/2013 5:15:05 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/7/2013 5:05:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Wealth inequality is desirable if it occurs naturally; it helps put people in their places and it really shows where people belong. Those who deserve to gain wealth and work hard to get out of the lower socio-economic classes will do so with no welfare. Those who don't work hard will live in abject poverty. It's perfectly fair by being solely based on merit.

*head desk*

Problem?

It'd be great if the US were actually a meritocracy.

Never said it was. However, a meritocracy is the only fair system that can be instituted.

We aren't. I take it you're libertarian?

Anarcho-capitalist.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 5:46:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 5:37:08 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/7/2013 5:32:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/7/2013 5:15:05 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/7/2013 5:05:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Wealth inequality is desirable if it occurs naturally; it helps put people in their places and it really shows where people belong. Those who deserve to gain wealth and work hard to get out of the lower socio-economic classes will do so with no welfare. Those who don't work hard will live in abject poverty. It's perfectly fair by being solely based on merit.

*head desk*

Problem?

It'd be great if the US were actually a meritocracy. We aren't. I take it you're libertarian?

meritocracy is overrated. The rich might use their wealth to give their children a greater advantage in life then someone else. However, the alternative to compensate their property. When property rights are destroyed, the wealth of the country also goes down with it.

Is it really so wrong to use the money you earned to give the ones you love an advantage in life, because it will create an uneven playing field?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 6:20:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 1:01:10 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/6/2013 7:45:16 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
It isn't politically possible.

I can see why! :P

I want a flat tax of 15%, cut welfare almost completely and only give to the desolate.

Increases income inequality, and poverty.

Not if once we pay off the deficit we re-invest the money that we used to pay off the deficit in reasearch&development and education, then we solve the root of poverty, not a symptom.

Cut half of 'other government spending'
Probably kills jobs.

Other government spending could be a toilet carved from 14 carrot gold for all senators, we'll never be sure.

Eventually privatize social security.

Why do people still harp on this?

It would cut 1.5 trillion from our spending.

If the government did something similar to this all along, we would have a huge surplus and no deficit.

Or, if we just reduced defense spending a bit, withdrew troops from overseas locations, and went back to the Clinton-tax brackets, we could also produce a surplus and no deficit. It wasn't hard, and we didn't have to privatize entitlement programs to do it! :P

Look up the hegemonic stability theory, the US should be the hegemon do enforce world peace, read some Charles Kindleberger, even Kindleberger who was otherwise liberal (He supported Keynesian Economics) was the pioneer of the HST
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 6:23:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 1:27:01 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/7/2013 6:49:51 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/7/2013 2:38:10 AM, Double_R wrote:
How many times have we heard the flat tax idea thrown around in conservative circles? Every time someone proposes something like this conservatives everywhere cheer, then they actually look at the plan and what it would mean and they overwhelmingly reject it.

I am now fully conservative, I am libertarian. The flat tax worked great when I wrote it, I slashed welfare from 500 billion down to 50 billion, and privatized social security. These cut 1.65 trillion from the budget. I put 650 billion back in for education, research& development, and military. I put 1 trillion a year to deficit reduction. Balanced budget.

It's not the point whether it works great on paper, it's about whether it works in reality. That is what politicians actually have to deal with. I made the point that the idea gets rejected for a reason. It is easy to tout the positives of what your plan would accomplish while ignoring the consequences. Your ideas would dramatically increase wealth inequality and poverty

Not if once we paid off the deficit we re invested the deficit reduction money in to education and Research & Development, stop poverty at the roots.

, and unless implemented gradually over the course of a minimum of a decade,

Nope, I'd just take everyones money and throw them out on the streets the day the legislation gets passed, dirty poor people, you know how us republicans just want to seem the get burned in an incinerator.

would probably take us into a depression which by the way will not help with the tax revenues projected needed to maintain a surplus.

Yep, not giving out free money via welfare, and not forcing the government to give social security payouts, this would definitely throw us in to a depression. I would still spend the current money we have in the social security budget, once it's gone though, social security would be no more.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 6:24:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 5:05:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/7/2013 1:27:01 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/7/2013 6:49:51 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/7/2013 2:38:10 AM, Double_R wrote:
How many times have we heard the flat tax idea thrown around in conservative circles? Every time someone proposes something like this conservatives everywhere cheer, then they actually look at the plan and what it would mean and they overwhelmingly reject it.

I am now fully conservative, I am libertarian. The flat tax worked great when I wrote it, I slashed welfare from 500 billion down to 50 billion, and privatized social security. These cut 1.65 trillion from the budget. I put 650 billion back in for education, research& development, and military. I put 1 trillion a year to deficit reduction. Balanced budget.

It's not the point whether it works great on paper, it's about whether it works in reality. That is what politicians actually have to deal with. I made the point that the idea gets rejected for a reason. It is easy to tout the positives of what your plan would accomplish while ignoring the consequences. Your ideas would dramatically increase wealth inequality and poverty, and unless implemented gradually over the course of a minimum of a decade, would probably take us into a depression which by the way will not help with the tax revenues projected needed to maintain a surplus.

Wealth inequality is desirable if it occurs naturally; it helps put people in their places and it really shows where people belong. Those who deserve to gain wealth and work hard to get out of the lower socio-economic classes will do so with no welfare. Those who don't work hard will live in abject poverty. It's perfectly fair by being solely based on merit.

Can't tell if this is sarcastic or legit.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 7:16:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 1:01:10 PM, MichaelGonzales wrote:
At 3/6/2013 7:45:16 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
It isn't politically possible.

I can see why! :P

I want a flat tax of 15%, cut welfare almost completely and only give to the desolate.

Increases income inequality, and poverty.

Would it increase income inequality? Perhaps. But the effective tax rates would be equalized. The wealthy currently benefit from tax credits that are complicated and hard to understand.

Also the $430 billion spent each year on tax compliance is a big drag on productivity and the economy.

By providing tax relief, people can pay off their debts, and have more cash available for savings and investment.

Businesses can reinvest more, and expand into new markets. More capital investment means greater productivity and more production. Both mean more job creation and higher wages, as well as more affordable goods.

More investment in R&D, which increases innovation and the quality of our goods.

So, the economy would grow and thrive from tax cuts which promote job creation, innovation, and capital investment. You are strengthening the fundamentals of our market economy.

The market is like a flower. When allowed to grow, it blossoms and thrives.

Cut half of 'other government spending'
Probably kills jobs.

Gov't is almost always more inefficient than free enterprise. So, $100 million is more economically beneficial in the hands of the private sector.

That's why when Canada drastically cut their spending about a decade or two ago, the economy actually grew.

Eventually privatize social security.

Why do people still harp on this?

Because allowing workers to control their own retirement would allow people to retire richer, and would increase retirement security.

Also, this policy would infuse capital into the economy, allowing again, more capital investment, which fuels economic growth.

If the government did something similar to this all along, we would have a huge surplus and no deficit.

Or, if we just reduced defense spending a bit, withdrew troops from overseas locations, and went back to the Clinton-tax brackets, we could also produce a surplus and no deficit. It wasn't hard, and we didn't have to privatize entitlement programs to do it! :P

This would work. But we need a balanced approach -- the 15% flat tax would be awesome. We could also reduce defense spending. Increase education spending while partially privatizing entitlements. It wouldn't be my first choice, but we need to be realistic.

Tax hikes undermine the incentives to work hard, and reduce the cash flow to businesses and the wealthy, which then causes investment to drop and the economy to grow slower.
"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: 14,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 7:19:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Seems like you can never really balance the budget when the poverty line historically perpetually rises in all cases of even the most meager levels of prosperity like a fiber filled poo in the toilet.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 7:37:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 6:24:32 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/7/2013 5:05:49 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/7/2013 1:27:01 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/7/2013 6:49:51 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/7/2013 2:38:10 AM, Double_R wrote:
How many times have we heard the flat tax idea thrown around in conservative circles? Every time someone proposes something like this conservatives everywhere cheer, then they actually look at the plan and what it would mean and they overwhelmingly reject it.

I am now fully conservative, I am libertarian. The flat tax worked great when I wrote it, I slashed welfare from 500 billion down to 50 billion, and privatized social security. These cut 1.65 trillion from the budget. I put 650 billion back in for education, research& development, and military. I put 1 trillion a year to deficit reduction. Balanced budget.

It's not the point whether it works great on paper, it's about whether it works in reality. That is what politicians actually have to deal with. I made the point that the idea gets rejected for a reason. It is easy to tout the positives of what your plan would accomplish while ignoring the consequences. Your ideas would dramatically increase wealth inequality and poverty, and unless implemented gradually over the course of a minimum of a decade, would probably take us into a depression which by the way will not help with the tax revenues projected needed to maintain a surplus.

Wealth inequality is desirable if it occurs naturally; it helps put people in their places and it really shows where people belong. Those who deserve to gain wealth and work hard to get out of the lower socio-economic classes will do so with no welfare. Those who don't work hard will live in abject poverty. It's perfectly fair by being solely based on merit.

Can't tell if this is sarcastic or legit.

It wasn't worded too well but the general principle behind it is legit.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
MichaelGonzales
Posts: 211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 8:19:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 7:16:22 PM, Contra wrote:
Would it increase income inequality? Perhaps.
Yes, according to the Tax Policy Center, who has reviewed most every flat tax proposal from Newt Gingrich, the 9-9-9, and the Heritage Foundation. All research agrees, it shifts the tax burden from the rich to the poor. A reverse Robin Hood.

By providing tax relief, people can pay off their debts, and have more cash available for savings and investment.

Oh, I absolutely agree! I just disagree where this money is funneled.

So, the economy would grow and thrive from tax cuts which promote job creation, innovation, and capital investment. You are strengthening the fundamentals of our market economy.
I agree completely! Unfortunately, I disagree that that's what's needed right now. It's not a lack of capital investment which is harming our economy, but a lack of demand. That's why the cash incentives need to be from bottom-up. The poor and the middle class are what supports the economy, not the wealthy. When breaks are given to the wealthy, they typically play the stock market game instead of actual community investment.

Gov't is almost always more inefficient than free enterprise. So, $100 million is more economically beneficial in the hands of the private sector.

Only at some things. Government run healthcare is much better.

That's why when Canada drastically cut their spending about a decade or two ago, the economy actually grew.

Probably correlative.

This would work. But we need a balanced approach -- the 15% flat tax would be awesome. We could also reduce defense spending. Increase education spending while partially privatizing entitlements. It wouldn't be my first choice, but we need to be realistic.

The flat tax reduces government revenues. It's a bit difficult to achieve a surplus if we're taking in less revenue.

Tax hikes undermine the incentives to work hard, and reduce the cash flow to businesses and the wealthy, which then causes investment to drop and the economy to grow slower.

I disagree. The marginal tax rate used to be much higher in this country. Obviously it doesn't stop people from becoming rich, nor does it inspire them to become lazy. Because our taxes are a progressive, they're level of taxation vary based on the income they earn. The first X they earn is taxed at A%, then the next Y at B%, then the next Z at C%. Passing tax incentives on lower income brackets also reduces the taxes the wealthiest individuals pay, just on the first X amount they earn. The amount of taxation which becomes harmful is actually represented by what's called a Laffer Curve, and the number is typically around 70%.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 3:54:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 5:46:17 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Is it really so wrong to use the money you earned to give the ones you love an advantage in life, because it will create an uneven playing field?

Wrong? No, but the government does have an interest in restricting the effects of it. The whole idea behind capitalism is that people are most productive when they are responsible for themselves, and their success/lifestyle is determined by what they contribute to society. What I find amazing is that those who preach capitalism have no objection to this "uneven playing field" which tramples all over the concept of it.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 1:40:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 3:54:13 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/7/2013 5:46:17 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Is it really so wrong to use the money you earned to give the ones you love an advantage in life, because it will create an uneven playing field?

Wrong? No, but the government does have an interest in restricting the effects of it. The whole idea behind capitalism is that people are most productive when they are responsible for themselves, and their success/lifestyle is determined by what they contribute to society. What I find amazing is that those who preach capitalism have no objection to this "uneven playing field" which tramples all over the concept of it.

Capitalism is about providing everybody with an equal framework for success, not about providing an equal guarantee of success.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 3:28:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 1:40:39 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/8/2013 3:54:13 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/7/2013 5:46:17 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Is it really so wrong to use the money you earned to give the ones you love an advantage in life, because it will create an uneven playing field?

Wrong? No, but the government does have an interest in restricting the effects of it. The whole idea behind capitalism is that people are most productive when they are responsible for themselves, and their success/lifestyle is determined by what they contribute to society. What I find amazing is that those who preach capitalism have no objection to this "uneven playing field" which tramples all over the concept of it.

Capitalism is about providing everybody with an equal framework for success, not about providing an equal guarantee of success.

The only people talking about a guarantee of success are righties who get more out of straw manning their opposition then they do trying to understand it. The point made was about the rich using their money to give their loved ones an advantage in life. That by definition is not an equal framework for success. So you either support an equal framework for success (your definition of capitalism), or you support the rich giving their loved ones an advantage in life. Pick one.