What It Comes Down To (Regarding Taxation)

[Justice and Mercy]

Regardless of the efforts we conservatives make to show the leftists how much they don't understand about economics, or how their insane taxes put a damper on future revenue, it comes down to one thing that we all NEED to understand: It's their money.

I was recenty asked what I believe should happen if we got on that God-Forbidden Other Side of the Laffer Curve. My answer was simple, it doesn't matter. The government should take only the money needs to fulfill it's dual obligations of Law and Order, and National Defense. Other than that, it's their money, not the government's to waste on social programs. If the people want to give money to the poor they can do it willingly, if not, oh well.

That Bastard Keynes said recessions were made worse by the tendency of the middle class to save, as opposed to the rich who invested and the poor who consumed. So? Does that make it proper for the government to take their savings and spend it for them? Keynes may say yes, but any rational person would disagree.

Ibn Khaldun attributed the fall of many kingdoms and empires to straying too far on the "high taxation" side of the Laffer Curve.

Thoughts on the Laffer Curve or the Keynes Solution? On the It's Their Money Principle? Anything? I'm here to guide.

[vizi]

I need a guide for my trek into the Andes. What is your daily rate?

[gojira]

It is interesting- from a psychological point of view- to see people still attracted to the "Two Party-Idea".
You ask where it comes down to? Hmm, I think it will be something like this:

Igor Panarin, claiming inside Russian intelligence from the FAGCI, Federal Agency of Government Communications and Information is predicting a civil collapse of the United States in 2010 - similar to the fall of the USSR.

If you do not trust a russian source (Mc Carthy was so bloody successful in your country), lets see what others say and whats going on right now.

If you wanna put some effort yourself, google for "gerald celente" and what he says.

Or just watch what your national states are doing right now:


Washington State Declares Sovereignty
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/bil...overeignty.pdf

Arizona Declares Sovereignty
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument....s/hcr2024p.htm

New Hampshire Declares Sovereignty
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legi...9/HCR0006.html

Oklahoma Declares Sovereignty
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussi...rticle=119309;

Missouri Declares Sovereignty
http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx...ills/HR212.HTM

And about New Hampshire I startet an entire thread here. Here´s an excerpt:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to: I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.
II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.
IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.
V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.
VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and
That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually."

[Justice and Mercy]

Of course no one has anything to say about anything meaningful, it's a damned political forum.

Why do I bother?

[Last Roman]

good question. why would anyone listen to your crazy rants?

[Markas]

good question. why would anyone listen to your crazy rants?

I'm going with 'Smug diatribe'.

[Justice and Mercy]

good question. why would anyone listen to your crazy rants?

You tell me, you've gotten this far in the thread.

Now how about you go back, read the OP thoroughly, try to understand it, and then promptly get on your knees and worship.

[Kiljan Arslan]

good question. why would anyone listen to your crazy rants?

So true!

And JAM I don't think you talk for all or even most conservatives.

[Beanbee]

Justice and Mercy, tax afford people things they could never afford on their own. The government should build a safety net with it. Wether its water piped to your door, food on your table, medical care where you need it, roads on your streets, heat in your house or a roof over your head. Any one of us could be struct by disaster tomorrow. I'm willing to give up 55% of my wealth (roughly in Sweden) to have this safety. A new TV wouldn't give me those things and if I get hurt I can pay it back later in my taxes. It would be insane to bet on yourself never getting hurt, always having plenty to eat and drink, always having a safe home and a good neighbourhood. I may not always have that luxury.

[Justice and Mercy]

Justice and Mercy, tax afford people things they could never afford on their own.

By destroying the economy?

The government should build a safety net with it.

If the people want a safety net they can build it willingly, if they don't what grounds does the government have to stand on?

Any one of us could be struct by disaster tomorrow.

Which is no one else's problem.

I'm willing to give up 55% of my wealth (roughly in Sweden) to have this safety.

Fine, you're willing. No need for the tax collection agencies or tax laws then, eh?

[gojira]

I know I derange the thread a bit when I say the following:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

There´s a mentality conflict here, between the europeans and the americans.
In europe, there´s common sense, that a society cares for it´s weakest. It is a self understanding here, that the community gives a good ammount of it´s paycheque to the state, so the state is able to establish:

1) education
2) medical treatment and accessibility for everyone
3) intact infrastructure (streets, electricity, gas, oil... )

Now ask yourself, how the US performs in these aspects. It is not, that europe´s countries are equal in any of the mentioned aspects (especially the new members that arent "EU standart" at all and hence shouldnt have entered to begin with), but this is the european concept.

We have a decrease in all aforementioned aspects, but we are still light years away from the circumstances in the US. Although, light years dont seem to be that much of a distance with regard to the crisis anymore.

Call it a mentality issue, but europeans would not consider the american system of raptor capitalism and the "everyone cares for himself" mentality as an achieveworthy circumstance. Just my 2 cents, no flame intended, just to point out where the difference is.

By the way:
Federalising banks and companies is socialism- check for yourself how deep you are in socialism already.

[Beanbee]

Even if it knocks off 10% of the economy your extra 10% would not effect you much. 90% of wealth is concentrated in the top 1% or so. Thats a mere 1% extra to your wage, what will 1% bring you that medicare, water, food and housing security won't?

You may not want safety now, when you have it. What would you say if you broke your neck tomorrow, those bills being paid for you would suddenly be a life saver. You would wish you had safety then.

It's everyone's problem because they are at risk too. The economy would do worse if we were all dropping like flies and unable to work, or do you think your country would function if everyone who got ill died?

Yes there is need. My 55% would offer far less safety is nobody else helped. Taxation is useless in small numbers. It's as usefull as having zero tax.

[Justice and Mercy]

Even if it knocks off 10% of the economy your extra 10% would not effect you much.

!

You don't think so?

90% of wealth is concentrated in the top 1% or so.

Actually, the top 1% controls about 38% of the wealth.

But let's assume you're right. In which case you have to take into account the losses the entire economy would experience from the rich losing their money.

That's less investment, less entrepeneurship, less business growth, etc.

What are they teaching you in your economics classes, seriously?

It's everyone's problem because they are at risk too.

If everyone decides that's true, they can build the social safety net themselves, if not, leave them alone. It's their money, not yours.

[Beanbee]

Yes but that investment shall be focused on increased capital, nothing to do with social necessities. If a water company goes broke, it closes. If the government goes broke, it keeps functioning.

It's not my money either. What if someone robbed them, what if their investments went south, what if their whole area suffered. A government can take a huge beating, a company or charity can take a far smaller one before it fails. Look at the banks, surely what you consider the pinicple of capitalism. Don't matter to them if their tax on their profit was 0%. They are all loosing heeps of money.

No ammount of money can save you if you lose it all. A government can. What if all this growth you expect from no tax is canceled by talented people having not enough money to start. Why would a bank give to a homeless man even if they were smart and had a good idea. You cannot control life around you, you cannot avoid falling on your arse by yourself. You want not to pay tax? Don't use anything that the government helps, even with tax cuts. Thats alot of things you can't use. Your car is useless, your power probably was partly government funded so use half of that and so on and so forth. You can't use the net as parts of the network were government funded. Just try it for a month and tell me how great your tax free existance was without all these things.

Thing people should never be forced to be helped. If your life turns for the worse accept no help and see how far you can get.

[Justice and Mercy]

Yes but that investment shall be focused on increased capital, nothing to do with social necessities.

With increased capital come increased access to social necessities.

Conditions sucked during the Gilded Age. Wanna see how much worse they were before the Gilded Age?

When the rich get richer, so does everyone else.

If a water company goes broke, it closes.

If a water company goes broke it's probably not charging enough, and will get sold to someone with a brain more capable than that of a monkey's (how the hell do you run a water company into the ground, seriously?).

If the government goes broke, it keeps functioning.

If a government goes broke it's probably because it's wasting money on social programs when it would be best to leave that money in the hands of investors, entrepeneurs, and consumers.

It's not my money either.

What's not your money? The money your government is taking from you by force?

Yeah, it's rightfully yours.

What if someone robbed them,

Like... the government?

what if their investments went south,

They were investing in the wrong thing. That's their problem, not yours, not mine.

what if their whole area suffered.

Not your problem, not mine. Why should we be forced to take care of them?

A government can take a huge beating, a company or charity can take a far smaller one before it fails.

And... if a company fails it deserves to, if the government is robbing money and wasting it on social programs to deserves to as well.

Look at the banks, surely what you consider the pinicple of capitalism.

Consider what a principle of capitalism?

Don't matter to them if their tax on their profit was 0%.

Of course it would matter.

They are all loosing heeps of money.

Yeah, that's what happens when socialists start sticking their fingers all over the place.

What if all this growth you expect from no tax is canceled by talented people having not enough money to start.

That's what a bank loan is for, that's what investors are for.

Why would a bank give to a homeless man even if they were smart and had a good idea.

Because they have no collateral.

Besides, he's homeless. You think he's gonna have any groundbreaking ideas?



But, as stated at the beginning of this thread, you know what it comes down to?

It's their ing money.

Do you think it's proper to take the hard-earned savings of middle-class people to jumpstart the economy in a recession?

[Beanbee]

I can't see any particular reasoning in your arguements except we'd all be living in paradise if there was no tax. There was no tax in the Gilded Age, they didn't do so well.
We all have an effect on eachother lives, as long as we are not all hermits from birth to death there should be a communal system to sort the big problems out, like a government. I just don't understand where this division between Government and the People is. We do vote for these people, they are our choices too. In the UK there is a no tax party, it recieves very very very little votes.

Socialists really didn't stick their fingers into the banks, they ran themselves onto the rocks chasing higher and higher profits. All of todays troubles are completely unrelated to tax. If the banks had more money they would have made even higher risk investments as they give huge returns.
I don't see any increased tax on the middle class anywhere. What are you talking about?

Is there any factual evidence for your claims at all?

[Justice and Mercy]

I can't see any particular reasoning in your arguements except we'd all be living in paradise if there was no tax.

Obviously it's your sight that's at fault, then.

There was no tax in the Gilded Age, they didn't do so well.

Really? No tax in the Gilded Age? Tell me, as the rich got richer exactly how much poorer did the poor get?

We all have an effect on eachother lives, as long as we are not all hermits from birth to death there should be a communal system to sort the big problems out, like a government.

The government should be there to protect us from invasion and protect us from harming each other.

Anything other than that can be left to private charity or business.

We do vote for these people, they are our choices too.

Which is precisely what makes an inquisitive mind wonder what the point of all these enforced taxes are.

If the majority of people are fine with helping the poor out, they'll do it. If not, where's your justification?

Socialists really didn't stick their fingers into the banks, they ran themselves onto the rocks chasing higher and higher profits.

Yes, they did. At least in America. Banks were pressured into giving loans that shouldn't have been given because the socialists wanted to poor to live in nice middle-class style houses.

All of todays troubles are completely unrelated to tax.

Plenty of todays troubles are completely related to tax. If the economy wasn't being sucked dry, we'd be in a much better position today.

If the banks had more money they would have made even higher risk investments as they give huge returns.

Yeah, "huge returns" worked out well, huh?

Didn't happen on such a destructive scale until the socialists started sticking their fingers everywhere.

I don't see any increased tax on the middle class anywhere.

Hello? I'm asking a question, not making a statement.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and It's their money, not yours. Realizing that is part of maturing, it'd serve you well.

[Viking Prince]

@J&M

You stated:

The government should take only the money needs to fulfill it's dual obligations of Law and Order, and National Defense.

This is not the 18th century and we are not an agricultural based economy today. We are urbanized. This means cash wages or starvation. The government of today is not that of Jefferson and the social safety net is needed if we are to remain an urbanized society. I am not defending the entire government budget, nor even the extent of the social programs. I am suggesting your 18th century defined purpose of goveernment may be too narrow for today.

[Justice and Mercy]

This is not the 18th century and we are not an agricultural based economy today.

Yeah, we're richer now.

This means cash wages or starvation.

Or... charity. If the people are so willing to force everyone to hand their money over, why can't they do it willingly?

If not, oh well, that's not anyone else's problem.

[Beanbee]

Your just insulting me, I'm not interested in discussing anything with you. I can see why you were shown such disrespect in the first few posts.