Jovitalk - Bon Jovi Fan Community
Page 69 of 89 « First 195965666768 69 7071727379 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Jovitalk - Bon Jovi Fan Community (https://drycounty.com/jovitalk/index.php)
-   NBJ - Everything Else (https://drycounty.com/jovitalk/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   2008 US Election (https://drycounty.com/jovitalk/showthread.php?t=45105)

DevilsSon 10-30-2008 07:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bon Jovi (Post 886796)
wealth is already redistributed across the world including the US. the only reason people are getting worried about this is because the GOP spin machine has made it sound like some sort of underhanded marxist ploy to take everyones money.
Well, it is marxist, even if western states do it. Esping-Andersen, the modern welfare state guru is heavily influenced by the works of Marx. It doesn't matter if other western states do it too, it's still unfair.

A flat tax is the only fair tax and what people don't see is that it increases national budgets dramatically...in EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY it was introduced. If it's tiny as Estonia or huuge as Russia, national budget was increased directly by the introduction of a flat tax (as a direct outcome, controlling for any sort of other factors which may have influenced that increase). The Bush administration fought hard to introduce it. I still admire them for that. In Germany, the Christian Democrats initially campaigned on that but because it was badly received by the press, Kirchhoff, the "to-be" Finance Minister was dismissed. It's just stupid really.With more money in the federal budget, the US could run more schooling/ welfare/ infrastructure programs and they wouldn't need to further push an out-dated progressive tax model. I think the Heritage Foundation was speculating that a flat tax of 22% would already increase the Federal Budget. Bust still people go for the marxist solution. It's sad.

Dawn 10-30-2008 07:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ponrauil (Post 886800)
Born in Kenya from an american mother. Case closed.


Ponrauil
I thought citzenship to those born abroad was legally decided by the father citzenship not the mother in those days.

Dawn

ponrauil 10-30-2008 07:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawn (Post 886803)
I thought citzenship to those born abroad was legally decided by the father citzenship not the mother in those days.

Dawn
http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.

Official bio says he was born in Hawaii anyway.

Ponrauil

Jim Bon Jovi 10-30-2008 08:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DevilsSon (Post 886802)
Well, it is marxist, even if western states do it. Esping-Andersen, the modern welfare state guru is heavily influenced by the works of Marx. It doesn't matter if other western states do it too, it's still unfair.

A flat tax is the only fair tax and what people don't see is that it increases national budgets dramatically...in EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY it was introduced. If it's tiny as Estonia or huuge as Russia, national budget was increased directly by the introduction of a flat tax (as a direct outcome, controlling for any sort of other factors which may have influenced that increase). The Bush administration fought hard to introduce it. I still admire them for that. In Germany, the Christian Democrats initially campaigned on that but because it was badly received by the press, Kirchhoff, the "to-be" Finance Minister was dismissed. It's just stupid really.With more money in the federal budget, the US could run more schooling/ welfare/ infrastructure programs and they wouldn't need to further push an out-dated progressive tax model. I think the Heritage Foundation was speculating that a flat tax of 22% would already increase the Federal Budget. Bust still people go for the marxist solution. It's sad.
the problem with a flat tax is that say you use a flat tax of 25% just for ease.


someone earning £10,000 is left with £7,500 to live on whereas someone with £1,000,000 is left with £750,000

from a personal moral point of view i think someone earning £10,000 being left with something like £9,000 whereas someone with £1,000,000 being left with £500,000 isn't THAT bad a situation to be imposed for either person.

the 1st system is biased against the poor, the 2nd is biased against the rich. this isn't an anti-rich sentiment but by the by they need alot less help financially speaking than the poor so it should be them who takes the brunt of it.

DevilsSon 10-30-2008 08:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bon Jovi (Post 886805)
the problem with a flat tax is that say you use a flat tax of 25% just for ease.

someone earning £10,000 is left with £7,500 to live on whereas someone with £1,000,000 is left with £750,000

What makes a flat tax system special is that there's very few exceptions. But there are exceptions. Additionally, a flat tax is usually around the same level (if not lower, see Lithuania) as what would have been the lowest tax level in a progressive system. There's no change for the very poor, really. And one more reason, flat tax increases state revenue which can again be reinvested to help the people who live on peanuts.

Quote:
from a personal moral point of view i think someone earning £10,000 being left with something like £9,000 whereas someone with £1,000,000 being left with £500,000 isn't THAT bad a situation to be imposed for either person.
i am not going to comment on this. If that's your moral perspective, than very well. If think it's extremely unfair.

Quote:
the 1st system is biased against the poor
Why??? The rich pay in absolute terms more than the poor as you have pointed out in your very own example. It's not biased at all. It's the only NEUTRAL tax.

Quote:
the 2nd is biased against the rich. this isn't an anti-rich sentiment but by the by they need alot less help financially speaking than the poor so it should be them who takes the brunt of it.
It is not biased against the rich per se. It is biased against the hard-working, the over-achievers, the people who make the word go around. Taking half their money reduces incentives, reduces productivity, lessens the number of start-ups, has tremendously negative effects on innovation...and and and. Progressive tax is playing Robin Hood. It may be noble, but it's theft in the end. A flat tax is fair, and leaving out the morals, what you don't see is that IT WORKS. The aim of taxation is to increase state revenue. A flat tax will do and ethical dilemmas are just tools to win elections.

ponrauil 10-30-2008 08:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DevilsSon
There's no change for the very poor, really. And one more reason, flat tax increases state revenue which can again be reinvested to help the people who live on peanuts.
If it's the same % for the poor in both cases, and the rich pay the same % of taxes as the poor with the flat tax system... how does flat tax increase state revenue?


Ponrauil

ponrauil 10-30-2008 08:45 PM
Hehehe:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalra...ss-joe-mc.html

“Joe’s with us today. Joe, where are you? Where is Joe?”

“Is Joe with us today? Joe, I thought you were here today.”

A huge moment of solitude :D


Ponrauil

Jim Bon Jovi 10-30-2008 08:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DevilsSon (Post 886810)
What makes a flat tax system special is that there's very few exceptions. But there are exceptions. Additionally, a flat tax is usually around the same level (if not lower, see Lithuania) as what would have been the lowest tax level in a progressive system. There's no change for the very poor, really. And one more reason, flat tax increases state revenue which can again be reinvested to help the people who live on peanuts.



i am not going to comment on this. If that's your moral perspective, than very well. If think it's extremely unfair.


Why??? The rich pay in absolute terms more than the poor as you have pointed out in your very own example. It's not biased at all. It's the only NEUTRAL tax.



It is not biased against the rich per se. It is biased against the hard-working, the over-achievers, the people who make the word go around. Taking half their money reduces incentives, reduces productivity, lessens the number of start-ups, has tremendously negative effects on innovation...and and and. Progressive tax is playing Robin Hood. It may be noble, but it's theft in the end. A flat tax is fair, and leaving out the morals, what you don't see is that IT WORKS. The aim of taxation is to increase state revenue. A flat tax will do and ethical dilemmas are just tools to win elections.


to be incredibly blunt and to the point (i'm about to head out) taking away 10, 20, 30 or whatever % of someone's income when they earn a pittance is much harder on them than taking away the same % from a rich person.

i'm pretty sure we can all agree it's much easier to get buy on £500,000 than £9,000.

DevilsSon 10-30-2008 08:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ponrauil (Post 886811)
If it's the same % for the poor in both cases, and the rich pay the same % of taxes as the poor with the flat tax system... how does flat tax increase state revenue?


Ponrauil
Several reasons:

1) Exemptions are heavily reduced
2) Tax fraud is minimized
3) The 12%-15% of total tax money is saved by down-sizing the tax processing apparatus of a state which is nothing but a huge money eating machine
4) Laffer curve

And here, some more arguments: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg1866.cfm

DevilsSon 10-30-2008 08:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Bon Jovi (Post 886815)
to be incredibly blunt and to the point (i'm about to head out) taking away 10, 20, 30 or whatever % of someone's income when they earn a pittance is much harder on them than taking away the same % from a rich person.

i'm pretty sure we can all agree it's much easier to get buy on £500,000 than £9,000.
that's an extremely simplistic approach. You are right, if we analyze one single individual who only lives to "get by". If you look at the whole macro-economic system, things are more complicated. Then we have to talk about growth, incentive, productivity. They all are affected by a progressive taxation system. they all affect the economy as a whole. And they will ultimately affect your individual who lives to get by more than introducing a slightly higher flat tax. Not to mention that you completely disregard the "tax returns" that person could get from an increased state budget.


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:17 AM.
Page 69 of 89 « First 195965666768 69 7071727379 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11.
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.