A real progressive tax that favours the poor.

[Laerod]

The militias were an important part of the American Revolution, sure, and without a solid local support base, the French and Spanish wouldn't have been able to do much to the British in North America. But their importance has been dramatically overstated and overplayed in history books, in dramatizations (theatre, film, etc.) and essentially in every other venue.

I'm curious as to how much you're differentiating between the Minutemen and the Continental Army when using the term "militia". It's been my understanding that the former were notoriously unreliable, but also precisely the troops Coldwater is holding in such large esteem as they wouldn't have been professional soldiers.

[Risottia]

Why should the government punish succesfull people with a high tax?

Because we are trying to create a dependency culture where work does not pay and wealthy people move abroad.

Yep, because according to some financial earnings are real work and professionals and wage workers don't work.

[AiliailiA]

The current progressive tax system in the Netherlands does not benefit the poor.
We have unemployment benefits which makes working for people with low education not worth it.

The current Dutch tax system is this.
33% for the lowest income.

Bullshit. It's 2% income tax up to €18,218

According to Wikipedia. It might be a bit out of date, but Wikipedia isn't that wrong.

Bullshit.

45% for the middle income.
52% for everything above 52000 euro.

My idea would work better for the economy :

10% until 10000 euro.
20% for middle incomes.
25% for high incomes.

To fund the difference i would raise taxes on cigarettes and other unhealthy stuff and i would replace the tax benefits or mortgages to the same subsidy for everyone.

NSG your opinion?

My opinion is that you should know what it is that you're trying to change ... before you try to change it.

I do agree that tax benefits on mortgages were a bad idea. I don't know the Dutch specifics, but it seems to be a problem throughout the developed world that these tax breaks intended to make housing more affordable for young people has actually had the opposite effect. They have benefitted older people who already owned a house and then bought another, and benefitted investors who rented out the house they bought with tax breaks.

This was a BIG mistake though. It can't just be rescinded: the tax benefit must be reduced graudally one year at a time. Mortgages are a very long term investment, and the sum total of mortgage debt in any developed country is far beyond the budget of government. Just in case you were thinking "government should compensate citizens for any negative effects of the policy change". No government can afford that in one year. Any reduction in mortgage tax break has to be done gradually, and any compensation for that has to be paid gradually over many years.

Governments meant well I think, when they gave tax breaks for mortgages. But it didn't work, and now it's a big mess which will take at least a decade to clean up.

[AiliailiA]

30% Lower incomes
20% Middle incomes
10% Higher incomes

Not tossing out random percentages, just to give everyone a general idea. That way, the rich wouldn't want to leave. Problem solved.

And punish the poor?

Not "punish" them. Make them want to leave.

The poor leave the country, the middle class grumble but hang in there, and millions of rich people immigrate bringing their money with them. Result: country gets much richer!

It's a bit sketchy I know. But you know what they say: no risk, no reward.

[Xsyne]

If you hate poor people it is.

You mean treat them like everyone else? Treating the poor like a "special" class that can't help themselves is idiotic.

You're right. The government should tax the allowance your mommy and daddy give you.

[Imperializt Russia]

To fund the difference i would raise taxes on cigarettes and other unhealthy stuff and i would replace the tax benefits or mortgages to the same subsidy for everyone.

Why? Smokers in the UK and some Commonwealth states already pay significantly more in tobacco taxes than they take out in healthcare costs.

Why tax so low? What the shit are you going to fund on such measly rates without greatly increasing taxes on purchases, activities and duties?

[Imperializt Russia]

And punish the poor?

Not "punish" them. Make them want to leave.

The poor leave the country, the middle class grumble but hang in there, and millions of rich people immigrate bringing their money with them. Result: country gets much richer!

It's a bit sketchy I know. But you know what they say: no risk, no reward.

Pretty sure the economy would just collapse without low-end workers. Unless middle and upper incomes now get paid for scrubbing the loo and serving people in bars and restaurants.

[Xsyne]

To fund the difference i would raise taxes on cigarettes and other unhealthy stuff and i would replace the tax benefits or mortgages to the same subsidy for everyone.

Why? Smokers in the UK and some Commonwealth states already pay significantly more in tobacco taxes than they take out in healthcare costs.

Why tax so low? What the shit are you going to fund on such measly rates without greatly increasing taxes on purchases, activities and duties?

Well, he's taking cues from Reagan and thinks the US can provide defense, so I'm gonna go with "nothing whatsoever".

[Imperializt Russia]

Why? Smokers in the UK and some Commonwealth states already pay significantly more in tobacco taxes than they take out in healthcare costs.

Why tax so low? What the shit are you going to fund on such measly rates without greatly increasing taxes on purchases, activities and duties?

Well, he's taking cues from Reagan and thinks the US can provide defense, so I'm gonna go with "nothing whatsoever".

The US does do that and has done so for decades. What's so contentious about that?

[New Chalcedon]

Well, he's taking cues from Reagan and thinks the US can provide defense, so I'm gonna go with "nothing whatsoever".

The US does do that and has done so for decades. What's so contentious about that?

(1) The assumption that the US will continue to do so.
(2) The abdication of the central responsibility of any sovereign State.

[Xsyne]

Well, he's taking cues from Reagan and thinks the US can provide defense, so I'm gonna go with "nothing whatsoever".

The US does do that and has done so for decades. What's so contentious about that?

I'm not saying it's contentious. I'm just noting it because Reagan at least funded defense.

[Imperializt Russia]

The US does do that and has done so for decades. What's so contentious about that?

(1) The assumption that the US will continue to do so.
(2) The abdication of the central responsibility of any sovereign State.

There's no alternative, short of the miraculous event that the EU forms a single federal state and militarises to the extent of the US, and similarly develops a shared nationalism on par with Americans, or equally miraculously, the US decides to say "fuck it" and no longer agrees to any of its formal or informal defence agreements in the Middle East, Europe, or Far East.

I'd repeat my Force Areas spiel, but no-one ever cares or reads it.

Long story short, because of the US' happy geographical accident of an existence, it is the best placed superpower on the globe. Thanks to this fortuitous position during WWII, it became one of the most industrialised, most advanced and most militarily capable states of the world and has stayed at the top ever since.
So, get used to it. It's not changing.

"Abdication of responsibility", what the fuck are you even talking about.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

The current progressive tax system in the Netherlands does not benefit the poor.
We have unemployment benefits which makes working for people with low education not worth it.

The current Dutch tax system is this.
33% for the lowest income.
45% for the middle income.
52% for everything above 52000 euro.

My idea would work better for the economy :

10% until 10000 euro.
20% for middle incomes.
25% for high incomes.

To fund the difference i would raise taxes on cigarettes and other unhealthy stuff and i would replace the tax benefits or mortgages to the same subsidy for everyone.

NSG your opinion?

Here's an idea: just 25% for high incomes. Or better yet, a non-deductible 10%. In most Western countries, the rich account for the overwhelming majority of income tax revenues.

[Western-Ukraine]

No progressive taxes, ever! It is only fair for the rich to keep what they have made with their hard work. A low flat tax rate is fair for all. A tax that everyone can afford to pay.

[The Serbian Empire]

If there's no loopholes, the rich will just leave as soon as the taxes get too high for their liking. The US has companies merging with Canadian corporations just so they can pay the lower Canadian corporate tax rates when compared to the US. I guess they failed to lobby for loopholes in the Ways and Means Committee.

...Most companies pay NO taxes in the US. I don't know how much lower you can get than 0. These merges have nothing to do with tax rates.

Tax flight is a myth, and it's never been demonstratively proven.

The list of companies on the S&P 500 who pay no taxes is quite a bit smaller than you'd think. Oddly, it's the likes of ATT, Verizon, and the parent company of MSNBC in General Electric who are tax dodgers. Burger King's recent merger named tax flight as a motive to absorb a Canadian company. I guess BK can't lobby like Verizon and GE can.

[Atlanticatia]

This OECD paper on high income tax policy and statistics about the wealthy's income growth is pretty interesting. There is definitely a case to increase taxes paid by top earners. The paper also suggests that high top tax rates are correlated with greater equality of pre-tax incomes, because I assume it encourages middle and lower class income growth, rather than growth at the top.

http://www.oecd.org/social/OECD2014-Foc ... ncomes.pdf

[Empire of Vlissingen]

The current progressive tax system in the Netherlands does not benefit the poor.
We have unemployment benefits which makes working for people with low education not worth it.

The current Dutch tax system is this.
33% for the lowest income.

Bullshit. It's 2% income tax up to €18,218

According to Wikipedia. It might be a bit out of date, but Wikipedia isn't that wrong.

Bullshit.

It's not on school where i have company economics we just did the income taxes and there is no 2% tax bracket.

[Laerod]

Bullshit. It's 2% income tax up to €18,218

According to Wikipedia. It might be a bit out of date, but Wikipedia isn't that wrong.

Bullshit.

It's not on school where i have company economics we just did the income taxes and there is no 2% tax bracket.

Here's an idea: How about you go to the site of the Dutch Ministry in charge of collecting taxes and find the real rates.

[European Socialist Republic]

It's not on school where i have company economics we just did the income taxes and there is no 2% tax bracket.

Here's an idea: How about you go to the site of the Dutch Ministry in charge of collecting taxes and find the real rates.

I think I get where the 2% comes from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_i ... Income_tax

The tax rate on the lowest bracket is about 2% BUT Social Security payments are added on top of that resulting in an effective tax rate of 33.5%.

[New Chalcedon]

(1) The assumption that the US will continue to do so.
(2) The abdication of the central responsibility of any sovereign State.

There's no alternative, short of the miraculous event that the EU forms a single federal state

Or at least gives the Common Foreign and Security Policy some teeth.

and militarises to the extent of the US,

Hardly. The global average military expenditure is 2.4% of GDP - one need not feed the ever-ravenous maw of the military industrial complex to the extent the USA does, in order to be defended. Remember that the vast US military expenditures are largely so vast because the USA seeks to maintain global hegemony, not merely defend itself or even itself plus select allies. Self-defense is a much cheaper prospect than global empire, wouldn't you think?

and similarly develops a shared nationalism on par with Americans,

Why? Is such a sentiment necessary for military operations?

or equally miraculously, the US decides to say "fuck it" and no longer agrees to any of its formal or informal defence agreements in the Middle East, Europe, or Far East.

Why must America abandon all three if it abandons one?

The simple reality is this: Continued growth in military spending, even as civilian spending (i.e., that part of spending that actually produces demonstrable, concrete benefits for the citizenry) gets its belt tightened, is not going to be politically-tenable forever. Sooner or later, America's going to face the simple reality that it cannot sustain 47% of global military expenditures with 25% (and shrinking) of global economic output. And that means that America is going to have to start facing choices in where it will pull back its influence - and Europe (which is wealthy, peaceful and quite able to defend itself should it choose to do so) is a logical place to pull back from. It doesn't have the immediate strategic importance of the Middle East, and it doesn't have an emerging Great Power testing the limits of American power there (Sorry, but Russia really doesn't count - come talk to me once it's reintegrated the former USSR into itself).

I'd repeat my Force Areas spiel, but no-one ever cares or reads it.

Stop playing the victim. If I don't see an argument, it can hardly sway me.

Long story short, because of the US' happy geographical accident of an existence, it is the best placed superpower on the globe.

Was.

Thanks to this fortuitous position during WWII, it became one of the most industrialised, most advanced and most militarily capable states of the world and has stayed at the top ever since.

So far.

So, get used to it. It's not changing.

Mhm. You keep telling yourself that, even as America's constant arrogance alienates even its most loyal allies, its economic position (relative to emerging powers) continues to decay, and its ever more corrupt political and economic structures create and reinforce a more and more inefficient military-industrial complex, dedicated to enriching a select, well-connected few profiteers, not seeing to the defence procurement needs of the nation.

The simple reality is this: The days that the world had one Great Power are rapidly drawing to a close, and the USA needs to accept and adapt to that. Will the USA remain a leading power? If it adapts to the changing situation, certainly. But it won't be long before America is unable to simple barge in and impose its will whenever and wherever it pleases, confident that no-one can effectively gainsay them.

"Abdication of responsibility", what the fuck are you even talking about.

What's the first responsibility attached to sovereignty? I'd suspect you were being cute here, but somehow your utter ignorance does not surprise me.

The first responsibility of any sovereign entity is defense of the territory it claims as its own. Historically, states that cannot, or will not, undertake that responsibility have been regarded as little more than pawns in the hands of mightier powers. While that may be changing to some extent in recent times, it is still commonly accepted that the first responsibility of any State is to make and necessary arrangements for its own defense.

Right now, the EU's arrangements amount to letting the USA do part of the lifting, but that won't work forever.

[New Chalcedon]

Here's an idea: How about you go to the site of the Dutch Ministry in charge of collecting taxes and find the real rates.

I think I get where the 2% comes from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_i ... Income_tax

The tax rate on the lowest bracket is about 2% BUT Social Security payments are added on top of that resulting in an effective tax rate of 33.5%.

It's not just Social Security payments, from what I can see. It's essentially the entire income-based tax - including pension contributions, social security contributions and healthcare levies.

[Utilitarian Garibaldi]

low taxes create miracles! look at Kansas.

[Atelia]

I think you my good sir needs to actually learn the basics of economics.

[Sanctissima]

The current progressive tax system in the Netherlands does not benefit the poor.
We have unemployment benefits which makes working for people with low education not worth it.

The current Dutch tax system is this.
33% for the lowest income.
45% for the middle income.
52% for everything above 52000 euro.

My idea would work better for the economy :

10% until 10000 euro.
20% for middle incomes.
25% for high incomes.

To fund the difference i would raise taxes on cigarettes and other unhealthy stuff and i would replace the tax benefits or mortgages to the same subsidy for everyone.

NSG your opinion?

I never realized how high the Netherlands' income taxes are. You must have top notch healthcare and social programs. Otherwise, how do the Dutch even survive?

[TurtleShroom]

If asking for a fair amount of taxes from those wealthiest (35-40% graduated on $250,000+) then yes, I am classist.

I understand the need for taxation and always pay my taxes. Reasonable taxation is a neccesity of the social contract and not bad at all.

Yet, taxation becomes theft when it is too high. You are not advocating fair taxation. Fair taxation has no loopholes, no exceptions, and no flucutations. You are advocating raw theft from the rich, who, might I add, are why the poor and middle class have jobs in the first place. Everyone deserves fair taxation, including the bourgeoise. All these luxuries you enjoy were created by men who became rich. The rich are the second best philantropists in the West, behind only the Church (and most every other religions that isn't Islam).

Rich people are still people and they do not deserve to have most of the wealth they spent their lives earning stolen from them just because leftists are envious of their success. I aspire to be wealthy one day, and you're darn right I'm going to give a chunk of it to charity. One million dollars? That's one hundred thousand to charity every time I get a check.

If you want fair and just taxation that favors the poor, you'd slash taxes for them and make everyone else pay a flat tax. The rich don't pay "their fair share" (as Socialists of all stripes so harp) because the tax code is written to favor them and screw the little guy. If you had a flat tax, you would see revenue increase because it closes loopholes. Isn't that what you want? A fair tax system without loopholes?

A flat tax for the rich and middle class and massive tax cuts for the poor are the best ways to build wealth, create jobs, and most importantly, let the poor invest their money to rise out of poverty. You are absolutely correct to say that the poor needl ess taxation to succeed, but if you punish the rich for being successful, you'll make the poor, poorer because yyou'll be killing jobs.