NationStates

I used to favor a flat tax, but try making ends meet on my pay with that. Yeah, right. The last thing you want to do is force me to go on food stamps. No thanks. Remember, Reagan didn't favor flat taxes, and he was no flaming liberal.

Braberbourg wrote:As a Dutchman from the lower classes, wouln't it be better if we tax 20-25% for the lower classes, 40-45% for the middle classes and go French and tax the rich with a (still generous) 75%?

At that rate the rich French people went to Belgium.

Faith Hope Charity wrote:

Alyakia wrote:
alright. we will create a tax, and apply it equally to everyone.





lol it's a progressive tax everyone gets taxed equally it just so happens not everyone makes enough for it to apply to them

Or you have a system that is so small it intrudes less on everyone, and everyone still has skin in the game, instead of certain people being in a favored status with negative tax rates.
You have less of the maker-taker problem.

Did you just imply that in your laissez faire capitalist uptopia there would be room for everyone to either be self employed or be an investor? because if so that is truly laughable. Capitalism requires a class of extremely poor people, and when you are poor your extremely lucky if you have money left at the end of the month to spend on a single luxury item you really want never mind play the stocks. Heck capitlaism requires a certain amount of unemployed people. how're they going to survive whilst not being "takers"?

Republic of Coldwater wrote:Militias aren't, but that doesn't mean they can't win wars or fight off an offensive. Indeed militias were integral in the revolutionary war and even today, poorly equipped militias in the Middle East can hold out against US Troops if they plan their tactics right.

Yes, but it was in response to this, implying that the military is unnecessary:

Herargon wrote:Please tell me how a military is unneccessary when someone really attacks us.

In any case, what you said makes sense.

Empire of Vlissingen wrote:

Braberbourg wrote:As a Dutchman from the lower classes, wouln't it be better if we tax 20-25% for the lower classes, 40-45% for the middle classes and go French and tax the rich with a (still generous) 75%?

At that rate the rich French people went to Belgium.

And London.

The Nihilistic view wrote:

Empire of Vlissingen wrote:At that rate the rich French people went to Belgium.

And London.

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.

The Serbian Empire wrote:

The Nihilistic view wrote:
And London.

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.

One question, would this mean you pay 10% on your first €10,000, etc. or would you pay the government 25% on all your earning if you're a high-earner?

Laerod wrote:

Empire of Vlissingen wrote:Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics .

As a short-run strategy to reduce inflation and lower nominal interest rates, the U.S. borrowed both domestically and abroad to cover the Federal budget deficits, raising the national debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion. This led to the U.S. moving from the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.

Reagan ultimately raised taxes more times than he cut them.

Supporters pointed to the drop in poverty by the end of his term to validate that the tax cuts did indeed trickle down to the poor; opponents noted that the rate quickly shot up even higher in the first year of his successor's term, implying that the full effect of Reagan's policies led to a net increase in poverty.

The nominal national debt rose from $900 billion to $2.8 trillion during Reagan's tenure, an average national budget deficit per year of $237.5 billion, as compared to an average national budget deficit per year of $56.9 billion during Carter's tenure. The federal deficit as percentage of GDP rose from 2.65% of GDP in 1980, Carter's final budget year, to 3.04% of GDP in 1988, Reagan's final budget year.

But surely the Confidence Fairy will sprinkle Prosperity Dust on us this time, if only we do the right thing by the rich just one more time! William Blum explains the absurdity of trickle-down economics better than I can:

32% for lower income
38% for middle income
44% upper income

Maybe?

Herargon wrote:32% for lower income
38% for middle income
44% upper income

Maybe?

Quite honestly, tossing out random percentages without research to back up why they're a good idea is rather pointless.

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.

British Prussia wrote: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?

Sebastianbourg wrote:

British Prussia wrote: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?

Other way: punish the rich? For becoming rich by hard work?

Herargon wrote:

Sebastianbourg wrote:And punish the poor?

Other way: punish the rich? For becoming rich by hard work?

If you have to "punish" anyone, do it to the people that can afford it. Kicking people when they're down is utterly scummy behavior.

Sebastianbourg wrote:

British Prussia wrote: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?

No not by "punishing" the poor, nor kicking them down. It's a system that makes sense. Don't want the rich to leave? Don't tax them. But the state would still need income, so tax what you can, the people who won't leave.

Herargon wrote:

Sebastianbourg wrote:And punish the poor?

Other way: punish the rich? For becoming rich by hard work?

Can we all stop with this punishment bullshit? We don't tax the rich at a higher rate to punish them, we do it because it makes economic sense to take more money off those who have it.

British Prussia wrote:

Sebastianbourg wrote:And punish the poor?

No not by "punishing" the poor, nor kicking them down. It's a system that makes sense. Don't want the rich to leave? Don't tax them. But the state would still need income, so tax what you can, the people who won't leave.

Taking from the poor to give to the rich is the very definition of kicking people when they're down. I'm noting that even middle incomes are not being kicked as hard as the poor in your abomination of a tax bracket design.

Laerod wrote:

British Prussia wrote:No not by "punishing" the poor, nor kicking them down. It's a system that makes sense. Don't want the rich to leave? Don't tax them. But the state would still need income, so tax what you can, the people who won't leave.

Taking from the poor to give to the rich is the very definition of kicking people when they're down. I'm noting that even middle incomes are not being kicked as hard as the poor in your abomination of a tax bracket design.

It's not being given to the rich, it's being given to the government. And yes, it makes sense to make the rich pay more because they can afford it, but they won't. Furthermore you'd attract more rich people to the country, which is always good. If you get them to spend ostentatiously on local products, it should even out via a acceptably low sales tax

British Prussia wrote:

Laerod wrote:Taking from the poor to give to the rich is the very definition of kicking people when they're down. I'm noting that even middle incomes are not being kicked as hard as the poor in your abomination of a tax bracket design.

It's not being given to the rich, it's being given to the government. And yes, it makes sense to make the rich pay more because they can afford it, but they won't. Furthermore you'd attract more rich people to the country, which is always good. If you get them to spend ostentatiously on local products, it should even out via a acceptably low sales tax

Wow. You really do preface each one of your posts with a lie.

British Prussia wrote:

Laerod wrote:Taking from the poor to give to the rich is the very definition of kicking people when they're down. I'm noting that even middle incomes are not being kicked as hard as the poor in your abomination of a tax bracket design.

It's not being given to the rich, it's being given to the government. And yes, it makes sense to make the rich pay more because they can afford it, but they won't. Furthermore you'd attract more rich people to the country, which is always good. If you get them to spend ostentatiously on local products, it should even out via a acceptably low sales tax

....You're using tax hikes on the poor to generate revenue to pay for tax cuts for the rich.

In what world, precisely, is that not "taking money from the poor to give them to the rich"?

New Chalcedon wrote:

Laerod wrote:

But surely the Confidence Fairy will sprinkle Prosperity Dust on us this time, if only we do the right thing by the rich just one more time! William Blum explains the absurdity of trickle-down economics better than I can:

If it doesn't work it's because taxes are still too high! And we need to remove more of that pesky regulation!

New Macureus wrote:I used to favor a flat tax, but try making ends meet on my pay with that. Yeah, right. The last thing you want to do is force me to go on food stamps. No thanks. Remember, Reagan didn't favor flat taxes, and he was no flaming liberal.

I'd also like to point out, since we're talking about last generation's not-liberals, that Milton Friedman favoured a negative income tax to provide a basic standard of living for the poor in place of the cumbrous welfare-state bureaucracy.

European Socialist Republic wrote:

New Chalcedon wrote:
But surely the Confidence Fairy will sprinkle Prosperity Dust on us this time, if only we do the right thing by the rich just one more time! William Blum explains the absurdity of trickle-down economics better than I can:

(Image)

If it doesn't work it's because taxes are still too high! And we need to remove more of that pesky regulation!

Ah. So give the rich still larger meals, in the hopes that more table scraps will finally start to fall near the poor?

New Chalcedon wrote:

European Socialist Republic wrote:If it doesn't work it's because taxes are still too high! And we need to remove more of that pesky regulation!

Ah. So give the rich still larger meals, in the hopes that more table scraps will finally start to fall near the poor?

Or that they'll explode in a shower of beef and money.

Republic of Coldwater wrote:

West Aurelia wrote:
How will militias be more effective than a well-trained, organized military?

Militias aren't, but that doesn't mean they can't win wars or fight off an offensive. Indeed militias were integral in the revolutionary war and even today, poorly equipped militias in the Middle East can hold out against US Troops if they plan their tactics right.

Actually, the militia barely held off the redcoats, as I understand it. George Washington, for instance, lost several battles to the disciplined, professional British Army, being obliged to withdraw first from New York, then from Pennsylvania (leaving the British to march into the capital of Philadelphia). It was only when France, Spain and the Dutch all declared war on Britain that things turned around. Why do I attribute a significant part of the success to these European powers with their regular armies?

The King of France supplied five million livres' worth of military supplies to the militias (the livre tournois, or "Tours Pound", being the primary French unit of currency, worth about $1,000 of today's US dollars - so $5 billion worth of aid in today's terms, including 90% of all gunpowder used by the colonial militias), sent a powerful French naval squadron to hamper British communications and movements (as well as sieging key British strongholds) and finally 12,000 regular French Army troops.

The King of Spain, prior to declaring open war with Britain, allowed his own American ports to be used to send French aid to the colonists, gave the struggling colonials direct access to the incredibly rich Havana trade (the first non-Spanish traders granted that privilege), sold the colonists much of the gunpowder the French didn't, would up sending 5,000 troops to help the colonials (which incidentally trashed virtually all British holdings in the southern colonies) and also dispatched a powerful naval force to attack British interests, grabbing the Bahamas in the process and denying the British forces their major southern resupply port. Total Spanish financial aid to the revolutionaries is hard to calculate, but when the attackers at Yorktown were running low on supplies, the Spanish Governor in Havana raised half a million silver pesos in just 24 hours to purchase supplies and meet the Continental Army's payroll to help them out.

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.