Why raise taxes on the wealthy?

[Leningrad Union]

Sweden has high taxes, extensive social programs and a better economy than most.

And that is soon to collapse, for as more people get on these welfare programs, the worse for the nation, In 1970 the economy had just 10 or so percent on welfare, by now it's more to double.

I actually agree with that. If we didn't take in so much immigrants, we would be better off.

[Etats-Unis Francophones]

Let's say the United States.

Oh, no doubt about cutting military. Foreign Aid, Education department, homeland security, I could go on and on.

You want to cut education? You mean one of the most under-funded elements of the US government?

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't think I have heard anyone use those terms like you are. Usually, it is a term used in businesses, corporations or the government, in relation to budgeting. Basically, discretionary spending is part of the budget that a person can choose how to spend. An private individual's budget is entirely his discretion. Well, unless there is a requirement he buy health insurance, or something like that. However, a person with a small budget can choose to spend it however he wants, although common sense might dictate food and clothing. These things are described as necessities,

Yes, the things you, for want of a better way of phrasing it, can't live without. Food, your rent, something to wear, heat in cold weather.

Those are the things that aren't discretionary spending - the things you HAVE to pay for (in a rural economy, this probably also includes the cost of maintaining a vehicle, and probably a 'phone line).

When you get to the point that a tax is cutting into this non-discretionary spending, the tax is causing two separate-but-related problems - it is actually counter-productive in terms of taxes helping those in need, and it is damaging the economy by stopping people paying even for the services they need.

of course necessities can also be a luxury. Depending just on quality and/or quantity. Anyway, this is why certain foods and medicine have lower sales taxes.

A flat tax, is presumably referring to a flat percentage income tax. Under such a system, high income persons would still pay more than low income persons.

This is true - however, they would be paying proportionally far less, once you allow for how much of a person's budget is discretionary versus how much is non-discretionary.

15% of a million is more than 15% of a hundred. However, taking 15% of the poor's income is unnecessary, although I don't think punitive is the right word.

No, in this case it actually is. When you have a slob like Rush Limbaugh complaining that he is being 'punished' by high taxes (he's not - taxation is at a record low), what he means is it makes him sad.

But when taxes are too high on someone in a low or middle income, they have to choose between goods and services they actually NEED, or they have to choose which to prioritise for timely payment - which means they actually ARE being punished - they are having basic necessities WITHHELD, due to the tax rate.

There's a class-war in America, and it's being waged by corporations, politicians and professional whiners (like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity), against hard-working Americans.

[Leningrad Union]

And that is soon to collapse, for as more people get on these welfare programs, the worse for the nation, In 1970 the economy had just 10 or so percent on welfare, by now it's more to double.

I actually agree with that. If we didn't take in so much immigrants, we would be better off.

But let's start another thread to debate that, this really isn't the place.

[Panmerica]

Oh, no doubt about cutting military. Foreign Aid, Education department, homeland security, I could go on and on.

You want to cut education? You mean one of the most under-funded elements of the US government?

False, I want to take out education from the federal government, and give it to the state government.

[Etats-Unis Francophones]

And that is soon to collapse, for as more people get on these welfare programs, the worse for the nation, In 1970 the economy had just 10 or so percent on welfare, by now it's more to double.

I actually agree with that. If we didn't take in so much immigrants, we would be better off.

You mean that vital element of the workforce that keeps most of Western Europe from collapsing economically?

[Grave_n_idle]

Let's say the United States.

Oh, no doubt about cutting military. Foreign Aid, Education department, homeland security, I could go on and on.

Don't, The only one you've mentioned so far with any real fat to spare is the military, and cutting that is political suicide.

[Leningrad Union]

You want to cut education? You mean one of the most under-funded elements of the US government?

False, I want to take out education from the federal government, and give it to the state government.

That's a terrible idea. Especially in Illinois, where I live.

[Etats-Unis Francophones]

You want to cut education? You mean one of the most under-funded elements of the US government?

False, I want to take out education from the federal government, and give it to the state government.

You're handing over education to the same people that, in some cases, want to outlaw gays and teaching evolution?

[Grave_n_idle]

And that is soon to collapse, for as more people get on these welfare programs, the worse for the nation, In 1970 the economy had just 10 or so percent on welfare, by now it's more to double.

I actually agree with that. If we didn't take in so much immigrants, we would be better off.

Immigrants - even illegal ones - actually have a slight positive overall effect on the US economy.

That's the problem with repeating the extremist xenophobic talking-points of the far-right - reactionary racist politics are actually detrimental overall.

[ShadowDragons]

Regardless, I find it sad that we need to bring into the idea of more taxes to cover up for lost tax revenue. Cutting government programs would be a major way to cover up.

Government programs such as?

Restructure welfare so that there aren't welfare traps, such as a negative income tax to 8,000 a year that can only be spent on essentials. (i.e food, housing, health care) Also you have to do job training and interviews with employers. This gives incentives to make more money so that they can pay for wants instead of only needs. Also military spending is extremely high so cut that back a little and cut out waste. Pull out of the wars that just made more people hate us. Then for education make teachers, principles, and district leaders get paid based on how well their students were taught to incentivise them to teach better, also lower their benefits and cut a lot of pensions. Health care from state hospitals incentivise doctors and hospitals to do more and better work. Also repeal Obama care. I would also change social security so that taxes from companies are used to pay the workers social security making it more simple.

[Panmerica]

False, I want to take out education from the federal government, and give it to the state government.

You're handing over education to the same people that, in some cases, want to outlaw gays and teaching evolution?

Well, rather, when I said state government I meant the inclusion of local government, families and teachers themselves. Really, if the Department of Education worked, then I wouldn't be advocating it's disbandment, but it hasn't. It's given us disastrous legislation, destroyed billions of dollars, need I say more?

[Leningrad Union]

I actually agree with that. If we didn't take in so much immigrants, we would be better off.

You mean that vital element of the workforce that keeps most of Western Europe from collapsing economically?

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=283818

[Etats-Unis Francophones]

You're handing over education to the same people that, in some cases, want to outlaw gays and teaching evolution?

Well, rather, when I said state government I meant the inclusion of local government, families and teachers themselves. Really, if the Department of Education worked, then I wouldn't be advocating it's disbandment, but it hasn't. It's given us disastrous legislation, destroyed billions of dollars, need I say more?

The DoE can't legislate, and it hasn't destroyed billions of dollars. It's under-funded and limited in it's function by state legislation.

[Leningrad Union]

I actually agree with that. If we didn't take in so much immigrants, we would be better off.

Immigrants - even illegal ones - actually have a slight positive overall effect on the US economy.

That's the problem with repeating the extremist xenophobic talking-points of the far-right - reactionary racist politics are actually detrimental overall.

I was referring to Sweden, and let's avoid threadjack and discuss here: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=283818

[Panmerica]

Well, rather, when I said state government I meant the inclusion of local government, families and teachers themselves. Really, if the Department of Education worked, then I wouldn't be advocating it's disbandment, but it hasn't. It's given us disastrous legislation, destroyed billions of dollars, need I say more?

The DoE can't legislate, and it hasn't destroyed billions of dollars. It's under-funded and limited in it's function by state legislation.

It's "under funded" yet we spend more per student then anywhere in the world?

[ShadowDragons]

You're handing over education to the same people that, in some cases, want to outlaw gays and teaching evolution?

Well, rather, when I said state government I meant the inclusion of local government, families and teachers themselves. Really, if the Department of Education worked, then I wouldn't be advocating it's disbandment, but it hasn't. It's given us disastrous legislation, destroyed billions of dollars, need I say more?

I read some where it takes schools $1.50 to get a dollar of federal money. I agree we need to change it, but it could be useful and beneficial.

[Grave_n_idle]

Restructure welfare so that there aren't welfare traps, such as a negative income tax to 8,000 a year that can only be spent on essentials. (i.e food, housing, health care) Also you have to do job training and interviews with employers.

You have to do interviews? Why waste the time of employers? You're suggesting a paradigm where just applying for work isn't enough, which means that employers are going to have to interview people that aren't remotely suited for jobs, just so that everyone can meet their interview requirement.

Talk about counterproductive ideas.

This gives incentives to make more money so that they can pay for wants instead of only needs. Also military spending is extremely high so cut that back a little and cut out waste. Pull out of the wars that just made more people hate us.

Cutting military spending is one of the few areas of the American economy where you really could productively cut spending. The problem is that every time the discussion comes up, it's the troops and the vets that feel the cuts, not the stupidly wasteful projects.

Then for education make teachers, principles, and district leaders get paid based on how well their students were taught to incentivise them to teach better,

Actually, all that does is punish schools that are willing to take on tougher students, and lowers the per capita spending in urban schools.

Sorry, it's a terrible idea.

...also lower their benefits and cut a lot of pensions.

Why? It's one of the most important jobs that exists in the employment market - why do you want to disincentivise hiring qualified people?

Health care from state hospitals incentivise doctors and hospitals to do more and better work.

How? Have you SEEN the hours medical professionals already work?

Also repeal Obama care.

Why? And replace it with what?

Until we have a robust single-payer healthcare program (not a health-INSURANCE program, like Obamacare), there's no real advantage to removing Obamacare.

[Grave_n_idle]

Immigrants - even illegal ones - actually have a slight positive overall effect on the US economy.

That's the problem with repeating the extremist xenophobic talking-points of the far-right - reactionary racist politics are actually detrimental overall.

I was referring to Sweden, and let's avoid threadjack and discuss here: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=283818

The point still stands: "That's the problem with repeating the extremist xenophobic talking-points of the far-right - reactionary racist politics are actually detrimental overall."

[Grave_n_idle]

The DoE can't legislate, and it hasn't destroyed billions of dollars. It's under-funded and limited in it's function by state legislation.

It's "under funded" yet we spend more per student then anywhere in the world?

The two things aren't necessarily contradictory.

[Leningrad Union]

I was referring to Sweden, and let's avoid threadjack and discuss here: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=283818

The point still stands: "That's the problem with repeating the extremist xenophobic talking-points of the far-right - reactionary racist politics are actually detrimental overall."

Yeah but there's a difference between "It's a strain on our economy that many immigrants who refuse to work are on welfare" and "DEM NIGGURZ R STEELIN AR JOBZZZZZ!1!111!!1"

[Panmerica]

Why? And replace it with what?

Until we have a robust single-payer healthcare program (not a health-INSURANCE program, like Obamacare), there's no real advantage to removing Obamacare.

I believe if we can cut Obamacare out of the system, or the ACA, we should replace it with nothing, let insurers compete over state lines and let competition and the free market drive down prices.

[Grave_n_idle]

The point still stands: "That's the problem with repeating the extremist xenophobic talking-points of the far-right - reactionary racist politics are actually detrimental overall."

Yeah but there's a difference between "It's a strain on our economy that many immigrants who refuse to work are on welfare" and "DEM NIGGURZ R STEELIN AR JOBZZZZZ!1!111!!1"

Not really. If for no other reason than you have to dishonestly rephrase the statement, just to set-up your 'difference'.

i.e. 'immigrants' =/= 'immigrants who refuse to work are on welfare'.

[Grave_n_idle]

I believe if we can cut Obamacare out of the system, or the ACA, we should replace it with nothing, let insurers compete over state lines and let competition and the free market drive down prices.

In other words, you have no idea.

The problem in medical insurance is NOT that insurers can't compete over state lines. (It's also nothing to do with tort-reform).

All you're doing is regurgitating rightwing talking points.

[Mavorpen]

I believe if we can cut Obamacare out of the system, or the ACA, we should replace it with nothing, let insurers compete over state lines and let competition and the free market drive down prices.

How do you drive down prices in a market where your choice is to obtain a good, or probably die?