How do we fix the economy???

Zakharra wrote:Get a reasonable tax structure (hard to do since everyone has a different idea) and do -not- put the burden on the rich. They bear enough of it as it is, 10% is paying well over 50%, closer to 80% of all federal income tax.

And IIRC the richest ONE percent in USA owns about 80% of the total assets. And ~35% of the total (net) wealth.
Oh and:
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/20 ... the-riches

Yeah, can´t tax the rich, because they´re so, ehm, poor?
http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... -bottom-90

And actually, 2014 at least in USA, the richest 1% paid around 50% of federal taxes. 35% in 2011. Did you notice the economy collapsing between 2011 and 2014? No? Well that´s nice.

Richest 1% pays an average of 23.5% income tax.
2001 was their highest at 27.6%.
Wasn´t 2001 the last year that the US national budget had a surplus?
USAs median taxrate is around 15% by the way.

To be among the top 1% in USA, you need an income of about ~350000$ per year.
Median income in USA, ~23000$. Meaning that half people with an income has less than 23k$ income.

Tenshinai wrote:

Zakharra wrote:Get a reasonable tax structure (hard to do since everyone has a different idea) and do -not- put the burden on the rich. They bear enough of it as it is, 10% is paying well over 50%, closer to 80% of all federal income tax.

And IIRC the richest ONE percent in USA owns about 80% of the total assets. And ~35% of the total (net) wealth.
Oh and:
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/20 ... the-riches

Yeah, can´t tax the rich, because they´re so, ehm, poor?
http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... -bottom-90

And actually, 2014 at least in USA, the richest 1% paid around 50% of federal taxes. 35% in 2011. Did you notice the economy collapsing between 2011 and 2014? No? Well that´s nice.

Richest 1% pays an average of 23.5% income tax.
2001 was their highest at 27.6%.
Wasn´t 2001 the last year that the US national budget had a surplus?
USAs median taxrate is around 15% by the way.

To be among the top 1% in USA, you need an income of about ~350000$ per year.
Median income in USA, ~23000$. Meaning that half people with an income has less than 23k$ income.

As a percentage basis of the population and taxes paid, the wealthiest 1-10% pay far more of the income tax take than the entire rest of the country added in. not to mention that damned near 50% of the total US taxpaying/household population doesn't pay any income tax. They get a return for at least the money they paid in (refund) and often times get back more than that (tax credits), so they get paid by the government. So you have near half the adult population not paying any income tax, and people like you want to have the wealthiest people pay even more of the tax burden?

There's a point where it is taxation without representation. They get all (or most of the tax) and damned little representation if people like you have their way. Especially since people like you want them to pay a hell of a lot more of the tax burden because they -are- wealthy. How about this for incentive; only those who pay federal and state income taxes can vote (ie you forfeit any refund). You don't want to pay federal or state income tax and you want to get a return, you lose the right to vote. If you want to vote and have a say in how your tax money is spent, you pay for it so you have a stake in the process. No tax, no stake/voice. This keeps people who just want to shoot their mouths off and vote how to use other peoples money while paying damned next to nothing from having a say in the process.

As for the wealthiest being able to make money more easily, what's wrong with that? What's wrong with people making money legally? Why is it a concern for you some people earn more than you (sometimes a lot more?)

There are a few really wrong statements in that post. Let me explain.

There's a point where it is taxation without representation. They get all (or most of the tax) and damned little representation if people like you have their way

Simple question: How many votes does Donald Trump have? He, himself, only one. However, how many more votes can he buy by using his money, his influence?

In american politics, the rich (and the corporations) have an immense influence on voting patterns. Consider this: American voters do not actually vote to improve their own welfare. They vote to improve the welfare of the people they would like to be, and that directly benefits those who are already at the top.

It's not "taxation without representation". Not by a long shot.

How about this for incentive; only those who pay federal and state income taxes can vote (ie you forfeit any refund). You don't want to pay federal or state income tax and you want to get a return, you lose the right to vote. If you want to vote and have a say in how your tax money is spent, you pay for it so you have a stake in the process. No tax, no stake/voice. This keeps people who just want to shoot their mouths off and vote how to use other peoples money while paying damned next to nothing from having a say in the process.

I'll ask you the same things that I ask pokermind every time he posts his rant about the wrong people voting.
How can you guarantee that the people without voting rights, who are by definition not represented in Congress, will be treated fairly?
How can you guarantee that the system will continue to be open? That the people do not vote for policies that would result in the creation of a permanently disenfranchised slave class?
How do you define "government benefits"?

As for the wealthiest being able to make money more easily, what's wrong with that? What's wrong with people making money legally? Why is it a concern for you some people earn more than you (sometimes a lot more?)

Oh hi strawman.

There is nothing wrong with some people making more money than others.
There is something deeply wrong when the incomes of the richest class rises while everybody else's income sinks.

The E wrote:There are a few really wrong statements in that post. Let me explain.

There's a point where it is taxation without representation. They get all (or most of the tax) and damned little representation if people like you have their way

Simple question: How many votes does Donald Trump have? He, himself, only one. However, how many more votes can he buy by using his money, his influence?

In american politics, the rich (and the corporations) have an immense influence on voting patterns. Consider this: American voters do not actually vote to improve their own welfare. They vote to improve the welfare of the people they would like to be, and that directly benefits those who are already at the top.

It's not "taxation without representation". Not by a long shot.

It becomes that when the wealthiest 1-10% pay more in taxes than the entire rest of the country put together. The top 1% pays an incredible amount of the federal income tax compared to the rest of the country. And there are those (you among them I am assuming) who would gladly vote in more taxes that 1 or even 10% has to pay because (and this is the main reason I see) 'they can afford it'. Which is bullshit. ANY nation that taxes most of a person's wealth (earned or saved) doesn't deserve to survive. Taking even as much as 50% taxes (income, state, local and federal) I would say is far too much. If a state has to tax any of its citizens at that rate, it's spending far too much money.


As for the wealthy and corporations having a greater voice because they have more money, so to do unions have just as much of a voice, with bank accounts just as deep. If it's wrong to let wealthy citizens and corporations have a voice, it's just as wrong to let unions have a voice.

The E wrote:

How about this for incentive; only those who pay federal and state income taxes can vote (ie you forfeit any refund). You don't want to pay federal or state income tax and you want to get a return, you lose the right to vote. If you want to vote and have a say in how your tax money is spent, you pay for it so you have a stake in the process. No tax, no stake/voice. This keeps people who just want to shoot their mouths off and vote how to use other peoples money while paying damned next to nothing from having a say in the process.

I'll ask you the same things that I ask pokermind every time he posts his rant about the wrong people voting.
How can you guarantee that the people without voting rights, who are by definition not represented in Congress, will be treated fairly?
How can you guarantee that the system will continue to be open? That the people do not vote for policies that would result in the creation of a permanently disenfranchised slave class?
How do you define "government benefits"?

Assuming the potential voter is healthy, not truly disabled (not counting the fakers, but those who have real physical or mental disabilities), a legal citizen, and capable of working, they can vote, if they pay taxes and don't receive any financial benefits; such as a tax return, child care or anything else like that. Anyone that is healthy and fit and able to work that receives governmental benefits (and I would include jobless benefits in this), loses the privilege of voting. If you want to vote, you EARN it by paying into the system.

The only exceptions I would allow are retirees (people getting social security and/or disability benefits).

This gives everyone who votes a stake in the system and prevents politicians from pandering to those who don't earn the right/privilege of voting. Does this limit the voting population? Somewhat, but getting the ability to vote is easy. Pay taxes in full and don't take financial compensation from the government.

It would take work for it to be a slave class, and I'd hope that it would be damned hard to do so since the bar for voting is easy to reach.

The E wrote:

As for the wealthiest being able to make money more easily, what's wrong with that? What's wrong with people making money legally? Why is it a concern for you some people earn more than you (sometimes a lot more?)

Oh hi strawman.

There is nothing wrong with some people making more money than others.
There is something deeply wrong when the incomes of the richest class rises while everybody else's income sinks.

It's not a strawman since most people like you seem to be 'tax the rich because they have more to tax'. It comes across more as jealousy than anything else. More of a 'how DARE they have more money than I do!' Why do I say that? Because almost -all- of them earned it legally. You might not like how they did it or that they did it, but almost all of them earned their pay. That's not to say some aren't crooks, but the majority of them would be fairly honest and have earned their money within the boundaries of the law.

Zakharra wrote: Assuming the potential voter is healthy, not truly disabled (not counting the fakers, but those who have real physical or mental disabilities), a legal citizen, and capable of working, they can vote, if they pay taxes and don't receive any financial benefits; such as a tax return, child care or anything else like that. Anyone that is healthy and fit and able to work that receives governmental benefits (and I would include jobless benefits in this), loses the privilege of voting. If you want to vote, you EARN it by paying into the system.

So you're basically handing control over voting rights to the IRS. Which, as we all know, is a completely non-partisan organization that never makes mistakes and is completely incorruptible.

Do you not see the problems with this? Having low requirements for voting rights is a feature, not a bug; As soon as you introduce limitations that have to be checked regularly, you're going to introduce failure modes into the system.

Then there's the fundamental mistake you make in assuming that everyone capable of working is also able to find work.

The only exceptions I would allow are retirees (people getting social security and/or disability benefits).

Why? Oh, I know why you think this is a good idea, you're assuming that anyone on retirement has paid enough into the system to be considered to have a stake in it, but is that really the case? Given how much more of a relative weight these classes of voters will have, how are you going to make sure that they're not going to ruin the system by making self-serving voting choices?

This gives everyone who votes a stake in the system and prevents politicians from pandering to those who don't earn the right/privilege of voting. Does this limit the voting population? Somewhat, but getting the ability to vote is easy. Pay taxes in full and don't take financial compensation from the government.

And how do you determine what constitutes "financial compensation"?
With a scheme like yours, you're adding a ton of ways for politicians to limit the vote to people guaranteed to vote for them (You people already have that problem due to gerrymandering, do you really want it to get worse?).
You are not creating an incentive for politicians to make policies that increase the voter base, far from it. That's a problem you need to solve.

It would take work for it to be a slave class, and I'd hope that it would be damned hard to do so since the bar for voting is easy to reach.

Hoping is not enough. As I said above, there are perverse incentives buried inside your idea that will reward people who limit the vote to the people guaranteed to vote for them.

It's not a strawman since most people like you seem to be 'tax the rich because they have more to tax'. It comes across more as jealousy than anything else. More of a 'how DARE they have more money than I do!' Why do I say that? Because almost -all- of them earned it legally. You might not like how they did it or that they did it, but almost all of them earned their pay. That's not to say some aren't crooks, but the majority of them would be fairly honest and have earned their money within the boundaries of the law.

I have no problem at all with people making more money than I do. Hell, I'm currently living on a yearly income of around 7500€ (about 8200 USD). If I had a problem with people making more than me, I'd be going insane.
I do have a problem when my income stays constant while the incomes of the people who are already rich rises through the roof. I do have a problem when people who already make massive amounts of money complain about not being able to make even more money as fast as they would like.
I especially have a problem with americans like you, who seem thoroughly convinced that poverty is a failing of the individual and not a symptom of a systemic disease.

Zakharra wrote:
It becomes that when the wealthiest 1-10% pay more in taxes than the entire rest of the country put together. The top 1% pays an incredible amount of the federal income tax compared to the rest of the country.

And how much income do they have compared to the rest of the country put together? I'd rather see loopholes removed than increases to the rates, since that would give a more accurate view of how much of their income is actually going to taxes.

As for the wealthy and corporations having a greater voice because they have more money, so to do unions have just as much of a voice, with bank accounts just as deep. If it's wrong to let wealthy citizens and corporations have a voice, it's just as wrong to let unions have a voice.

Fair point. Both unions and corporations are made up of people who can already donate to campaigns, so allowing the organizations to as well is double-dipping.

Zakharra wrote:It becomes that when the wealthiest 1-10% pay more in taxes than the entire rest of the country put together.

And yet, for some strange reason, the already rich keeps absorbing a greater part of the national income and wealth.

Zakharra wrote:so to do unions have just as much of a voice, with bank accounts just as deep.

Eh, no. Just heeeell NO!!! US Union bank accounts all together doesn´t even match the richest 0.1% much less the richest 10%.

That claim is just nowhere near reality.

And of course, i expect you don´t even realise why unions actually need to keep big bank accounts... And no, it´s primary reason is definitely not to buy votes.

Zakharra wrote:If it's wrong to let wealthy citizens and corporations have a voice, it's just as wrong to let unions have a voice.

Unions represents LOTS of citizens. That´s kinda the point. But of course, 1 rich kid is obviously more important to you than a thousand not rich.

Zakharra wrote:How about this for incentive; only those who pay federal and state income taxes can vote (ie you forfeit any refund). You don't want to pay federal or state income tax and you want to get a return, you lose the right to vote. If you want to vote and have a say in how your tax money is spent, you pay for it so you have a stake in the process. No tax, no stake/voice.

Ah yes, keep asking for that, it´s always funny when people want something already proven to be utterly stupid and nonfunctional.

Soviet "communism" was a marvellous idea in comparison.

That´s the kind of idiocy that has a tendency to generate revolutions.

Zakharra wrote:This gives everyone who votes a stake in the system and prevents politicians from pandering to those who don't earn the right/privilege of voting. Does this limit the voting population? Somewhat, but getting the ability to vote is easy. Pay taxes in full and don't take financial compensation from the government.

It would take work for it to be a slave class, and I'd hope that it would be damned hard to do so since the bar for voting is easy to reach.

You really have no clue how fricking stupid that is do you... Pity this site has no "puke" emoticon, as that might begin to describe how disgusting your ideas are.

And you just don´t get it...

No understanding of people, no understanding of society.
Or maybe you´re just naive enough to think that reality is in some way "fair", and automatically rewards the "best people"?

Tenshinai wrote:
[cut]

You really have no clue how fricking stupid that is do you... Pity this site has no "puke" emoticon, as that might begin to describe how disgusting your ideas are.

[cut]

Here you go Tenshinai: a puking gnome.

Although large this one might be better: for your discussions.

Want to see more? http://www.deviantart.com/browse/all/?order=9&q=Puke+icon

Poker

pokermind wrote:
Here you go Tenshinai: a puking gnome.

Although large this one might be better: for your discussions.

Want to see more? http://www.deviantart.com/browse/all/?order=9&q=Puke+icon

Poker

I believe i´m partial to the "classic" and simple one:


A forum with over 200 smilies, that´s when it starts getting NEAT.

Tenshinai wrote:Cutting taxes equates to spending money you don´t have, except worse, because if a government spends money(directly from the printing press or from loans), then at least part of it gets back in the form of taxes, as well as increasing the size of the total economy, which at least to some degree can/will help an economy that is in trouble.

ARRRGH!! NO! Government can NOT increase the size of an economy; it can only increase the amount of money. If there is no increased value to back it up, all you get is inflation. The only way to increase the real size of an economy is by making things that are worth more than they cost; everything done by government costs more than it is worth. We have to expand the four primary economic functions: farming, mining, manufacturing and construction.

Cutting taxes (and government spending, which everybody seems to forget about) frees up money that can be used for productive purposes. If it is, the economy grows and the government ends up collecting more money on lower taxes. If not, the economy stagnates and everybody howls for Somebody To Fix It, NOW!
-------------------
If a business tries something that doesn't work, they either stop doing it or they will go broke. If the government tries something that doesn't work, they just keep shoveling our money into it forever.