/sci/ - Science & Math

Why worry about things that will never happen?

>>3376983
Then Faux News would blow it out of proportion and call Obama a Communist, Maoist, extreme left-wing liberal.

The rich would revolt by raising prices on everything, thereby shifting the burden to the lower and middle class, resulting in the end of the world and the return of Jesus (according to conservatives).

>>3377000
More proof that trickle down economics doesn't work
The whole system needs a reboot.

Only the first 250 000$ are taxed, everything after that is tax-free.

Think what would happen if this limit is removed.

>>3377010

The riches would take their money and go away of the country. Simple as that

What if the super-rich paid the same level of taxes as the middle class? is the better question.

>>3377010
Imagine if the democrats introduced a ground up (trickle up) economy. What a shitstorm there would be

>>3377017
See >>3377012

>>3377010

Trickle down has always been known bullshit.

>What if we gave people with extra money more money
>they'd spend it?
>OFCOURSE!!!

Gotta love that logic

>>3377027
>doesn't understand investment and luxury consumption
>thinks poor people don't save their money even more for college/healthcare

>>3377031
>thinks poor people don't save their money even more for college/healthcare

Wha--

>>3377020

It wouldn't work as well stupid jesus hating commie.

The fact is that the rich pay so much in taxes that if you were to remove even a slight amount of taxes from them, you would be leaving so much more in the economy. Rich people are known to invest, that's why they're rich. So if they had more money to invest they might invest it in a company that otherwise wouldn't get that money. That company would use that money to expand and hire more poor workers.

Now if you gave the money to poor people, you wouldn't be giving much back, they might have enough to buy some sneakers and a few gallons of gas with what you gave them, not much in the long run.

What if the super-rich had the money they worked for taken away? What if the super-rich were punished for their success?

Oh wait...

>>3377031
I'm confused on what you are arguing for

Trickle down works.

Our country is squeezing the life out of successful people which makes them flee to China.

Good job USA.

I feel like all we are doing is re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

>>3377043
>worked for
>"Look. All we have to do is flip a coin. if it's heads, we buy stock, if it's tails, we sell"
>method proves effective. Millionaires become billionaires.

Top 2% of the country holds the vast majority of the country's wealth. That is a population the size of Orange County in California. Even if you taxed them the same amount as the middle class it wouldn't amount to much. It's not to say I don't support the idea, because it's stupid not taxing the rich. But the amount of revenue the government would obtain from just taxing the rich would be pocket change in comparison to what the government spends. Even if you eliminated the three wars, medicare, medicaid, and social security (which will never happen) it would still amount to pocket change in the grand scheme of the country. For liberals to say the deficit is caused by a revenue (tax) problem is just as ridiculous as saying the wars haven't caused the natl. debt to increase. It is a spending problem. That is why the country is in debt. And most if it is caused by the huge cost of entitlement programs that didn't have any oversight.

>>3376983
There would be an armed rebellion somewhere. Maybe everywhere. There is a portion if the murrican population that is just waiting for an excuse to go bat shit crazy.

>>3377065
You mad they luckier than you?

The money they have is the money the spend on services that the less wealthy citizens provide. Without the rich person's money, no one else makes money

>>3377012

This is not correct. $250,000 is the top tax bracket meaning that for every dollar you make beyond that, it gets taxed at the top tax bracket rate. It isn't tax free.

I think we need more tax brackets. $250,000 is chump change to some people. We need a bracket(s) up to a million and beyond.

>>3377077

>American company
>All labor done in China, Korea, or Vietnam
>Product sold back to Americans at 120% of cost
>Money goes straight to American company
>American company (the rich) do not get taxed
>Cycle continues and Americans continue to get raped

Tell me how the American public benefits at all from this cycle

>>3377066

Liberals wanna increase taxes AND get out of the wars to solve this. Democrats are all moderates now though.

What if /sci/ got all its best thought provokers and best arguers and generally smart people together and we just discussed economics. Surely, someone somewhere would notice. Then, changes might start happening.
It's a statistical improbability, but not impossible.

Maybe as one suggestion, the "new economics" would combine meritocracy with present economics. Give to those with merit: the teachers, the learners, those who truly understand working hard, and people with ambition.

captcha: Advances leteasta

The bottom half of the country doesn't even pay federal tax.

The top taxpayers give a third of their income to the government.

>mfw you think the rich should bear the burden of additional taxes

>>3377077

also
>>3376991

>>3377102

>Liberals wanna increase taxes AND get out of the wars to solve this

Yes. Get out of the wars. That is precisely what we thought when we elected Obama. That is exactly what has happened.

Protip: there's no difference between liberal and conservative when you're a rich-as-fuck politician

Are you guys aware that the top federal income tax rate is currently 35%? In 1944, it was 94%. From there it slowly decreased to 70% in 1980. The world still turned. The economy ran fine. People were happy.

From now on, I'm imposing a rule on everyone. No complaining about the economy or anything money related until you recognize why we are so fucked up: We went to war and cut taxes for the wealthy. For the first time in history, we went to war and didn't raise taxes, we lowered them. Taxes are ludicrously low and we have the opposite of what we had when there we higher: the economy isn't running fine and people aren't happy, save for the wealthiest who are sitting back a laughing at us everyday folk.

A realistic upper tax rate would be around 50 maybe 60%.

>>3377151

Taxes are chump change to the trillions of dollars put into the military budget, and military spending is nothing compared to 1944 spending even with inflation. And military spending is dwarfed by social security and medicare. In 1944 we didn't have those entitlements either.

In 1980 the national debt was only 30% of GDP. Now it is nearly 100%. BUT LOL IT'S WORKING FINE AMIRITE?

Brb, cutting taxes and spending $20 billion on air conditioning.

>>3377151
Do you realize that we were in the middle of the worst war in the history of mankind in 1944? The entire fucking economy was on a war footing. Those tax rates were only ever meant as a temporary measure to prevent the Nazis from taking over the world.

If you want to quote historical rates, in 1913, the top income tax bracket was 7.0%, and the majority of Americans only paid 1.0%. That's the proper federal tax rate for a country not facing imminent foreign invasion,

The super rich do not get taxed because they create jobs, and those people get taxed. Also if America taxed the super rich more then they already are, a majority of the firms would probably move to London or Bangkok. Where the super rich aren't actually taxed at all.

>>3376983
Why should we raise taxes on the rich? They already pay a higher percentage of their income than the rest of Americans, while generally receiving fewer government benefits.

If anything, we need to move more towards a flat tax, where the hundreds of millions of people that soak up gov. benefits while paying little tax actually start to shoulder a fair portion of the tax burden.

Raising taxes for the rich now will pay for nothing more than Obama's health care plan. Raising taxes for every American might pay for a fraction of the military spending. Not even going to come close to the expenditures on entitlement programs.

>>3377193

Troll harder.

Is it just me, or does Social Security seem a lot like a Ponzi scheme?

>>3377221

3/10, I'm sure someone will bite

What needs to be done.

>Restructure Social Security
so that there is no longer a max cap pay in and your benefits are tailored to your life expectancy based off of your tax bracket / gender.
>Nationalize medical care and institute reforms
this plan will take years to even prepare but there is no other way around the lack of information problem with insurance.
>Work to reduce the cost of Colleges in the US
I don't mean Pell Grants bullshit that only inflates prices, work to cut actual tuition rates
>Increase taxes to clinton levels
This should be obvious
>Massively slash military spending
Get rid of bases around the world such as in Germany and Japan. Get out of Libya and give the proper supply to Iraq/Afganistan so the wars actually end.
>Get rid of the TSA
The rights infractions are just absurd and security is already fine with air marshals/ a sealed cockpit and a gun in the cockpit itself. Not to mention private security could step in and be much less invasive.
>End the Drug War in the US.
At least stop going after Marijuana, I'd like to legalize all drugs and regulate/tax them.

To everyone saying the rich need their money to create jobs for everyone

How are those latest job numbers looking under these record low taxes on the rich?

Like shit? Oh. how about that.

>>3377245

It is currently. The problem with it is that people are taking out more than they put in and that we don't have the population growth to replace it. If you get rid of the maximum payment and have everyone commit the same percentage wise and then tie your payments based off of your life expectancy of your income bracket then we can more accurately distribute the wealth of payouts. While average life expectancy has risen when you brake it down by various segments of society its clear to see that a poor working class black man lives far shorter than a top 1% white female.

>>3377247
You think I'm trolling? Read it, motherfucker. It's from MSNBC, so don't try to say it's a conservative propaganda piece.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36226444/ns/business-personal_finance/t/half-us-pays-no-federal-income-t
ax/

>a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax
> the top 10 percent of earners — households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 — paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government

How can you justify a system where middle class people pay no tax, while nearly three quarters of all taxes are collected from the top 10 percent of the country's citizens?

>>3377109
I'm with this guy. Rewarding merit and working together with smart people is a good idea.

>>3377251


My bank can track my credit card all around the world, every single time I swipe it, even if I was out in the middle of the Sahara.

The government gives out social security checks to dead people.

What makes you think giving the government more to do will make them any more efficient?

>>3377151

Are you in awe that we didn't even have income taxes until woodrow Wilson? I mean, how did the country survive without people paying income taxes? Why where individuals immigrating from around the world in record numbers in that time period?

>>3377292
Here's an idea for you: How about we stop trying to "reward" certain people with our tax policy?

No handouts for the poor, no special loopholes for the rich, no protectionist policies for major corporations. Just one uniform system that applies to everyone regardless of their class.

>>3377275

That actually doesn't have much to do with it right now, the actual tax levels don't really matter besides the fact that borrowing money isn't too good in the long run. The problem currently with job creation is that the way the funds of the stimulus packages isn't being distributed very well from the larger investment type banks to the smaller regional banks. The large banks have a ton of money and the small banks want to lend it out but aren't getting the money.

Another factor is that when you have a recession caused by an overuse of credit/ poor lending standards the banks often overcompensate in the other direction out of fear of losing money but the loss of transactions slows the economy even more.

There's also the fact that it's virtually impossible to recover any of the capital spent in the house as the prices were so high for the houses in the first place and they can't be reaquistioned into other forms of capital that are easier to use and they will eventually become worthless over time if not taken care of.

Aka you can't unbuild a house and if you don't take care of it then it falls into expensive disrepair.

>>3377301
the thing is, the profit margin of private company would far outcost the inefficiency of the government. The entire health system is a perfect example, its private companies, yet the costs are much higher then most countries that have government run healthcare.

>>3377328

not the point. the government is so inefficient it can't handle all of the information of 330 million americans. giving it more work to do isn't going to make it any more efficient.

>>3377301

We eventually reduce the spendings of the government yes but to do so at once would be catastrophic, go ask California how energy deregulation worked out.

You do know that because we keep spending more and more money it eventually results in an increase in interest? I think it's something like 8% of the entire budget goes to just paying interest, not even paying back the money that we owe. I don't know what's more wasteful than spending money on interests as a nation, at least wars give people something to do.

>>3377287
Three quarters (I'll assume your numbers are correct, doubtful) of taxes are collected from the top ten percent of Americans because they have the majority of the money. You have more money, you pay more in tax. Not a difficult concept. The problem with our current sysem is the trend in increasing the wealth gap. A large wealth gap is not a good thing. Regardless of what Sarah Palin tells you. I think the tax system should be set up so that it is increasingly more difficult to become more and more wealtheir. Similar to the law of diminishing returns - something that is observed in absolutely all of nature. Our system makes it too easy for the wealthy to become more wealthy. In fact our system encourages it. Capital gains tax is so low its a joke. Regardless of how you want to spin it, this is not a good thing. Eventually it is going to snap. We will have another depression. And we can't blame it on extenuating circumstances. Our economic system takes some of the blame. And before you call me a socialist or commie, I don't care if my system makes it a little harder for Tommy Richass to buy his third yacht. I'd rather try to ensure America's long term success with sensible policies than the extremely short sighted politcal policies we have today.

>>3377287
> he thinks that if you don't pay income tax you pay no taxes at all

>>3377320
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

It is not a level playing field, pretending it is isn't going to make it true.

>>3377287

You are full fucking retard. Raising taxes on people that are INCAPABLE OF PAYING TAXES because they spend all of their money on basic consumables will not result in anything positive. You're suggesting shifting the tax burden away from people capable of paying taxes to people that will be crushed by having to pay taxes. And rich people don't get government services because they don't need government services. Are you really that fucking stupid?

Fuck you and your regressive "flat" tax.

>>3377358
>You have more money, you pay more in tax.
Exactly why should that be the case? The fundamental nature of government services is such that everyone benefits from them equally. It's the very definition of injustice to charge different people different amounts for the exact same thing.

If you went to the supermarket, and the guy in front of you paid a $1 for a can of Coke, but the store, upon learning that you were rich, charged you $5 for the same can of Coke, would that seem just to you?

>>3377411

Consumables are taxed. People that aren't rich spend a much higher percentage of their income on consumables, and thus a significant portion of their income goes to taxes. Rich people spend a much lower percentage of their income on consumables, and thus spend less percentage of their income on these taxes. Higher income taxes for people that make more money make up for this fact.

What is so hard to understand about that? Are you intentionally being dense?

>>3377426

By they pay much higher property taxes. Why is that?

>>3377358

Having some people earn more isn't necessarily a bad thing but a large income gap disparity is.

>>3377374

Lol you just made my point.

Percentage wise the poorer sections of society are taxed much more heavily with consumption taxes, this should be trivially obvious, even more so if you consider that sin taxes, tobacco, alcohol, gambling etc etc affect the poorest segments of society the most.

Even just pragmatically if you have a smaller group of people with a larger amount of something then it's far easier to take money from those people.

You are also missing the point of why taxes are instituted in the first place. What is the government spending money on in the first place? Social programs that are for the poorest members of society because they can't afford a socially acceptable (for lack of a better phrase) level of service in some aspects of the market or Defense which the upper classes of society generally profit from the most as they are awarded more government contracts which reward those that had money even more so as they have the means to either be a part of a sure thing in business or invest in a sure thing. If you made the poor pay for a service which is granted to be more inefficient than the market alternatives why have it in the first place and the poor often sacrifice a lot in times of war, they are the foot soldiers among other things.

>>3377411

You are making a false equivalency in your supermarket analogy. It's more like the poor man is starving so they ask you to pay part of his share.

>>3377441
>>By they pay much higher property taxes. Why is that?

wait what
isn't it because... they have more property

>>mfw when all these posts are just a thinly veiled "TAXATION IS THEFT" assertion

Imagine an economic system that consists of 100 workers and one boss where only the boss made money. For all practical purposes, the workers are slaves. When it came time to pay taxes, the boss has all of the money, so he is the only one who could pay any taxes. Effectively, he would assume 100% of the tax burden. Republicans would argue that its not fair that that one person has to pay so much tax and blame the 100 workers for not contributing.

Do you see why this argument makes no sense?

50% of the wealth in this nation is controlled by 1% of the people. And Republicans blame the other 99% for not contributing as much. Of those 99%, 40% fall below the poverty line over a ten year span. Does it really make sense to yell at those people for not contributing? What do they have to contribute? Nothing is the answer. They have nothing...

>>3377042
>mfw total US tax rate is practically flat

>>3377451
>It's more like the poor man is starving so they ask you to pay part of his share
>ask
I love how socialists always use that word. "Ask." Like it's a friendly matter of charity.

Taxes aren't a request. You're not asking successful Americans to help out with their poorer neighbors; you're ordering them to do so under threat of arrest.

>>3377441

Poor people generally don't own land, they rent it from people that do. Landlords include the cost of property taxes in the rent. Non-landowners are paying the property taxes. So they don't own property and still pay property taxes. You were saying?

>>3377441

>By them paying much higher property taxes. Why is that?

I'm going to assume that they should be them.

Well when you consider that very rich landowners can often rent out their land/homes to other people it makes sense for the government to want a piece of that as they like to get a piece of all services. Not saying that that's a good reason to tax someone but if we are going to assume that taxes are okay then at least it's striking a fairness balance.

>>3377442

>Social programs that are for the poorest members of society because they can't afford a socially acceptable (for lack of a better phrase) level of service in some aspects of the market or Defense which the upper classes of society generally profit from the most as they are awarded more government contracts which reward those that had money even more so as they have the means to either be a part of a sure thing in business or invest in a sure thing

I'm not terribly interested in providing a fairly arbitrary line of social services. I'm interested mostly in providing the greatest opportunity possible for every citizen. when you attempt to reset the goalpost with government programs for "fairness" you often get untended consequences in the process. Why are minorities without any skills so chronically unemployed? Is it because the minimum wage laws that prevent businesses from hiring more more workers? I think it would be more beneficial to have 2 individuals making 5 dollars an hour, than having one make 10. when you want less of a given activity, you tax it. if you want more of a given activity, you subsidize it. What are we doing with our social programs? We're taking free money away from people who get jobs. What are we doing with considerations and small business owners? We're taxing them.

/sci/ is full of a whole lot of herpa derp tonight. Instead of flooding this thread with anecdotal evidence how about you fags post some cheese pizza instead. It would be much more persuasive. Get some graphs going or something. Wait that would take thought and research, never mind go back to your bullshit.

>>3377490

If you think graphs are worth two shits, you can get off /sci/ right now.

>>3377493
umad?

>>3377499

>>3377467
I don't think the poor should be taxed more, or even that the rich should necessarily be taxed less. I do, however, think that welfare entitlements have got to go.

Taxation is not theft when it's going to the defense of the nation, the upkeep of roads/infrastructure, etc. It becomes theft when it literally amounts to taking money out of one man's pocket and putting it in another's.

The poor are poor for a reason, just like the rich are rich for a reason. This isn't the 12th century. The rich aren't titled nobility and the poor aren't serfs banned from owning private property. Everyone who is rich now in this country either made that money for themselves or was given it by someone who did.

What if the U.S. government taxed everybody less and spent less on things like ideological wars (including the war on drugs), destructive subsidies, welfare and bureaucracy?

>>3377287
>no federal INCOME tax
>implying this is the same as no federal taxes
>implying payroll taxes don't amount to the same percentage of fed revenue as income taxes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

>>3377507

LOL, this is what conservatives actually believe.

>>3377522
>>implying 100% of payroll taxes are payed by workers

>>3377411
Please refer to:
>>3377467

>>3377411
Please refer to:
>>3377467

In order to run a government, you need x dollars per year. If your GDP is y, then you must tax y a certain percentage that ends up equaling x. Does this make sense? But it doesn't matter where the money is, it must be taxed that amount to pay for the government. You're arguing that since its in the rich people's hands, and they are privaleged, they shouldn't have to pay for some reason?

The money has to be taxed. It does not matter who is holding it. This is why Fox News propaganda works so well on you. You don't understand this.

The other option is to cut governent spending. But the problem is not social welfare, its the fucking trillion dollars a year we spend on war and also all of the bullshit accounting and cooked books like the missing 2.3 trillion that was announced on September 10, 2001. Taking away even more from the poor will not fix anything.

>>3377534
>I want the government to give me money. I don't want to pay taxes. Somebody else can pay the taxes to give me money. Waaaaahhhh!
Jesus, it's like I'm talking to an child.

>>3377507
hahahaohwow.jpg

Here's a fun fact I heard today:

The top 1% pay 35% of all federal taxes
The top 50% pay 95-97% of all federal taxes
<50% pay 3-5% of all federal taxes

Take that as you will

>>3377487

I was just giving an argument against a flat tax if we were to have some sort of a taxation/ government programs at all.

If we are throwing that out the window then what we need to do is to draw down spending although admitably with some sort of a time frame. There has been far too much government involvement in the market economy of the US for what most Ron Paul like libertarians would like to do which is cut almost all spending overnight.

That would be devastating to the economy to do right away as so much capital has been misdirected that it would be hard even for a perfectly free market to redistribute it in a timely manner. As well it has created an abundance of parasitic corporations that have be around for years afterwords even though had the market progressed freely since their inception they likely would not be there, at least not in that form.

Take for example the issue with California's deregulation of the energy industry. It resulted in massive price increases, something like 50 fold for most customers, purposeful blackouts and shortages.

I wouldn't say this is a market failure but because the energy economy was so centralized I think the problem in that respect is that the energy industry didn't develop as it should have under free market conditions. I believe that in the free market we would have progressed to a much more decentralized industry, such as having power being produced at your home in an environmentally friendly way such as with wind or solar. The market didn't fail, it was just showing how far from good the free market it was and it was trying to get back to a decentralized system. Unfortunately this incurs a huge cost towards the consumers which I think we should try to avoid by dragging the change out over time.

>>3377570
>I believe that in the free market we would have progressed to a much more decentralized industry, such as having power being produced at your home in an environmentally friendly way such as with wind or solar.

Confirmed for retard.

Also, go learn about the liquid salt thorium reactor.

>>3377579

Let's not resort to name-calling.

>>3377556
My grandfather was so poor in his 20's that he had to join the military to avoid becoming homeless. Fifty years later, my family now has assets in excess of ten million dollars.

Forgive me if I don't buy into your whole liberal fiction about intergenerational poverty and the "corporate elite" holding everyone down.

>>3377553

Actually I don't pay any taxes, and I do get government money. But it is because I spent 6 years in the military and I'm in college. I know that when I'm done with school I'll be paying my share of taxes, and I will probably end up in one of the top tax brackets given the lucrative positions held by those in my field. But you know what? I'm ok with that, because I know what it is like at the bottom of the ladder, and I don't think those people should be shit on just because you feel entitled to.

Also, nice strawman, faggot.

>>3377411
>If you went to the supermarket, and the guy in front of you paid a $1 for a can of Coke, but the store, upon learning that you were rich, charged you $5 for the same can of Coke, would that seem just to you?

>he can't into price discrimination

>>3377591

>>3377570

I agree. Specific businesses have benefited tremendously from government. And i think a quick liquidation of regulations would be fairly disastrous at least in the short run. But i think we can safely remove certain sectors of the economy from government control as time goes on. The post office for starters.

>>3377584
Look dude, stop speaking out of your ass about things you obviously don't know about. Solar and wind have never been economical, and it's doubtful they ever will be. Too expensive, too little raw materials, lacking a good energy storage medium for nights and not windy weather, and too much maintenance and upkeep costs.

Again, if we're serious about this, we'd be developing liquid salt thorium reactors.

>>3377600

I'm not even the guy you're talking too. I just don't like pointless name-calling.

>>3377591
>I don't think those people should be shit on just because you feel entitled to.
And I don't think I owe them anything just because they feel entitled to it.

>>3377000
>>3377010
>>3377013
i think you guys seriously misunderstand the concept.

>>3377588

Joining the military is a great way for one to lift themselves up. Too bad the military isn't hiring.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-army-waiting-list-record-levels-high-unemployment/story?id=1249505
4

>>3377606
I have much more distaste for someone pretending to be knowledgeable and spreading misinformation, thereby causing tangible harm to others and society.

>>3377600

I'm not even the guy you're talking to. I just don't like pointless name-calling.

>>3377599

Well yeah. I'm mainly concerned with the big things like energy, defense, medical care etc etc. I'm glad this is actually making sense to someone instead of going HURR DONT TAKE MY MONEY I DID WELL IN SCHOOL YOU DONT DESERVE IT.

>>3377614
It figures. The military is a victim of its own success. Back when its idea of "strategy" was just throwing wave after wave of infantry into the meat grinder, it was a great tool against urban poverty.

People bitched about high casualties in Vietnam, so now we fight with multi-million dollar smart bombs and don't need so many infantry. Now guess what? People bitch that the Army isn't hiring enough infantry...

>>3377604

There you go again, implying that taxation is akin to thievery. Clearly you are too fucking stupid to get it, so go back to Fox News and enjoy the feel of having your head firmly embedded in your asshole.

>>3377614

>too bad the military isn't hiring

Military doens't hire anybody. It's voluntary enlistment and they take anyone who can pass PT.

>>3377640

I didn't mean "hiring" literally you pedant aspie retard.

>>3377539
>implying employer paid employee costs aren't accounted as compensation

>>3377653

>says military hires
>claims he wasn't being literal
>calls people retarded

This must be your backpedaling bullshit trying to reestablish credibility. Not working, faggot.

>>3377637
Now you're the one rolling out a straw-man argument. I am not against taxation in general. I'm not an anarchist; taxation is a necessary part of any government.

What I'm against is re-distributive taxation. There's a difference.

>>3377677

Backpedaling by saying someone else is backpedaling. It's too late, your aspie is showing. I mean that literally. You are literally retarded.

The fact is that the American way is to constantly be in debt. People buy shit they don't all the time, like fancy consumer electronics, "luxury" cars/furniture, homes larger than what they need, and a whole mess of shit that serves no purpose. There'd be a lot fewer poor people out there if they just saved their money.

>>3377411

Nope, that's why they should tax everyone the same. Fuck that $250k limit; charge the rich right up to every cent they have.

>>3377684

Yeah fuck poor people. If they weren't so stupid they wouldn't be poor. Because we live in a merit based society where anyone can get ahead!

>mfw you really believe that

>>3377698

I had a-lot less sympathy for minimum wage earners when i make minimum wage. Most of my coworkers would waste their money on fast-food and cheap luxuries. While i scrimped and saved to get myself through trade-school. Funny thing was they ALWAYS complained about money.

Taxes are Theft
Property is Theft
(deal with it)

>>3377710

If they weren't so poor, they wouldn't be stupid!

>>3377690

>still trying to cover ass
>can't reestablish credibility
>people stop caring

ITT: People that were born into money thinking they deserve money because their parents earned it. Because having a stable upbringing without financial hardships and getting your college/car/food paid for by mommy and daddy is equivalent to growing up in the ghetto where you couldn't even afford gas money to get to a college even if it was completely free and you actually owned a car. Clearly poor people are just lazy, so fuck them in their lazy asses.

>>3377724

Still posting, still caring. One more step backwards, keep it going.

>>3377733

cool ad hominem bro

This is why black people can't get ahead, they buy guns for monkeys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_EhpnaNh4

>>3377740

>implying it isn't true

>>3377750

And we where having a semi-decent conversation too.

>>3377755

It's irrelevant. you're trying to make an emotional argument.

>>3377579

You realize that you are off topic right? I was just giving an example for why deregulation without understanding what you are really doing is catastrophic.

I'll argue your point though. As far as how our economy would have progressed under free market conditions, I'm talking totally and utterly free a sort of anarchy, that would have been how it would have progressed at least in the beginning as for the free market to work you need to establish property rights, especially that you own your own body. This automatically throws out the development of gas, coal and oil as all of these things do pollute in some shape or form. In fact if you look into history you will see that goverment saw that the development of these companies was necessary so they just keep increasing regulations over time.

In the case of solar/wind (and probably geothermal and anything else I've forgotten about) vs coal/oil/gas the only reason why the latter has beaten the former is because of the $20,000,000,000 dollar subsidy the government gives the energy the vast majority, something like 80% goes to the latter. If we got rid of the the entire subsidy the former would win so far as I know. Also consider the amount of R&D money that has gone into efficiency of these two competing forces over time.

You can clearly see how this can actually work through countless examples on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvRxWu0tGzg&feature=related

As far as nuclear reactors which are fairly safe, unless you build them on a fault line or things like that and thorium reactors which I'll admit I'm not that familiar with but they sound like they are more efficient with hardly any waste I could see the free market using that as well. But I hope that you would agree with me that this would be much more preferable in areas that are dense population wise.

>>3377765
>In the case of solar/wind (and probably geothermal and anything else I've forgotten about) vs coal/oil/gas the only reason why the latter has beaten the former is because of the $20,000,000,000 dollar subsidy the government gives the energy the vast majority, something like 80% goes to the latter. If we got rid of the the entire subsidy the former would win so far as I know. Also consider the amount of R&D money that has gone into efficiency of these two competing forces over time.

The ignorance and delusion is strong with this one.

> As far as nuclear reactors which are fairly safe, unless you build them on a fault line or things like that and thorium reactors which I'll admit I'm not that familiar with but they sound like they are more efficient with hardly any waste I could see the free market using that as well. But I hope that you would agree with me that this would be much more preferable in areas that are dense population wise.

What would be more preferable in dense population areas? Liquid salt thorium reactors I presume.

Why not put a 100% tax on all income that would push one past a certain level of wealth. I.e. billionaires have ALL income taxed until they are no longer billionaires. At which point they are taxed to a degree which prevents them from becoming such.

>>3377777

>>3377777
I'd be happy with a rather large inheritance tax for anything over, say, 10 mill, along with the proper gift laws to prevent someone from avoiding the inheritance tax laws.

>>3377777

How about we tax 100% of your income first?

>>3377777
What a waste of quints.

>>3377786
There already is a large inheritance tax.

People just turn to trust funds.

>>3377786

>removing a major incentive people have to do well.

no thanks

>>3377777
Then no one would have the incentive to make money if they can't keep it, or they would devise ways to get around it, as they do in Europe. Bam, you just caused the death of business in general. Enjoy sending us back to the 1700s.

>>3377790
Well then, as I said:
>along with the proper gift laws to prevent someone from avoiding the inheritance tax laws.

>>3377794
I really don't think people work hard in order to give a shitton of money to their kids. I think people work that hard for a shitton of money for themselves.

>>3377798
Unfortunately, trust funds are used for many purposes, not just inheritance. It would be literally impossible, or require a massive bureaucracy to do it properly, and even then there would be much evasion.

>>3377801

We're a family society for the most part. People work hard for them and theirs.

>>3377776

I'll get back to your first point in a minute. Although It's rather ridiculous for you to ask me to cite sources when you clearly never did, seriously stop with the name calling, we are trying to have a conversation here.

For the second point I ran out of room.

In population dense areas Liquid salt thorium>nuclear(if it's not like on a major fault line cough cough Japan cough)>alternative energies.

But if you are in the middle of fucking no where then providing your own energy would be much cheaper and make more sense.

i think the problem is government restrictions INSTEAD of incentiveizing everything.

if there's one thing businesses love, it's getting an edge on their competitors for incentives. why do you think so many big engineering companies are switching to rather shitty green tech? specifically turbines? subsidies!

subsidies work great for the major things, like exporting and importing. some manner of incentive to higher or invest in-country would be FANTASTIC

but dumb shit Keynesian cannot fathom corporations actually making decisions for themselves

>>3377733
You're not getting the point. I don't care if a person is uneducated and jobless because of the conditions of their upbringing. The fact is that regardless of how they got to this point, they exist in a state of wretchedness so profound that they offer nothing to society. Do you honestly think a few welfare checks will take a beggar off the street with no qualifications and make him a successful scientist/lawyer/businessman/etc?

I'm not saying 'fuck poor people because they're lazy," as you seem to suggest. I'm saying fuck worthless people. The fact that there is a substantial correlation between these categories is beside the point.

>>3377817
>>3377817

>Not seeing that those are two sides of the same coin

Government subsidies are as much as a capital distraction as restrictions. We fund a lot military spending but I highly doubt anyone on this board would suggest that we start yet another war.

>>3377820
So what do you propose? Directly killing people who don't contribute to society? It's either that, or having many homeless on the streets. And, as you know, destitution creates crime.

>>3377815
Protip: Liquid salt thorium reactors /are/ nuclear.

As for the first part, I've ran the numbers once or twice. For a comparatively expensive quality of photovoltaic solar we have now, it would require covering roughly half the state of Texas to power the US. Sorry - that's just not practical. Those calculations were also at good sun. During the night you're hosed.

Wind is even worse. More expensive for even less bang, and even worse with regards to reliability.

Solar and wind becoming dominant players in the energy market is a pipedream.

>>3377828

>So what do you propose? Directly killing people who don't contribute to society

We just don't subsidize it. It's that simple.

>>3377804
I don't think it's that hard to track the moneys of people who have more than 10 mil, or say 100 mil. There aren't that many of them.

MY NUCLEAR SENSES ARE TINGLING
WHO NEEDS A KICK IN THE BALLS WITH FACTS

>>3377839

see

>>3377756

>>3377837
Read the second part of my post.

>>3377843

I'm ok with that

>>3377838
There are 6.2 million millionaires in the US currently. Trust me when I say that, for the government, that is a huge amount of people to keep a tab on, much less sorting through what is inheritance or gifts and what isn't between those 6.2 million.

>>3377831
>Solar and wind becoming dominant players in the energy market is a pipedream.

wind is garbage
solar actually has potential, as manufacturing becomes more exact to reduce imperfections, and smaller scale to increase surface area. This is why i'm giddy as a school girl over organic assembly, specifically virus scaffolding designs. i mean holy shit the potential efficiency is ENORMOUS, and you grow the damn things in a vat. fuck manufacturing costs

>>3377828
>Directly killing people who don't contribute to society?
No. Absolutely no. From my standpoint, that kind of Nazi-esque system would be at least as bad as a welfare state.

I'm saying just let the situation solve itself. Take no action relative to these people one way or the other; neither helping them nor penalizing them. Yeah, there will be homeless, and there will be crime, but civilization managed just fine for all of recorded history up until the 1930's doing it that way. In all likelihood, those at the very bottom of the heap will die for want of food and shelter from the elements, as they always did in the past.

>>3377848
You're perfectly fine with higher crime rates, with more people being murdered daily?

The Constitution itself outlines that the one of the government's jobs is to uphold the common good. Higher crime rates and more criminals on the streets is not the common good.

>>3377287
Yes, they are paying the majority of the taxes. This has been the case for a long while. You have more income, you pay more taxes. The taxes used to be over 50% for the rich, but after certain laws were passed these standards were revoked. Back then they paid roughly 70% of GDP. Note the smaller increase in %GDP paid despite the increase in taxes. The rich now don't spend money in the economy because companies/corporations have a point at which it is not economically sound to expand (and thus create more jobs). Then they just sit on their fat stack of money and do little or nothing.

Corporations have a cap on how much they can be fined for illegal activities, have the rights of people, cannot be effectively addressed with legal action, and cannot go to jail (as a whole). The majority of their income comes from dividends, which are taxed on a smaller rate than pure income.

>>3377858

>You're perfectly fine with higher crime rates, with more people being murdered daily?

Substantiate that please.

>>3377827
you'd be surprised how much more businesses are willing to bend towards an incentive instead of flexing in the presence of regulations. most of the time they'll just say "fuck it" and go over seas

>>3377863
I already did, in this post: >>3377828

>>3377866

substantiate that cutting social programs would increase poverty in the long run.

>>3377849
I said those with 10 or 100+ mil. I'm willing to get only the richest of the rich. I think is this quite doable if we start raising the bar to thereabouts, or maybe 1 bil.

>>3377831

http://unbridledspeculation.com/2011/03/17/the-exponential-gains-in-solar-power-per-dollar/

I know it's from a blog read the "My post on the Moore’s Law-like exponential gains in solar power per dollar went up at Scientific American yesterday. Reprinting here with permission" part. Where I actually got the solar>coal idea from was watching an episode of Bill Maher's Realtime where someone who works for the government or some policy agency said it, but I can't remember which episode and this conversation is far too fast to look through them. It was from this year if anyone actually remembers that.

I'd also love it if you actually got the fucking point that I was trying to make originally, instead of going off on this tangent. I clarified that several times but you still didn't get that. You also aren't considering other costs associated with what a free market system would give you which is that if you were to go with a centralized system that would require a reactor then you would have to build a means to distribute it to your costumers as previously if there is no centralized system then there is no power grid just people producing their own energy, not just calculate the price per watt hour.

As far as nuclear vs thorium, you know what I mean. Nuclear as in conventional nuclear.

That's it I'm done arguing about this, continue if you want to.

>>3377869
It ties in with the entire basis behind welfare; that it decreases deep poverty in the long run.

http://www.urban.org/publications/411334.html

>Wind is even worse. More expensive for even less bang, and even worse with regards to reliability.
Wind is cheaper AND has a higher capacity factor than solar. It enjoys only fraction of the subsidies solar receives, yet is already competitive, or nearly so, with fossil fuels.

>>3376983
....then we would still be in massive debt. Taxing the super rich is not some magic bullet to solving all our economic problems.

>>3377898

>study done by a institute founded by LBJ.

>>3377906
>Wind is cheaper AND has a higher capacity factor than solar.

/sci/ here. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE

>>3377897
I'm in no mood to argue with a silly laissez-faire person. Your way of thinking is bunk, and always has been.

>>3377915

>>3377852
>wind is garbage

>>3377915

Well that was clear from the get go considering that you never even got past contradiction. I fail to see why you even bothered posting anything that you did as none of it adding anything useful to the conversation.

Also this isn't me

>>3377922

So don't start namecalling again.

>>3377912
>Attacking the source instead of the argument

>>3377906
Coal is about 0.006 USD / kwh.
Wind is about 0.05 USD /kwh.
More than 10 times as expensive.

That ignoring the fundamental problem that you only have power when there's windy, and the energy storage solutions simply are not there.

>>3377947

Yeah, i know it's cheap.

>>3377947
Looking at the article, it seems quite narrowly focused. It claims that providing welfare to people in deep poverty (those 50% below the poverty line) reduces deep poverty. Considering that would amount to around $10,000 per year for a family of four, I wouldn't be surprised if the welfare alone was enough to directly lift someone from deep poverty just through the checks alone.

It fails to note that the rate of poverty has increased dramatically over the last three years, despite those policies still being in effect.

>>3377914
>In a 2008 study released by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the capacity factor achieved by the wind turbine fleet is shown to be increasing as the technology improves. The capacity factor achieved by new wind turbines in 2004 and 2005 reached 36%

>Solar photovoltaic array capacity factors are typically under 25%

Installed capacity:
Wind:194 GW
Solar:20 GW

>>3377951
see:
>>3377940

>>3378004
That still has nothing to do with our energy storage problem. As long as that remains unsolved, wind and solar are little more than curiousities, or perhaps something to employ to perhaps offset costs of the main energy production techniques.

>>3378017
And? My posts were in reply to your retarded-as-fuck "Wind is worst than solar" and "coal is one-tenth the cost of wind" shit. The fact that you couldn't run a grid entirely on wind without large capital outlay for PSH(or comparable energy store) is irrelevant.

>>3377906
you must be on some serious shit man
like, world altering substances
can i have some?
because seriously, wow

>>3378000
>wind has potential! it's getting better!
>solar is completely stuck at 25% efficiency
and this is why i'm not listening to you

>>3376992
>Faux News

Holy fuck, that is so god damn clever and witty.

>>3377043
>punished

oh you

>>3378357
ITT: Amerifags further confirm their ability to pronounce foreign-looking words.

Next we'll be talking about Neetshee.

Guys, time out!

Are you seeing what is going on in this thread? Someone asked a question about fixing the economy and most of you actually brought in real arguments. People were actually linking to other sites as sources. We did it. /Sci/ just had a real discussion. Yes, we drifted a little of topic at times and the thread ended on energy, but energy is tied to the economy, so count it. Yes, there was some name calling, but overall we just had one of those things people have everyday, you know, a discussion.

Can we keep 4chan /sci/ like this?

>>3377057

You're either trolling or you're just a parrot who doesn't have a clue how anything works

>>3377083

Yea with some exceptions, I still haven't gotten over the fact that Exxon reported record profits and paid 0 in taxes while getting subsidized. Seriously what kinda of bullshit loophole allows for that

I remember reading a wikipedia article about some phenomenon where the federal revenue in the united states has always been an extremely consistant 19.7% of GDP, despite the great change in various tax rates. Especially income tax.

Found it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser%27s_Law

The idea is that people choose to stop working to an extend equal to the loss in federal income.

The problem today is not that we have a divinely ennobled elite, just that rich people still get disproportionate influence on writing laws.

And besides, the middle class should pay less in taxes. If trickle-down theory means anything, you should tax the class that produces the jobs and the wealth less than the others, and that is the middle class. Once someone drops below middle class, it's hard to drag that family up, and once someone gets above middle class, they are no longer subject to competition or success by merit. So really we should tax the rich to pay for the poor's education and healthcare, a trivial expense, and then leave the middle class alone to make society work.

Americans are incapable of having this discussion without stuffing their own balls in their mouth and biting down.

"What if we increased the tax for the rich by one percent?"

Is heard as:

"What if we took all the money from the rich people?"

As if raising the taxes by an incremental amount would be so horrible and crushing for the uber rich that they would drop everything and go running to the lesser countries where they've been laundering most of their wealth and income already.

They're already paying the lowest tax rates in the history of the US. If Reagan hadn't fucked up the balance, they still would be paying their fair share and nobody would give a shit. The US economy was strong then. It's shit now. The notion that taxing the rich will not make them competitive and will make them abandon our economy (which is already globalized, for fuck's sake) is a fucking joke.

You guys remember the outrage over GE paying so little in 2010 taxes that it got a fucking refund? Oh, you don't remember that do you? Selective memory is a fucking bitch.

>What if the U.S. raised taxes for the super-rich by even so much as a half a percent?

There'd be a tax loophole which allowed them to pay 3% less.

How to solve the world's governments in 3 points:

-Tax the rich, tax the corporation
-Seriously, tax the shit out of them
-Get rid of the tax havens (I'm looking at you, Delaware)

Fun fact: Ikea doesn't pay one cent to the Swedish State.
Everything goes to a "fundation" in Liechtenstein.
Those three points might involve invading or/and beating the shit out of a couple of islands and worthless countries (like Switzerland).

>>3377698
If the middle and lower classes actually saved their money instead of spending it irresponsibly, our economy would fucking tank.

Yet, when those very same people that allow the rich to be super fucking wealthy need medical care, it's "durr I don't owe you shit."

It's just the most fucking disgusting thing ever; people are only valued as mindless consumers and nothing more.

*/sci/*

>>3379202

The Vast majority of tax revenue comes from the taxation of corporations.


Corporations are taxed

then the Owner of the corporation (be they stockholders or private investors) are ALSO taxed on the increase in value.


if you simply work for the corporation, you are also taxed on your income.
Corporate tax is the SINGLE reason why business Offshore.

not because labor or real estate is cheap.

not because resources are cheap.


but because the tax rate is much smaller.

>>3377251
I am with this guy.

>>3379287
Yeah the fact that you can pay a Chinese worker some hilariously tiny fraction of what you would have to pay an American worker has nothing to do with it.

>>3376983
Even if it seems necessary (to put it lightly) for the US to raise taxes I doubt it will happen.

The republicans want to fuck shit up for Obama, they are doing quite a good job, seeing how the US is on the verge of bankruptcy, being completely dependent on massive loans to keep the country running mean while the republicans are blocking more loans so if they don't reach a compromise the US needs to go into poorfag mode any time soon.

Then again the rich are often hard working/ well educated people as they didn't get rich by sitting on their ass, they are hard to target. They have influence in society as well as good connections, they know the law VERY well and in today's world if the government fucks with them they leave and go to another county where they are treated better, taking what they own with them and the original country loses a potential investor...

Its easy to raise taxes for the people who own nothing, don't know the law nor have the means to leave. To raise taxes for those who own the means of production, know the law better then the politicians and have the means and muscle to go where ever they want, is a a whole other ball game.

Anyway, good luck to the US Im sure you will fix it somehow, you always do...

>>3379287
The word is Capital flight.

>>3379310

yep. literally nothing to do with it.


it has more to do with the fact that the owners are basically taxed at 85%

50% taxation of the corporation and 35% taxation of the owners "after corporate tax" take.


note: 50% includes whatever state taxes are applicable.... it could be more or less, though no less than 35%

I think you people forget that corporations DO provide a lot of money to governments. The just give it directly to the politicians, where it can do the most good.

>>3379369


Exactly.


Tax havens like those in Europe are becoming ridiculous.

>>3379310

Ever heard of the small town in Switzerland or Sweden or wherever where the ~50,000 people are exceeded by the >60,000 corporations?

what about Ireland, where a shit ton of the biggest corporations in the world are now headquartered? (headquartered == they rent an office in some building, with 3 people working there, so that they can claim Irish taxes)

>>3379310
It has nothing to do with it. You are confusing the production with administration. The production being cheap in china results in moving the INDUSTRY to China. The administration stays in US to be taxed on its profits.

Its the actual tax on administration that makes them flee the country.

>>3379381
I seriously hope you didn't write that with a straight face.

>>3379376
>50% taxation of the corporation
Yeah I don't fucking think so.

The "official" corporate tax rate is something like 35%, but in reality corporations end up paying a hell of a lot less due to loopholes and shit. The Koch brothers get to file as a small business and reap the benefits of that despite making billions, and GE payed literally nothing in taxes last year.

Also, you really want to tell me that the low cost of labor has nothing to do with why corporations move overseas?

You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

>>3379393
Different guy here, I'd be fine with dropping all corporate taxes and just taxing income heavily at the top brackets. I don't care about a "corporation" doing well - but if it's no longer possible for a CEO to make seven or eight figure incomes post-tax, we just might prevent the entire system from becoming topheavy and collapsing. I know there'd be heavy effort to circumvent it, like using business accounts for personal expenses, but hey, what else can you do?

>>3376983
ctrl-F "fair tax"
no results
for shame, sci. i thought yall were smart.

>>3379409
>but hey, what else can you do?

Keep corporate taxes?

>>3379416
I didn't bring it up because I thought everyone here was a retard.

>>3379421
If you're saying my suggestion would be worse than the status quo, fine.

But really, the goal here is to find something better than the status quo, not just be fine with it.

>>3379423
well im no retard. and fair tax is, in fact, fair, and would work if libs didnt condemn it.
theyre too busy trying to tax .5% of the population more.

>>3379384

I get how other European countries can be mad.

But Americans cant really criticize the Swiss taxes, you are not that far away.

These taxes work excellent here anyway, no reason to take more money from the people then necessary.

SOSHLESM

The Deficit would be reduced, life would not change for them, life would get slightly better for the poor
but that sounds boring. Let's reduce taxes on them, increase spending on everything else, and then blame the democrats when everything goes to shit <3

>>3379409
There is an easier way of doing what you want without sacrificing Non-CEO rich people.

Determine the upper limits of salary for a CEO as a percentage of the lowest paid employee.

>>3377042
>That company would use that money to expand and hire more poor workers.
> more poor workers

...who happen to not live in the US

>>3379376

> implying corporations and the wealthy don't use loopholes to avoid paying as much of that theoretical tax as possible

...which is what some of the current debt-ceiling-crisis is all about, and the fact that any closing of loopholes is seen as raising taxes.

>>3379461
Its not the current crisis at all.

The current crisis is two fold: Credit + Lapse on secure measures on part of federal instts. like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Credit crisis because Americans are spending more than they earn, as in MUCH more than they earn.

The people of america pay in taxes 1/3 of the national income. American corporations pay 1/5. Meanwhile, corporations make hundreds of times more than what the american people as a whole do.

To me, this seems to be a bigger problem.

>>3379477

Rather, not part of the current crisis, but part of the proposed solution to the current crisis.

>>3379486
Corporations benefit from government services to a far lesser extent than citizens, in general.

>>3379445
I like the idea, the spirit of it at least, a "maximum wage" defined as a multiple of the minimum.

But if you just restrict it to comparing employees of a single company, they'll just subcontract all the low-paying jobs so that they aren't "employees". It would have to be national, not just within each given company.

>>3379500
Perhaps. Assuming such measures actually exist. All I see is federal loans to arts students.

>>3379486
Corporations aren't people. I don't mind a corporation being wealthy.

It's the fucking executives who destroy their companies and bail out with golden parachutes that need to burn at the stake: the PEOPLE who make obscene amounts of money while returning negative value to society.

>>3379445
>Determine the upper limits of salary for a CEO as a percentage of the lowest paid employee.

Ok... But first of all, who has the authority to decide what the top salaries are? Politicians? Workers? Voters?

Second what's enforcing it?

What keeps CEOs and the company in the country that limits their wages? Their good conscience or a wall?

I'm sure your intentions are good but I don't see this happening...

>>3379527
CEOs who can jew whatever expenses they want as "needed for business", like private jets and cars and computers and such? theyres tons of abuse such as this by CEOs. The leaders of corporations ARE the corporations, and they use the money the corp. makes however they see fit. Like how they can donate unlimited corporate monies to pay for political campaigns now

>>3379546
Bad questions. No authority is required to decide salary but just to pass the law on the percentage. Rest of it automatically settles itself.

>>3379566
This. And you fine the hell out of executives/employers that violate the min/max wage ratio limit.

Though I think it's simpler to just have a "maximum wage", and tax everything beyond that at 100%. Set it at maybe $10M/yr personal income.

Economistfag here. Ok, not on any particular side, but I'd encourage many of the fags in this thread to find and read ACTUAL DATA related to the spending habits of the american rich. Too bad only 1% of people would really do this, and everyone else just argues based on different "facts" that are actually just assumptions they've made to back up their preexisting opinion. Scientists my ass

>>3379566
>Rest of it automatically settles itself.

You have not been dealing with high profit organisations have you?

If you cut their salaries or take their money they don't just sit and stare they throw in 20 Harvard-lawyer teams to make sure they don't loose a cent more then absolutely necessary. And even if you are the government you have a really hard time fighting them

They are very, very good at what they do.

Either the limit is set symbolically in cooperation with the companies and nothing changes or a politician writes a law that is immediately avoided in one way or another.

>>3379600
A more equitable wealth distribution produces greater total wealth. One trillionaire and a billion dirt farmers does not prosperity make.

>>3379595
No. There shouldn't be a max wage limit ever. That would kill competition. The ratio guarantees that lower level employs benefit from their share of work in the profits.

>>3379600
Source please.

ITT: OK GUISE I JUST GOT OUT OF MY ECO 01 CLASS, WHY DON'T WE JUST PRINT ALL THE MUNNY THAT PPL LOST IN THE RECESS, AND THEN WE'D ALL BE RICH AGAIN. ALSO JUST HAVE THE GOVERNMNET MAIK A MAX WAGE SO THE PHAT CATS WON'T MAKE IT HAPPEN AGAIN LOL AMIRITE GUISE

>>3379644

The solution is simple. We need to revalue society. Prices and Pay are arbitrarily determined. That CEO making 10 million only makes that much because we have this drastically skewed ideas of how much his energy output is worth. That guy who picks up your garbage everyday making 20,000 a year only makes so little for the same reason. In today's world we no longer finance production, we finance money. Money is simply being bought by people who have money. Its an over simplification buts its pretty much what is happening when Goldman shorts the mortgage industry, or they do the underwriting for a tech stock and have large holdings in its preferred stock. (FaceBook is worth a fraction of what investors are putting into that company, and will probably make all their money purely off hype when it goes public). In fact if you think about it regardless of how much you love your Social media or your smart phone, if we stopped picking up the garbage our society would collapse from an epidemic. If we were reduced to Nokias of 1995, or even if we were reduced to just land lines our society would continue to be functional. We don't even need to revalue society in accordance with anything, we just need to revalue it as equally as possible. We shouldn't cap profits or wages or wealth, but we should legislate so that employees see a much larger share of a corporate profits.

>>3379842
the garbage men in my township make 80k a year

Gay gay gay.

>>3379842
Garbage man is a well paying job

If you put 100billion in the hands of one person, practical commerce that flows on a daily basis that is the backbone of a stable financial system, toilet paper, food, gas, water electricity isn't drastically increased. The bottom line is billionaires are bad for the economy if they are spending a lot of money the vast majority of it goes into luxury items, and the realistically just can't possibly spend enough of their wealth. In fact, most wealthy people go broke one of two ways.... spending excessively on luxury items that have no tangible value(Sorry guys but a ferrari isn't anymore practical than a tercel) Or extremely risky positions in a zero sum game of the stock market, which means that wealth is simply transferred to someone else who was rich enough to pick up those positions in the first place.


Poorly distributed wealth essentially creates financial pockets of immense possibility that get trapped in the hands of people who can't spend efficiently or effectively. The bottom line is that excessive wealth is bad for economies and will ultimately lead to financial collapse.

Companies making profits are always looking to increase profits and reduce expenses, that just means control more money in total circulation while employing less people. You get enough corporate monsters doing it corporations will have all the money and no consumers and then its over

>>3379860
Someone stop him!!!

>>3379860

It's not that billionaires are bad for the economy, it's that the existence of quite so many, in quite such a secure position is a sign of an unhealthy economy.

Such excesses would not exist if we had a free market. They can only maintain their position because they get to write the laws that are supposed to govern them.

>>3379882
>They can only maintain their position because they get to write the laws that are supposed to govern them.

This.

>>3379855

Well you get what I mean, instead of redistribution of wealth, we redistribute value. So you stop getting these gluts of wealth that wealth that make no contribution back into the system. Essentially the perfect economy would have a constant and fluid exhange of currency, saving would be obsolete and pockets of nonconstructive wealth would be removed

>>3379882
>Such excesses would not exist if we had a free market.
There will never be actual free market. Never. It's not realistic.

>>3379882

Saying they are signs of bad economy, and that they are bad for the economy are pretty much the same thing. If you think about it, its that very excess of wealth which allows a billionaire to manipulate legislation in his favor, and from his standpoint he's got no other option because the name of the game is reduce expense increase profits. If it means relaxing the restrictions on child labor laws and lowering minimum wage so can make more product for less money, if he can get away with it he's going to do it

>>3377091
>>3377091
We profit via the affordable imported goods

Have you ever bought used books? Or grocery up front from farmers? No? Try haggling with them sometimes.

>>3379916

I agree to an extent, but I think we should also stop pretending we live in one. As far as rhetoric goes

>>3379882
>Such excesses would not exist if we had a free market. They can only maintain their position because they get to write the laws that are supposed to govern them.
You had me up to here. We don't need a "more free" market -- one with less regulation -- we need a market that is properly regulated. One that billionaires can't manipulate.

Better regulation, not less.

>>3380019
yeah, people say because these billionares manipulate the current regulations, we should just get rid of them. Thats bloody retarded. what we need is to change the system so these billionaires dont control it

how about while changing personal taxes to a better, more progressive system, corporate taxes are lowered?
i think this would cause the super-rich to funnel their funds into corporations to avoid getting raped by taxes. these corporations now have a shitload of capital, they can expand, hire new workers, yada yada. yes?

>>3380085
>expects billionaires to use extra money from their business to expand and hire new works, thus increasing supply, thus lowering prices, thus lowering profits
lrn2economics noob

>>3380090
lower prices -> higher demand -> all in all equal profits

Higher profits can be achieved through technological innovation and an increase in quality or production efficiency.

>>3380085
Fine by me. Also anyone who wants an education and can get good grades should have the chance, no exceptions.

>>3380090
expansion could be investing in long term capital you fuck. the question isn't what the fuck they do with their money it's do you guys agree with my assessment that the super-rich will funnel their money into corporations to hide it from raised personal taxes if corporate taxes are lowered. god damn. close your fucking econ 101 book.

>>3380101
Or through various manipulative techniques that violate the assumptions of most economic theories, causing inefficiencies from which you can personally profit. This tends to piss people off, but you also tend to get away with it.

>>3380105
Surely there's a limit to how much shit you can get away with by calling it a "business expense". I know that happens anyway, but I doubt it could get any worse without being immediately obvious and causing scandals.

>>3380116
but you must think bigger!
if you're trying to hide all your shiny ass shit from the irs, you gotta think outside the box. "where the hell did all your income go" "i'm paying rent" "to who and for what" "to xyz corp for living in the company mansion"
see what i'm saying?

>>3380118
I understand the idea of lowballing things and rewarding them to yourself, or in just outright putting your expenses on the company books, but surely there's a limit to how far you can push that abuse before it's just bleedingly scandal-inducing.

The only permanent solution I can think of is to have different people, but that's just denying the problem at hand.

>>3380125
youd be surprised how well jews can jew their money around

>>3380125
mhm
i agree, but it may just placate the super-rich enough to not freak out at a tax increase. while still catching millions more in revenue. success?

>>3380105
What the super-rich currently do, in the real world, is funnel all that money to tax havens in the US or elsewhere and then that money comes right back in hedge funds or other companies all over.

And with that "new" money, they make even more money through different corporations all over the world, profiting the slow wages in 3rd world countries, the tax rates intax havens, the markets in 1st world countries, while paying as little as possible to anyone.

Why do they put tax reductions on charities?
The US should tax Gates and Buffet instead of letting them decide which kind of poor people they want to help.

>>3380137
>The US should tax Gates and Buffet instead of letting them decide which kind of poor people they want to help.
You're assuming that government aid is more effective than private philanthropy. This relies on government being more competent, efficient, and benevolent than private individuals who donate willingly.

I'm not sure that's true. Let the Gates Foundation exist.

>>3380137
I'm a socialist, and I disagree completely. The two people you talk about are great examples of philanthropists.

Tax on those earning high amounts in assets OR in money should be taxed at much higher rates than they are now. If you remove the incentive for them to get rich by removing their ability to control their money, they'll move to canada.

>>3380118
>>3380127
I see that you never had accounting/taxation courses

>>3380137
Tax havens have benefits as well. It spurs tax competition between states and creates an incentive for the state to use its income efficiently. Without tax competition governments would have no reason to spend money (other people's money mind without the risk of default) efficiently.

>>3380143
I do not assume government aid is more effective than private philanthropy.
But private philanthropy is an attack against democracy if you give tax money to people who then use it to decide which kind of poor needs what.

>>3380155
>But private philanthropy is an attack against democracy
holy fucking shit what

Have whatever socialist minimum guaranteed standard of living you want supported by mandatory taxes, but keeping people from doing what they want with their money is NOT democratic.

>>3380151
>Without tax competition governments would have no reason to spend money (other people's money mind without the risk of default) efficiently.
Except, you know, their own people demanding they do so.

"Tax competition" creates a 'race to the bottom' type scenario where one country says "Come here, we have low taxes!" then another country says "No, come here! We just made our taxes even lower, AND you can use child labor!" etc etc until the standard of living is shit for everyone [except the rich!] everywhere.

An over exaggeration, but you get the idea.

>>3380149
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
I never understood because this quote is so badly viewed by so many people especially in the States.
Many richer people, including many I know personally, believe that this is an important basic thought for a fair income distribution in a society.
Never forget that a secure minimum standard of living is the most important foundation for stability in a given society.

>>3380149
But they control their money, I have no issue with that.
I have an issue with the tax reductions that come with charities.

>>3380151
>Without tax competition governments would have no reason to spend money (other people's money mind without the risk of default) efficiently.

That's just silly.
The incentive for states to spend their money properly is their own survival. Why do you think states care so much about demography?
They have to provide workers to keep the economy going during wars, and soldiers to fight for the country.
A badly driven country is a cheap prey for its neighbours, not to mention most governments actually care about the well-being of their citizens.

>>3380167
The general idea is nice. I believe the global optimum for human wellbeing has a fairly even distribution of wealth.

But the devil is in the details. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot... these were not statistical anomalies. There is a massive disconnect between the philosophy and the practical reality of communism.

>>3380167
The problem is that the American proletariat see themselves as the potential rich rather than the current poor. They don't want the poor to be better off because there's a widespread social stigma associated with accepting you're not going to make a fortune.

>>3380165
Donations to charity are tax deductible expenses.
Every time Gates put one dollar in his foundation, that's one less dollar the American state doesn't get.

Every time Gates invest one dollar in whatever humanitarian cause seems worth to him, that's one less tax dollar the US government could have spend on a humanitarian cause elected representatives decided on.

You don't see how that is an attack on democracy?

>>3380167
>Never forget that a secure minimum standard of living is the most important foundation for stability in a given society.
Just no. Protection of the right to life is the most important foundation.

>>3380174
actually, its more like for every dollar he spends on charity, thats 40 cents he doesn't have to give to the state. also, i'm a socialist, and all for making rich people pay more money to the state, but youre absolutely retarded

>>3380175
Yeah but how do you live without money exactly?

There would be way less crimes if people had money to live.
Any armed force is a tool to defend property.
The rich have to live behind bars in ghettos in a highly inegalitarian country like South Africa.

>>3380174
>that's one less tax dollar the US government could have spend on a humanitarian cause elected representatives decided on.
Over half of it goes to the military, and the American welfare system is bloated. One place the money would almost entirely not go is humanitarian efforts.

>>3380174
Ah, I see the distinction you're pointing out. It's that in democracy, everyone gets on vote. Whereas with monetary action you have ($ of dollars) votes.

But look at it this way: if government has overhead and bureaucracy inefficiencies that can't really be avoided, then I would rather offload whatever can be to the private sector.

The question is what things are better done by government, and what things are better done by individuals, markets, and companies.

>>3380171
>>3380172
I am by no mean a communist and certainly condemn the acts of Stalin, Mao etc.
I would call myself an socialist at least from the American perspective. In my country I would be a rather hardcore capitalist after all but well I come from a country where the system is called social market economy. It is pretty close to communism for some of the American conservatives.

I don't want to make all people equal that would destroy all the wonderful incentives capitalism provides. Yet I want a secured standard of living through everyone. Not just by means of redistribution but more importantly from the get go, meaning (almost) same chances for everyone.

Taxes after all should be according to the principle who can give more should pay more. And who receives more benefits should contribute more as well.

The world doesn't work the way you think it does, no matter how hip and edgy you are.

>>3380180
Yeah it's about the same thing.
My point still stands.

If you guise are okay with some people deciding for you, I really don't know why you even bother voting.

>>3380187
Sure. Personally I'm a fan of social democracy. Universal healthcare and education, but free markets. Central planning is far, far too inefficient and prone to complete corruption. Yes, yes, I know the problems with "free" markets. But central planning is worse.

>>3380184
Things which are absolutely essential for the health and well being of the population shouldn't be in the hands of private industry.

There's effectively no recourse you either accept the whims of the market or starve/freeze/die.

>>3380187
The American system is insane. American democrats are about on par with most centre-right parties internationally.

A government minimum QoL doesn't have to replace charity, and removing non-government humanitarian aid would be incredibly damaging.

>>3380192
You seem to feel entitled to control other people's money. This does not reflect well on your supposed love of democracy.

If you think taxes are too low, raise them. But I don't see why we should not incentivize prosocial behavior.

>>3380192
>deciding for us
NOPE
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of personal wealth?

>>3380188
>Centuries of development has resulted in a speculative, service economy, a rapidly shrinking, poorly educated middle class, and a religious faith in democracy.

ftfy

>mfw this thread.

>>3380198
>There's effectively no recourse you either accept the whims of the market or starve/freeze/die.
This. This is the main reason I support universal healthcare guarantees. When "do it my way or die" is still on the table in any form, you can't have "free" trade. There is far too much power inequality.

>>3380213
Five star post. You must be proud.

>>3380201
Well if you think Gates deserves his billions, very well.
I don't think a man who just built a company to sell things should be more rewarded than a man who discovered a cure to help humanity or any other scientific advancement, but that's just me.

What I'm saying is that giving tax reductions to people so that they decide what humanitarian cause is worth paying for is silly.
If they feel generous, they can use their money after tax, what's so hard to understand about that?
You could incentivize pro-social behaviour through decorations if you think that's so important.
I don't see why we should give more money to people just because they're not acting like total assholes with the large excess of money they managed to make in our society.

>>3380218

Really rich people - not the moderately rich, people who make between $150,000 and $1,000,000, but the people who gross $10,000,000 or $100,000,000 annually - can easily afford a team of accountants and lawyers who skirt around tax laws and massively reduce the amount of taxes they pay. It also helps that a lot of their income is actually considered tax-free business expenses when their wages are only a fraction of their wealth. This was especially true back in the forties and fifties when the top marginal income tax was as high as 90% or even 100%. Even if all of the loopholes were eliminated - which isn't going to happen, because politicians who make the laws are almost entirely among the highest earners in the country - you'll have either an exodus of high earners or a huge proliferation in the "gray" market. The gray market is the exchange of otherwise legal goods in an illegal manner, i.e. cigarettes or jewelry sold without paying taxes or tariffs or duties or any other shit like that.

>>3380227
> I don't understand what a government is supposed to do
>I don't understand what capitalism is
The fact of the matter is that even if some people DO donate for tax purposes they're still donating. I would rather a billionaire pay no tax and give $100,000,000 to charity than pay $40,000,000 to government and nothing to charity.

>>3380227
>I don't see why we should give more money to people just because they're not acting like total assholes
No. Just hanging on to your money and not bothering anyone fits this description. Donating billions to establish a charity foundation is really fucking far from just "not being an asshole".

It's not like he gets dollar-for-dollar tax reductions from it. Seriously, WTF is your problem? Being rich is not a sin.

>>3380237
> Being rich is not a sin.
This is probably the crux of his mindset. He thinks it's immoral to make more money than other people - that the only way to get rich is by cheating and harming others.

>>3380245
which could be considered true. The more important thing is that it's accepted that doing this is ok as long as you don't explicitly lie.

What if the super-rich move all their money to off-shore island because the U.S. raised taxes by even so much as a half a percent?

>>3379393
>>3379393
>>3379393
>>3379393
>>3379393
>>3379393
>>3379393
>>3379393
>>3379393
>>3379393
>>3379393


1) the vast majority of smart, large businesses have gone to tax havens. Its a major issue because it means that STATES (let alone the federal government) are loosing billions


2) 50% includes the STATE TAX YOU FUCKING FAGGOT (35% federal tax + state tax, which varies and goes up to about 15% or more, in states like CA).

I said that in my post already.

3) tax loopholes do not exist in the way you have described.

lets think of some examples.... Google, yahoo, Microsoft, pretty much any other big software company from Silicon Valley, all of the Big Pharma companies, etc.

ALL OF THEM are ALL in Tax havens.

they are chartered there or headquartered there, or whatever other "legal loophole" is used to allow them to file taxes there.

4) these are not US tax law loopholes. These are efforts made by smart companies to avoid paying excessive tax

5) lower the tax rate, and the companies will keep all of the money in the US, instead of giving it away to some foreign country.
what is better for the US government? 0% tax because the corporation will spend hundreds of millions on accountants and lawyers? or much much less than 35% tax BUT STILL SOME TAX?


seems like something is better than nothing.

>>3380236
Well the US government could use those 40 millions I think.
I'm just saying that if you want to be generous, go ahead.

At least, the US government asks its citizens, what to spend the money on.
What are the geopolitical consequences of Gates' spendings?

>>3380237
According to Christians, it is.

>>3380205
>he doesn't understand the function of the service sector
The middle class isn't shrinking, the richer are just getting richer at a faster rate than the middle class and it can't go on forever, in fact the bubble has already burst during the credit crunch and the share of income going to the top 1% has stagnated.

Like I said, you have little understanding of how the real world works, you're only interested in hype.

>>3380255
>>3380267

What if the US representatives voted laws against those corporations that do not respect the US laws?
Prevent them from doing business in the US.

What do you think the Chinese do?
Foreigners can't even own more than 25% of a Chinese company. Technology transfers work one-way there, too.

Western capitalism is self-destructing. Just because some people think less regulation would fix anything.

>>3377328
Health care in the US is so expensive because of state regulations that limit the number of physicians, insurance regulations (mostly at state/province level, but also federal), medicare/medicaid, IP laws that enable artificially long drug monopolies and force out generics, and so on and so forth. And does the quality match the price? Fuck no. It's just that in countries with centralized health care, the rationing isn't done via prices atop a mountain of burdensome regulation; the rationing is coordinated arbitrarily, generally based on patient status, time of access, et cetera. If you don't think rationing is happening, that there's some ubiquitous access, you're empirically wrong.

>>3377109
This is fucking retarded. Teachers are easy to come by, easy to be; there's a huge number of them and that's why primary school teachers (elementary through high school in the US) tend to be relatively poorly paid. On the other hand, physicians, engineers, and entrepreneurs to name a few trades are far more exclusive and honestly more vital to the functioning of the economy as a whole than individual public educators. It's the same reason why manual laborers - mechanics, assembly line workers and so forth - are necessary but poorly paid: they're easy to come by both in numbers and the skill sets that the jobs require are easier to develop. This is far more equitable than someone of lesser ability and station being paid as much as someone who actually innovates and provides far more value to the economy as a whole. I'm not including politicians in this assessment because politicians extract disproportionately more resources from society than they provide.

>>3380281
>According to Christians, it is.
It's often misquoted, but it actually says that the LOVE of money is the root of all evil. Not money itself, or just being rich.

>>3380313

>implying being a decent teacher is easy

If you truly wish students to LEARN and not just MEMORIZE something they're going to forget as soon as they take the test (as our current US education system loves to do) then it is a lot of work.
But if you want to take the easy way out, and set the bar low for what qualifies someone to teach (as our current education system has) then see how far you get. Currently, the US is far, far behind other nations when it comes to Math & Science education. You tell me that teachers should be easy to come by and are not vital to the economy.

>>3380313
Yeah, this attitude hasn't exactly helped our educational system.

What matters more, our professionals, or the fucking SOURCE of our professionals?

so is this still a "taxation is theft" thread or what

>>3380356

I wouldn't agree that taxation is theft for things like entitlements, defense, etc. But for the ridiculous politician salaries, benefits, not to mention some stupid government programs, it might as well be theft. Public servants shouldn't be making much money in the first place.

>>3380311
>Foreigners can't even own more than 25% of a Chinese company.
Do you really think their mercantilist policies benefit them? They are just denying themselves capital reserves for virtually no gain in security.

>>3380356
Nah we managed to mention tax havens a couple of times.
"Property is theft!"

>>3380382
The point is to allow poor people to serve the state too.
Some countries manage to make it more or less fair (I don't think politicians are payed too much in Scandinavia, and they manage to have women too somehow).
You wouldn't like to only allow rich people to serve their interests while making laws, right?

>>3380400
Their policy surely allows them to get some delicious Western technologies. That can't be bad to progress way faster than any other developing country, right?

How could not letting foreigners control your economy like a worthless African country be a bad thing?
(Funny to mention that Chinese even come around to control more and more in Africa).

>>3380403

Of course. It is not "democracy" when you are *required* to have a considerable amount of any money to successfully campaign. In my opinion, politicians that do not represent the middle class cannot adequately serve this country.

>>3380403

hmm... I guess the only logical conclusion then is that both are theft

shut the economy down and send everyone to jail

I gotta stop reading these threads, makes me too angry.
>taxing the rich is immoral!
>they'll lose incentive!
>we're paying them what they're worth!

I'd rather we stop spending the money on fucking retarded shit (SS ponzi scheme, 2 endless wars, etc..) but the income gaps are getting fucking ridiculous.

>>3380426
We'd be better off if pretty much everyone were middle class. I'm not sure how to change the very fundamental structure of our socioeconomics in the simplest and most fundamental way to accomplish this.

But I think universal education and healthcare are part of it. All the feedbacks where money makes more money without proportionate risk fails to communicate what is necessary for society to function. Basically, we need to minimize externalized costs.

>energy discussion.

>always talking about solar, eolic, tidal and geothermal power as if they were mutually exclusive.

Why?

>>3380487

The US are 100 years late on Europe.

>>3379202

First time a graph has made me laugh.

>>3380267
What's even better than either of those options is simply dismantling the power of the rich.

It's a looooong time in coming, really. Someone earlier in the thread I think said something about how today things are different, the rich work for their money instead of being born with it. I laughed at that, because he really has no clue. The super-rich are just a modern-day nobility, and they have way too much power to dictate the lives of other people. It's high time they become normal citizens like the rest of us rather than special citizens with extra privileges that they use to make sure everyone else has as little power as possible.

>>3377588
>1920s
>50 years later
>now

lollll

>>3379409
I don't mind if people at the top make a huge buttfucks of money as long as they pay enough that would be representative of their income. Income disparity isn't bad as long as it doesn't fuck up the economy or reach third world levels. Let's not forget all the heavy spending by the government.

During LBJ's time, the US was making a lot of money, but he fucked it up by paying for Vietnam and the Great Society programs. It ran debt pretty high.