Here is a simple question that I have never heard a liberal give an honest answer about.
How much of a person's INCOME should be taxed by the federal government? We're not talking about WEALTH, savings or investment, just EARNED INCOME.
To make it easy, say a person EARNS a dollar as INCOME. How much of that dollar should the person have to give to the federal government in the form of taxes? A quarter? A dime? $.50?
It doesn't matter if the person makes say $10.00 per hour or makes a salary of $100,000.00 per year. How much out of each dollar EARNED would be a "fair share" to have to give to the federal government?
Quote:Here is a simple question that I have never heard a liberal give an honest answer about.
How much of a person's INCOME should be taxed by the federal government? We're not talking about WEALTH, savings or investment, just EARNED INCOME.
To make it easy, say a person EARNS a dollar as INCOME. How much of that dollar should the person have to give to the federal government in the form of taxes? A quarter? A dime? $.50?
It doesn't matter if the person makes say $10.00 per hour or makes a salary of $100,000.00 per year. How much out of each dollar EARNED would be a "fair share" to have to give to the federal government?
Depends on how big of a government we want the bigger the programs the more everyone will pay.
Quote:Not if the free market had it's way. The poor would be be paid even less than they already are.
It's debatable whether the poor would make less. Maybe less per hour, but more overall since many would go from part time to full time. There would also be less unemployed. It's not the free market's fault that the dollar has been devalued to the point that it's at now. That would be the government's fault.
Quote:Depends on how big of a government we want the bigger the programs the more everyone will pay.
There is no "depends" when it comes to this answer. It's a simple question. How much out of every dollar earned should go to the government?
Quote:There is no "depends" when it comes to this answer. It's a simple question. How much out of every dollar earned should go to the government?
How should this be answered? I mean clearly there is not many people, if anyone on this board that is even remotely qualified to answer that question. You don't seem to be offering an answer either...
However, I think right now I pay like ~20% maybe? I'm honestly not sure. If you cut some of the crazy bloat you could lower that. If you eliminated a lot of corporate loopholes and shelters other wealthy elite are able to take advantage of so they actually pay a fair share, percentage wise, you could have a lower it even further.
Quote:Why than people wouldn't be able to afford their services. In a true free market the goal would be for as many as possible to be wealthy as that's the condition for exchange of services.
Not if it works in a manner to pad their bottom line. These people will work for peanuts and the cost benefits out way their inability to buy our services. People/businesses that are out to make money want one thing, more money. That's the sole purposes of being in business. You will take every advantage you can to make even a penny more. At least the vast majority would and people stuck in poverty have no choice but to take whatever they can get. I think it's very likely that could happen.
Quote:Not if it works in a manner to pad their bottom line. These people will work for peanuts and the cost benefits out way their inability to buy our services. People/businesses that are out to make money want one thing, more money. That's the sole purposes of being in business. You will take every advantage you can to make even a penny more. At least the vast majority would and people stuck in poverty have no choice but to take whatever they can get. I think it's very likely that could happen.
Libertarians believe that the world has no evil and there are no selfish people living in it. Hippies are libertarians. That says enough right there.
Quote:There is no "depends" when it comes to this answer. It's a simple question. How much out of every dollar earned should go to the government?
If you want a number I'm at the 8% flat tax rate but that requires massive reductions in spending across the board
Quote:Libertarians believe that the world has no evil and there are no selfish people living in it. Hippies are libertarians. That says enough right there.
Lol I've been called a lot of things but hippy is a new one
Quote:Not if it works in a manner to pad their bottom line. These people will work for peanuts and the cost benefits out way their inability to buy our services. People/businesses that are out to make money want one thing, more money. That's the sole purposes of being in business. You will take every advantage you can to make even a penny more. At least the vast majority would and people stuck in poverty have no choice but to take whatever they can get. I think it's very likely that could happen.
In a free market people are not chained to poverty what keeps people on poverty is a lack of options. Employers would have to compete for good workers the only way to compete would be better wages. Inevitable you will always have some level of poverty but if you look at economic curves poverty in nations closer to free market are better off than anywhere else.
It's not that I deny companies would try and keep wages low it's that I believe in a free market the individual would have more options, competition for employment.
Big government advocates fail to see, or ignore the fact, that in a free market it's not only the rich getting richer, but the poor as well. They fixate on the widening income disparity between the rich and poor and fail to see the big picture. If a poor person's income grows 10% and a rich person's grows 10% then of course there is a widening income disparity. If there was no federal reserve and we went back to the gold standard then inflation would be kept in check as well.
Regarding the hippy comment, read Dr. Ben Carson's New book One Nation. He has an interesting take on that rather early in the book.
Quote:Big government advocates fail to see, or ignore the fact, that in a free market it's not only the rich getting richer, but the poor as well. They fixate on the widening income disparity between the rich and poor and fail to see the big picture. If a poor person's income grows 10% and a rich person's grows 10% then of course there is a widening income disparity. If there was no federal reserve and we went back to the gold standard then inflation would be kept in check as well.
Regarding the hippy comment, read Dr. Ben Carson's New book One Nation. He has an interesting take on that rather early in the book.
What is your idea of a free market, fa01?
Quote:Good call ignoring that other article. You'd discover he's been fighting to avoid paying over a billion dollars in taxes he owes the IRS for over a decade, and this is the 2nd time he's been in hot water for avoiding paying taxes. We wouldn't want you to bother with having the facts, so feel free to use his wiki page to soothe your soul.
"HEY GUYS, SOMEONE IS A HYPOCRITE, THEREFORE THE POSITION THEY ESPOUSE CANNOT BE CORRECT!!!!"
-Junior
Just to be clear, Junior, what you're falling into is the all too common and easy to recognize trap known as the ad hominem.
If the notion were Buffett's alone then hypocrisy might seem a more effective rebuttal, however, it's a commonly held economic axiom in some circles that higher upper marginal tax rates are beneficial to an economy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/busine...d=all&_r=0
Quote:Here is a simple question that I have never heard a liberal give an honest answer about.
How much of a person's INCOME should be taxed by the federal government?
"You didn't build that."
Well, there you go, straight from the donkey's mouth.
Quote:What is your idea of a free market, fa01?
Mostly the same as a traditional free market, but realizing there needs to be a few regulations otherwise competition is eliminated. I would revisit and strengthen anti trust laws. I would delve into some laws regarding international labor. Most of the rest of the regulations would be left to state and local governments. Obviously there are broad regulations that I would endorse, but I'm not going to explain my stance on every government regulation unless someone has something specific in mind.
Quote:In a free market people are not chained to poverty what keeps people on poverty is a lack of options. Employers would have to compete for good workers the only way to compete would be better wages. Inevitable you will always have some level of poverty but if you look at economic curves poverty in nations closer to free market are better off than anywhere else.
It's not that I deny companies would try and keep wages low it's that I believe in a free market the individual would have more options, competition for employment.
This is where we fundamentally disagree. Yes companies will compete for "good workers" but the need for skilled, qualified workers is far outweighed by the amount of unskilled work that need bodies to fill them and by a massive margin. This is what people are worried about when considering letting the market rule the land. Inevitably you will have a large portion of society that cant get to good jobs because so many people are seeking them . This leads to a huge portion of the population having to take the low paying jobs that pay peanuts because they have to have some income.
This further keeps people locked into poverty because you cant just not take the work even if the going rate doesn't cover rent. That, in essence, is the concern over a total lack of regulation in the market.
Quote:In a free market people are not chained to poverty what keeps people on poverty is a lack of options. Employers would have to compete for good workers the only way to compete would be better wages. Inevitable you will always have some level of poverty but if you look at economic curves poverty in nations closer to free market are better off than anywhere else.
It's not that I deny companies would try and keep wages low it's that I believe in a free market the individual would have more options, competition for employment.
Employers would only have to compete for competent workers, not good workers. Consider for a moment how workers in this nation were once treated, and how workers in China have been treated. Businesses aren't going to consider what's best for their employees. They're only going to consider what's best for them.
And of course you'd have a major drop in wages for unskilled labor, which would contribute to a weaker economy because those people would have less buying power. Most people in poverty also don't have the skills to work the skilled jobs. Nor do they have the connections. Now a days it's not what you know, it's who you know to get a job -- and what you have already done. Everybody wants experience, and the problem is you need experience to get experience.
I think the free market wouldn't fix things quite as well as it would in theory.
Quote:This is where we fundamentally disagree. Yes companies will compete for "good workers" but the need for skilled, qualified workers is far outweighed by the amount of unskilled work that need bodies to fill them and by a massive margin. This is what people are worried about when considering letting the market rule the land. Inevitably you will have a large portion of society that cant get to good jobs because so many people are seeking them . This leads to a huge portion of the population having to take the low paying jobs that pay peanuts because they have to have some income.
This further keeps people locked into poverty because you cant just not take the work even if the going rate doesn't cover rent. That, in essence, is the concern over a total lack of regulation in the market.
Let's explore this,
the qualifier of a good job is the ability to be self sufficient correct? I'd argue that there is no limit to the amount of services a population our size has, we need plenty of people to do all kinds of work the problem is there's no one to pay them to do the work.
You often hear politicians argue that we can't fund infrastructure, we don't have enough teachers, and so on, the problem is right now those fields are funded through tax payers. In a "free market" where infrastructure for example is privatized you'd have a plethora of jobs for low skilled or no skilled workers. Sure the companies would look to pay as little as possible but the free market doesn't prevent unions from forming, or some form of labor to represent workers, there are natural ways to increase wages.
Anything that is federally funded right now is severally under employed simply because the tax revenue is not there to pay for it. So I'd have to disagree about there not being enough work, there's plenty of work to be done.
As for the argument about low paying jobs, yes there will always be low paying jobs. Mostly in the service industry, restaurants, delivery drivers, retail, these jobs have always paid very low wages ( I know I've worked just about all of them). But if more people owned a restaurant rather than working at a restaurant their standard of living would increase. If you had more mom and pop merchandising stores and less walmarts, kmarts, targets you'd have higher wages and an increase in the standard of living. Business isn't the enemy, it's when Big Business and Government work together to end competition.
Quote:Let's explore this,
the qualifier of a good job is the ability to be self sufficient correct? I'd argue that there is no limit to the amount of services a population our size has, we need plenty of people to do all kinds of work the problem is there's no one to pay them to do the work.
You often hear politicians argue that we can't fund infrastructure, we don't have enough teachers, and so on, the problem is right now those fields are funded through tax payers. In a "free market" where infrastructure for example is privatized you'd have a plethora of jobs for low skilled or no skilled workers. Sure the companies would look to pay as little as possible but the free market doesn't prevent unions from forming, or some form of labor to represent workers, there are natural ways to increase wages.
Anything that is federally funded right now is severally under employed simply because the tax revenue is not there to pay for it. So I'd have to disagree about there not being enough work, there's plenty of work to be done.
As for the argument about low paying jobs, yes there will always be low paying jobs. Mostly in the service industry, restaurants, delivery drivers, retail, these jobs have always paid very low wages ( I know I've worked just about all of them). But if more people owned a restaurant rather than working at a restaurant their standard of living would increase. If you had more mom and pop merchandising stores and less walmarts, kmarts, targets you'd have higher wages and an increase in the standard of living. Business isn't the enemy, it's when Big Business and Government work together to end competition.
I'll give you this point. Big business and gov in collusion is a major problem. I fail to see how you think removing regulation (good ones not influenced by the corps they intend to reign in) would stir competition. Big business would remain only now there would be no token resistance and competition would be crushed or bought out. I don't see how a completely free market would allow mom and pops to thrive.