The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

oh yes....allow me to clarify that I'm no anarchist....there needs to be SOME government

"money talks" as the saying goes...under the current system money is given more power to influence how much control one person or one group of persons has in government operations....but under a flat tax system since everyone pays into the system at the same rate money doesn't have as much power to talk when it comes to government

Yes, the guy who has a 900k after tax is just as "powerful" as the guy who has 23k after tax.

[jelgate]

Yes, the guy who has a 900k after tax is just as "powerful" as the guy who has 23k after tax.

Agreed

[Seastallion]

oh yes....allow me to clarify that I'm no anarchist....there needs to be SOME government

"money talks" as the saying goes...under the current system money is given more power to influence how much control one person or one group of persons has in government operations....but under a flat tax system since everyone pays into the system at the same rate money doesn't have as much power to talk when it comes to government

My friend, I used to think like you do. However, I've come to understand how things really work. If our government even remotely served us, and if elections even remotely mattered, what you're suggesting might be valid. However, nearly our entire government is bought and paid for by the .01% (not the 1%), and any President you get to vote for is already preselected, so no matter whether you vote Republican or Democrat, they will work for the same people, and those people are NOT 'The People' of the U.S. Taxes AREN'T the issue. The .01% don't pay taxes at all, Flat or otherwise. Nor will they ever. As long as we live in a monetary system, they will continue to be in power.

Please understand, THEY print the money you're talking about. The U.S. Government borrows money from THEM. THEY created the IRS, the Federal Reserve, and Federal Income Taxes. They don't pay the U.S. Government, the Government pays THEM. Just who do you think our Government is in debt too? I urge you to watch a half hour long free animated movie from youtube called "The American Dream". It is a lot of fun to watch, AND it is very educational too.

In any case, how are people going to pay taxes if Technological Unemployment continues unabated? The answer? They won't, because they won't have a job to pay them. Tech. Unemployment is increasing at a rate that nearly doubles every year. Many manufacturing companies have returned to the U.S., but most of the jobs didn't come back with them. They have become automated by machines that cost close to the same as a Chinese worker would be paid... roughly $3 per hour. Also, no vacation, sick leave, benefits, retirement, etc. Try and compete with that. The level of automation is getting so advanced that in a few decades there will be very few jobs left for the masses to even be able to compete for. Did you know that it is now possible to actually PRINT a pair of lungs? 3D Printers don't just use plastic; they can also use glass, metal, concrete, cloth, medication, and even bio matter, to make lungs, hearts, etc. Automated devices can actually make burgers, and other foods with no human intervention, with the possible exception of loading the ingredients into the machine. Vehicles being able to drive themselves is nearing completion and implementation. Many jobs you might think that robots can't replace humans with, can and have been.

Check out another youtube documentary called "Will work for free"... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SuGRgdJA_c

[Coco Pops]

I gotta ask you Co-Co, what news ARE you watching?
The LNP ran a better smear campaign, with most of the Ammunition supplied from the ALP's own damn stupidity and internal fighting. Quite frankly, we needed a "liberal" shift in economic policy to keep from dropping into the "credit card hell" that many other countries now have to deal with. What we did NOT need is the backwards social bull****e being pushed by Abbot and his buddies that has gone along with it, which is why that tool will be voted out in the next election, if not before if we get a no confidence vote over the proposed budget.

I don't watch any commerical news channels as they're too heavily biased IMHO.... As is the mostly murdoch press. I watch a bit of SBS and the ABC... so I guess I'm also biased a bit

[Gatefan1976]

Agreed

Well, I could have gone higher, but I think it proves the point well enough that a flat tax is a silly concept.

[Gatefan1976]

I don't watch any commerical news channels as they're too heavily biased IMHO.... As is the mostly murdoch press. I watch a bit of SBS and the ABC... so I guess I'm also biased a bit

What I have found is that they are all about the same when it comes to actual news, the difference lies in the way things are reported and the opinion fluff. IIRC, you don't use Foxtel, but if any of your friends do, go watch a 4 hour block of Fox News (or CNN/Al Jazeera etc) There are breaks called "news extra" where you do just get news, but you tend to get around 5 minutes of that an hour, the rest is opinion junk or ads. It's the literal curse of the 24 hour news cycle, becoming party line adverts rather than actual news.

[SoulReaver]

time for a little math lesson me thinks:

Let I = gross income; Let R = flat tax rate as a percentage (5%, 10%, etc., to be determined by popular vote); Let A = amount paid out in taxes

the formula for flat tax is then: I x R = A

Since R is a constant value, this gives us a direct relationship between I and A...this means that lower income people would still be paying out less in taxes (zero in the case of one who earns nothing) and higher wage earners would still be paying out more in taxes

However, since everyone pays out at the same rate, this would actually help those who earn more be equal with those who earn less. Having a system where different people pay according to different rates (our current system which to me is nothing more than a legalized double or more standard and you know how I simply detest double standards ) actually latches on to any envy those who earn less have for those who earn more and inflames it

Think about it....say there's a certain level of envy......the inflammation of the envy comes from the fact that those who earn more would naturally resent being made to pay a different rate

Seastallion mentioned the lengths people go through to avoid having to pay taxes at all....well with the convoluted bureaucracy known as the IRS that the current system gave rise to is it any wonder that people would naturally want to minimize their dealings with such a bureaucracy?

yup because obviously a worker on minimal wage who loses half his money will have just as easy a time as a billionaire who also loses half his fortune '_'

time for a little reality check me thinks: R must also be directly proportionate to I for there to be some measure of equ(al)ity

[Coco Pops]

What I have found is that they are all about the same when it comes to actual news, the difference lies in the way things are reported and the opinion fluff. IIRC, you don't use Foxtel, but if any of your friends do, go watch a 4 hour block of Fox News (or CNN/Al Jazeera etc) There are breaks called "news extra" where you do just get news, but you tend to get around 5 minutes of that an hour, the rest is opinion junk or ads. It's the literal curse of the 24 hour news cycle, becoming party line adverts rather than actual news.

Yeah that's the problem though sorting the good stuff from the fluff. Probably why I have gone off commercial news and media a lot.

[jelgate]

What I have found is that they are all about the same when it comes to actual news, the difference lies in the way things are reported and the opinion fluff. IIRC, you don't use Foxtel, but if any of your friends do, go watch a 4 hour block of Fox News (or CNN/Al Jazeera etc) There are breaks called "news extra" where you do just get news, but you tend to get around 5 minutes of that an hour, the rest is opinion junk or ads. It's the literal curse of the 24 hour news cycle, becoming party line adverts rather than actual news.

Welcome to the club. Its also way I don't bother watching the news on TV. Except maybe my local news

[mad_gater]

My friend, I used to think like you do. However, I've come to understand how things really work. If our government even remotely served us, and if elections even remotely mattered, what you're suggesting might be valid. However, nearly our entire government is bought and paid for by the .01% (not the 1%), and any President you get to vote for is already preselected, so no matter whether you vote Republican or Democrat, they will work for the same people, and those people are NOT 'The People' of the U.S. Taxes AREN'T the issue. The .01% don't pay taxes at all, Flat or otherwise. Nor will they ever. As long as we live in a monetary system, they will continue to be in power.

Please understand, THEY print the money you're talking about. The U.S. Government borrows money from THEM. THEY created the IRS, the Federal Reserve, and Federal Income Taxes. They don't pay the U.S. Government, the Government pays THEM. Just who do you think our Government is in debt too? I urge you to watch a half hour long free animated movie from youtube called "The American Dream". It is a lot of fun to watch, AND it is very educational too.

In any case, how are people going to pay taxes if Technological Unemployment continues unabated? The answer? They won't, because they won't have a job to pay them. Tech. Unemployment is increasing at a rate that nearly doubles every year. Many manufacturing companies have returned to the U.S., but most of the jobs didn't come back with them. They have become automated by machines that cost close to the same as a Chinese worker would be paid... roughly $3 per hour. Also, no vacation, sick leave, benefits, retirement, etc. Try and compete with that. The level of automation is getting so advanced that in a few decades there will be very few jobs left for the masses to even be able to compete for. Did you know that it is now possible to actually PRINT a pair of lungs? 3D Printers don't just use plastic; they can also use glass, metal, concrete, cloth, medication, and even bio matter, to make lungs, hearts, etc. Automated devices can actually make burgers, and other foods with no human intervention, with the possible exception of loading the ingredients into the machine. Vehicles being able to drive themselves is nearing completion and implementation. Many jobs you might think that robots can't replace humans with, can and have been.

Check out another youtube documentary called "Will work for free"... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SuGRgdJA_c

machines might be able to handle the administrative end of things and customer service and food service end of things but machines have one glaring limitation, their lack of capacity to think outside the box....meaning that machines are limited by their lines of code....so in such jobs requiring an "outside the box" though process human beings have the advantage...not to mention human beings have that personal touch that no machine can duplicate

for example I'm graduating from a 1-year program where I studied to become a NYS-licensed (and perhaps one day nationally certified) massage therapist....there is no possible way any machine could duplicate human healing touch to the extent required in the field of massage therapy

[mad_gater]

yup because obviously a worker on minimal wage who loses half his money will have just as easy a time as a billionaire who also loses half his fortune '_'

time for a little reality check me thinks: R must also be directly proportionate to I for there to be some measure of equ(al)ity

this is why low-income people (and everyone else for that matter) should work out this nifty thing called a budget.....take a good look at what you're spending on and if it's not necessary.....cut it out....for example I've seen many people on welfare spend what little they have on smokes....a rather expensive habit....how much food could that person have bought instead of wasting it on a pack or carton of smokes?

and number 2....."R" could be put to a nationwide popular vote and I highly doubt the vast majority of the people would vote for anything as high as R=50% (as a side note R=100%=communism/fascism/etc. )

[mad_gater]

Yes, the guy who has a 900k after tax is just as "powerful" as the guy who has 23k after tax.

well since the math lesson seems to have fallen on deaf ears (not surprising given the state of public education these days)...think about this.....eminent domain

as I believe I've mentioned, eminent domain is a policy by which government takes away land from some average joe and gives it to some big developer mogul, who would be paying taxes at a higher percentage rate than everyone else

therefore, logically speaking, the government would want as many of those people paying the higher tax percentages as possible

in other words, in our current system, government stands to profit more by cozying up to the people who have to pay according to the higher brackets since that means loads more revenue than they'd get courting people who pay according to the lower brackets

but in a flat tax system the government would be getting revenue at the same percentage rate from everyone (which I very much doubt would be as high as 50% like Reaver seems to think)

example time: let's say for example R = 15%

let's say for one person I = $20,000/yr, in this case A = 20,000 x 0.15 = $3000 tax bill for the year

now let's say for another person I = $500,000/yr, in this case A = 500,000 x 0.15 = 75,000 in taxes for the year

so the higher income person still pays out more in taxes than the person making less money, yet without all the confusing tax codes and brackets and junk, a far more efficient system of income taxation than our current one, and since the percentage rate doesn't increase nor decrease the more you earn, it doesn't profit government as much to court the super-wealthy

another analogy I can use to describe our current system vs. the one I propose:

Under the current system we have different brackets which are subject to different rates of taxation. The tax revenue stream can be likened to a network of rivers. Under the current system the revenue "river" from the lower brackets would be barely a trickle, compared to the "river" from the higher brackets that would be like a raging torrent.

In the system I propose, yes some people's "reservoirs" might be larger than other people's but the "rivers" flowing out from these "reservoirs" would still be flowing out at the same rate of speed instead of having different "rivers" flowing at different rates of speed like we do in our current system

[The Flyattractor]

well since the math lesson seems to have fallen on deaf ears (not surprising given the state of public education these days)...think about this.....eminent domain

as I believe I've mentioned, eminent domain is a policy by which government takes away land from some average joe and gives it to some big developer mogul, who would be paying taxes at a higher percentage rate than everyone else

In the United States of America. No citizen actually owns PROPERTY. They all have to pay RENT! Or in layman terms....it is called TAXES.

[Gatefan1976]

well since the math lesson seems to have fallen on deaf ears (not surprising given the state of public education these days)...think about this.....eminent domain

as I believe I've mentioned, eminent domain is a policy by which government takes away land from some average joe and gives it to some big developer mogul, who would be paying taxes at a higher percentage rate than everyone else

therefore, logically speaking, the government would want as many of those people paying the higher tax percentages as possible

All true.

in other words, in our current system, government stands to profit more by cozying up to the people who have to pay according to the higher brackets since that means loads more revenue than they'd get courting people who pay according to the lower brackets

Except, as has been pointed out to you, these people do not "own" anything, therefore they are not getting taxed, or if they ARE getting taxed, there are enough loopholes to lower it to almost nothing (comparatively speaking) The problem you should be looking to solve, is the loopholes, which won't happen because these people PAY to keep them open, and they don't do it via tax, they do it via power and influence peddling.

but in a flat tax system the government would be getting revenue at the same percentage rate from everyone (which I very much doubt would be as high as 50% like Reaver seems to think)

Our highest tax bracket is 49% IIRC.

example time: let's say for example R = 15%

let's say for one person I = $20,000/yr, in this case A = 20,000 x 0.15 = $3000 tax bill for the year

now let's say for another person I = $500,000/yr, in this case A = 500,000 x 0.15 = 75,000 in taxes for the year

so the higher income person still pays out more in taxes than the person making less money, yet without all the confusing tax codes and brackets and junk, a far more efficient system of income taxation than our current one, and since the percentage rate doesn't increase nor decrease the more you earn, it doesn't profit government as much to court the super-wealthy

It is not the Government who "court the wealthy", it is the other way around dude. Think of it as a modern "indugence system", but instead of it for the Papacy and divine forgiveness, it is for the government. Your poor bugger who is spending all their money just to survive has no way to buy into the true currency of the game, and that's power and influence. After living well for a year, your guy on half a mill still probably has a good 150k left over, money he can use to buy influence for what he wants, or get togeather with his country club buddies and form a PAC.
It's not that your math or idea is wrong per se MG, it that money is just a way to buy power and influence which is the currency of politics, not money.

another analogy I can use to describe our current system vs. the one I propose:

Under the current system we have different brackets which are subject to different rates of taxation. The tax revenue stream can be likened to a network of rivers. Under the current system the revenue "river" from the lower brackets would be barely a trickle, compared to the "river" from the higher brackets that would be like a raging torrent.

In the system I propose, yes some people's "reservoirs" might be larger than other people's but the "rivers" flowing out from these "reservoirs" would still be flowing out at the same rate of speed instead of having different "rivers" flowing at different rates of speed like we do in our current system

No, they do not run at the same rate. The guy at the bottom is spending all their money to merely live, the guys in the middle have a *chance* to save a bit, removing that from the economy for a short while. Those higher up, well, they quite simply have nothing better to spend their money on and can remove vast chunks of the economy out permanently if they choose to. Then all they do is let that wealth generate even more wealth. The problem is, you are assuming that everyone is a consumer on the same level, and they simply are not.

[SoulReaver]

this is why low-income people (and everyone else for that matter) should work out this nifty thing called a budget.....take a good look at what you're spending on and if it's not necessary.....cut it out....for example I've seen many people on welfare spend what little they have on smokes....a rather expensive habit....how much food could that person have bought instead of wasting it on a pack or carton of smokes?

and number 2....."R" could be put to a nationwide popular vote and I highly doubt the vast majority of the people would vote for anything as high as R=50% (as a side note R=100%=communism/fascism/etc. )

R would depend on the person so if it's Zuckerberg I bet they'll even approve of a 99% rate :|