Why should those who are poor because of circumstances be forced to suffer because of a few who can't be trusted though?
Taxes
- Thread starter Esper
- Start date
Why should those who are poor because of circumstances be forced to suffer because of a few who can't be trusted though?
- 371
- Posts
- 6
- Years
- Age 43
- Seen Nov 19, 2022
No one should be "forced" to suffer but communism only makes more people suffer.
Communism doesn't work because the government owns everything and absolute power corrupts. Taxation is not communist and has been a part of just about every system of government. I don't advocate communism, I advocate democratic socialism which is a system greatly superior to both capitalism and communism.
Honestly if your issue with doing taxation the right way is "COMMUNISM" then you're just buying into the strange American stigma against anything that isn't pure capitalism that's been perpetuated since the red scare.
- 371
- Posts
- 6
- Years
- Age 43
- Seen Nov 19, 2022
That's not the only reason communism fails. Taxation for the purpose of ensuring that everyone has a set standard of living (still want to know who determines that) is what I disagree with. It gives the gov't more power than it should have.
You quoted a standard communist slogan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs
Superior? You mean like Venezuela?
That assumes that increasing taxes the "richer" to support the poor more and more is the right way to tax people. It's not strange to look at the constant failures of communism/socialism and think that maybe we shouldn't follow their lead.
Agreeing with the sentiment doesn't mean I don't recognise the inherent flaws.
As for Venezuela, corruption will ruin just about any system. I was thinking more along the lines of Scandinavia where pretty much every country is doing better than the US with generally higher happiness, more equal distribution of wealth and also a much lower crime rate.
Hell, even communist Cuba has far better healthcare and education than the US because of their taxation system and have a generally happy population from what I've seen.
You want to think of constant failures, let's have a look at capitalism. A system in which the rich tend to remain rich via inheritance while contributing little to society while poor families who work their asses off are doomed to generations of poverty because people are too greedy and selfish to give up a sum that has no effect on their exuberant lifestyles for the sake of society as a whole with a class gap that is only growing wider. Not to mention that this poverty and divide leads to higher crime rates, wider spread of diseases and in extreme cases civil unrest or even war. All because the wealthy can't bear to pay a bit moe tax that overall would have very little impact on their lives if any.
- 371
- Posts
- 6
- Years
- Age 43
- Seen Nov 19, 2022
Interesting how it is "corruption" that caused the failure and not the general flaws with socialism.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438331/nordic-democratic-socialist-model-exposing-lefts-myth
It's more cultural issues than social democracy. Small countries that are more insular, less diverse have fewer issues than countries with very diverse peoples.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/101480/does-scandinavian-socialism-work-steven-plaut
Seriously? You think Cuba is better? HAH!
You get great healthcare in Cuba if you are a rich foreigner or a Cuban elite. Poor? Not so great. Sure, the docs come to your house to check up on you and your family but you have to let them in and they can report anything they see to the gov't.
http://www.therealcuba.com/?page_id=77
http://blog.acton.org/archives/90402-the-truth-about-cubas-health-care-system.html
Free education? Only if you toe the party line.
http://www.therealcuba.com/?page_id=62
https://panampost.com/vanesa-vallejo/2016/09/22/dismantling-cubas-socialist-success-myth/
If Cuba is so great, why do the people risk their lives to flee to the US?
Can I blame the supposed problems with capitalism on corruption?
Long sentence. Citation requested for the "rich contribute little to society" claim. I'm not aware of any companies started and owned by people living in poverty.
Except crime rates keep dropping, the US isn't experiencing outbreaks of disease. I do see civil unrest and issues with disease in Venezuela. I wonder what the difference is?
Except it doesn't stay at a "bit more". It'll get increased over and over again when the pet projects of the socialists fail.
- 371
- Posts
- 6
- Years
- Age 43
- Seen Nov 19, 2022
Raising taxes on the rich to help the poor rarely shows any benefit. The rich can afford to change how they get paid to avoid higher taxes and will even move if the taxes are bad enough.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/frances-mistake-shows-taxing-wealth-doesnt-work/article/2558137
https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/a...5552&aliaspath=/Manage/Articles/Template-Main
http://www.heritage.org/budget-and-...ma-heres-why-raising-taxes-the-rich-wont-work
- 322
- Posts
- 12
- Years
- Seen Jun 21, 2018
For the most part your sources are bad (2/3 are not particularly trustworthy rightwing mouthpieces) but i genuinely don't get the idea you're expressing here?
You're effectively saying that the rich, for some reason, currently have the means to avoid paying taxes but do so because they're "low enough", but if they were any higher they'd.... use the mediums they already know about and have access to in order to not pay taxes, or just leave the country? Surely the better option is to close the tax loopholes rather than just let the rich run free because it'd be harder to tax them
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-inequality-jeremy-corbyn-labour-donald-trump
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/upshot/to-lift-the-poor-you-cant-avoid-taxing-the-rich.html
Doesn't mean that the rich won't be paying higher taxes though, even if they find ways to avoid the full effect of any change. And with regards to moving, I don't think most wealthy people would move in response to high taxes. When you're that wealthy, you'd still be able to afford to live anywhere in the world you want, it's a matter of personal preference. And even if they manage to avoid some taxes, that might be enough to convince them to stay if they were otherwise going to leave. Even if you only raise taxes by a quarter for every dollar you expected, it's still more revenue the government can invest.
Bottom line is that if it makes a change, that's what matters. The argument that we shouldn't enact a law or change because it won't have 100% of its intended effect is a poor one. No tax policy in the world is 100% foolproof. But by that logic we might as well just give up anything that doesn't have an 100% success rate, wouldn't we?
- 1,136
- Posts
- 7
- Years
- Age 29
- The Subway
- Seen Jun 18, 2020
I don't really like taxes, but agree to a modicum of their existence.
California perhaps is the best example of mismanagement of funds, but I would rather not delve too deep into the corruption and lack of funds making it to the roads, so to speak.
Taxes are, in my opinion, something that needs to be kept in severe check. Right now we have laws in place keeping elected officials out of jail for misdemeanors and a lot of people don't know this.
I think in order for you to see improvements you'll have to draft laws to increase the punishment for imbezzlement and corruption.
Also, income tax was based in Prohibition. You probably didn't know this either but when prohibition hit, congress agreed that the bars and alcohol taxes were still needed (they wouldn't get taxes if they made alcohol illegal) so they crafted the income tax idea. A decade later, alcohol was legal again! The booze came back, but the income tax didn't go away.
This is the kind of behaviour I distrust. I have seen time and again groups mismanaging tax funds. What is giving more to these same people going to solve?
Solve the corruption aspect first is my stance. If there are people purposefully using tax dollars for their own reelection and they can't be or aren't punished for this behaviour I don't want to give these people my money.
Not to say that taxes are all bad, but it's the people that are the problem.
California perhaps is the best example of mismanagement of funds, but I would rather not delve too deep into the corruption and lack of funds making it to the roads, so to speak.
Taxes are, in my opinion, something that needs to be kept in severe check. Right now we have laws in place keeping elected officials out of jail for misdemeanors and a lot of people don't know this.
I think in order for you to see improvements you'll have to draft laws to increase the punishment for imbezzlement and corruption.
Also, income tax was based in Prohibition. You probably didn't know this either but when prohibition hit, congress agreed that the bars and alcohol taxes were still needed (they wouldn't get taxes if they made alcohol illegal) so they crafted the income tax idea. A decade later, alcohol was legal again! The booze came back, but the income tax didn't go away.
This is the kind of behaviour I distrust. I have seen time and again groups mismanaging tax funds. What is giving more to these same people going to solve?
Solve the corruption aspect first is my stance. If there are people purposefully using tax dollars for their own reelection and they can't be or aren't punished for this behaviour I don't want to give these people my money.
Not to say that taxes are all bad, but it's the people that are the problem.
ShinyUmbreon189
VLONE coming soon
- 1,461
- Posts
- 12
- Years
- Age 32
- Chicago
- Seen Dec 17, 2022
Taxes should go to where they're supposed to go, and politicians pockets isn't one.. First of all, cut military (and I REALLY don't wanna argue about why having a military in America is mandatory) spending. Yes, America needs an military but the current military budget is a little ridiculous if you ask me. We need to eliminate the war on drugs and taxing it, it simply doesn't work (but anything for them to make a profit), they also need to drastically cut big pharma company budgeting as well. Instead of spending a big chunk on war and war on drugs we can give affordable health care (taxes would help a lot) and affordable college. The rest should go to schools, hospitals, police/fire/paramedics but the funds shouldn't be used every year to buy new vehicles, government assistance (but it should be stricter than it currently is, I have no problem helping those in need), maybe send some of those taxes to helping homeless and charity funds for starving children? Of course roads, bridges, housing, disagree with sales tax on food purchased at grocery stores.. Taxing the rich doesn't do a thing, they're such a small minority that it wouldn't make a difference anyways without effecting the middle class. I'm sure there's a ton I left out, this is all I could come up with without thinking too much.
Last edited:
- 322
- Posts
- 12
- Years
- Seen Jun 21, 2018
The rich being such a small minority yet owning a majority of all wealth is kind of the issue, though?
In 2011 with the top 1% owned 43% of all the wealth in america, with the 19% after that owning another 50%. That means 80% of the population owned 7% of the total wealth. This has continued to rise year after year, as rising wealth inequality drives a massive wedge between the rich and the rest of the american populous.
Surely, increased taxation on the people who own 80% of all wealth in america would go a long way to actually being able to fund public works ect and decrease overall wealth inequality, without hurting the middle class (who own a small part of that 7%)
ShinyUmbreon189
VLONE coming soon
- 1,461
- Posts
- 12
- Years
- Age 32
- Chicago
- Seen Dec 17, 2022
Actually, that would be considered the wealthy not the rich. The wealthy owns such a large percentage because the wealthy consists of banks, corporations/franchises, few celebrities and politicians, etc, or in other words, billionares. The phrase "more money means more power" is implyed here, is it not? You're average working man isn't wealthy, or even rich for that matter. Rich people, they're business owners or in a high level position if they're on payroll but even if they're rich they're FAR from wealthy. Someone that's rich can still get into a financial crisis. Where as someone that's wealthy, they have no worries whatsoever and they got wealthy by robbing the population.
This is something we both agree on, I was talking about the "rich" not the wealthy that's my mistake. Yes taxing the wealthy would help with putting a better health system, schooling system, etc into action but I'm afraid that would never happen. They're too greedy to care and in the end of the day, these politicians like taking from the middle class and poor and giving it to the wealthy,, it also benefits these politicians, they're the puppets and line their pockets as well. Anything to make a profit, even if it's pennies. The fact the US government is behind this, no wonder everyone hates this country and calls them the biggest criminal orginization. Which isn't a false statement, they kind of are. But this is another discussion.
- 90
- Posts
- 9
- Years
- Age 31
- Seen Jun 23, 2018
"Taxes" is a nice name for extortion. It is people called "politicians" forcing you to pay an amount they decide that goes to things they decide as well.
Last edited:
How evil of them to expect society to pay to maintain services available to them.
- 90
- Posts
- 9
- Years
- Age 31
- Seen Jun 23, 2018
Right, because all of that tax money just goes to necessary services instead of being inefficiently wasted by self-interested losers in government.
http://www.businessinsider.com/nancy-pelosis-in-flight-food-and-drink-costs-101000-2010-1
The vast majority is.
Do I think politicians don't need the degree of luxury they get? Yup.
Does that invalidate my point? Nope.
- 90
- Posts
- 9
- Years
- Age 31
- Seen Jun 23, 2018
So you think you should be forced to pay for whatever "your" politicians (as if they care about you) want to use your money on?
I think that the tiny amount of money that everyone pays is worth it for the services we gain. If that money also pays for politician wages, which I agree are too extravagant, then so be it. The pros vastly outweigh the cons.