ForumsWEPRObama or Romney

214 23034
ethan3300
offline
ethan3300
100 posts
Farmer

Please debate here.

  • 214 Replies
Bladerunner679
offline
Bladerunner679
2,491 posts
Jester

You have to go with Romney, Obama has made or economy worse than before he was elected. We need good change not Obama's Change.


last I checked, the Dow was way above what it was when obama first became elected. I'm going to have to take that comment of yours with a grain of salt.

-Blade
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,604 posts
Regent

Romney's change would entail the richest people of America, though who need no assisstance, paying much less taxes, and the everyday man like practically all the users here paying more money. Would you want to pay taxes?

Krill11
offline
Krill11
98 posts
Shepherd

Would you want to pay taxes?


Yep, and I will do so gladly. A free government is something I believe in...
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,604 posts
Regent

Jolly good. I would rather pay less to put food on the table, to ensure my kids get to school, my family can at least have a decent life, rather than have the chance to blather about.

America an equal society? Or an America that somehow can believe in the nonsense that giving bankers, CEOs, traders, lawyers, celebrities, more tax cuts will magically help the economy? Choose.

Uysername
offline
Uysername
72 posts
Peasant

I just take it on principle that for a tax to be fair, it should be the same for everyone. Thus I am against tax brackets on principle, and in that sense, the Ryan plan income tax actually appeals to me.

It's where it cuts spending that feels like bull**** to me.

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,604 posts
Regent

An "equal" system means greater inequity. A progressive tax system means greater equality for all. A regressive one like what Romney has is the worst of the lot.

HahiHa
online
HahiHa
7,111 posts
Grand Duke

Problem is, you won't be able to repay debts with same taxes for everyone. Because to match the rising expenses, you'll have to tax more; and at some point, the netto income of the lower revenues will shrink to derisory amounts while the elite still has money to throw out the window. Taxing depending on wealth ensures that each member of society contributes equally in relation to their life standart, and gives more freedom of activity for the government.

It's where it cuts spending that feels like bull**** to me.

Let me guess.. social expenses, health system and education? It's always the same.
Uysername
offline
Uysername
72 posts
Peasant

An "equal" system means greater inequity. A progressive tax system means greater equality for all. A regressive one like what Romney has is the worst of the lot.


Wait...so you're actually saying that it's unfair for someone 10 times richer than you to pay 10 times more tax...they should pay 20 or 30 times more? I'm not following. I'm not following on why a progressive tax promotes equality either.

Problem is, you won't be able to repay debts with same taxes for everyone. Because to match the rising expenses, you'll have to tax more; and at some point, the netto income of the lower revenues will shrink to derisory amounts while the elite still has money to throw out the window. Taxing depending on wealth ensures that each member of society contributes equally in relation to their life standart, and gives more freedom of activity for the government.


A much easier, and cleaner way to solve that problem, so that people don't "throw money out the window" is a spending tax. Why you would have to meddle with income, I don't know.

Let me guess.. social expenses, health system and education? It's always the same.


Not really. I mean, healthcare shouldn't be cut. Welfare...neither, but I would still support work-for-welfare for under 65 adults that are able to work. Disability...shouldn't be cut. Neither should pensions. But education IS wasteful (I know schooling sucks in the US, but it's not because it's underfunded), and should be cut. I actually don't have any problem with a voucher system, I know a lot of good private schools and learn in a private school myself.

tl;dr education should actually be cut a fair amount.
HahiHa
online
HahiHa
7,111 posts
Grand Duke

A much easier, and cleaner way to solve that problem, so that people don't "throw money out the window" is a spending tax. Why you would have to meddle with income, I don't know.

The easiest way would be for people to actually pay their due taxes instead of trying to find 1001 ways to accumulate riches. But since you cannot possibly fight against that, you have to do something. And what do you mean exactly by spending tax? Everyone has to buy things, how would you differentiate between the different social classes?

But education IS wasteful (I know schooling sucks in the US, but it's not because it's underfunded), and should be cut. I actually don't have any problem with a voucher system, I know a lot of good private schools and learn in a private school myself.

Cutting the funds won't help, in the contrary. Also you cannot just privatize education; it has to stay affordable.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,604 posts
Regent

Wait...so you're actually saying that it's unfair for someone 10 times richer than you to pay 10 times more tax...they should pay 20 or 30 times more? I'm not following. I'm not following on why a progressive tax promotes equality either.


A progressive tax system is based on the ability to pay principle, which has the effect of redistributing income from the rich to the poor. Direct taxes are a tool for redistributing wealth; case in point, a taxing a rich man more can help fund soup kitchens for the unemployed and homeless. This is promoting equality.

A progressive tax system is not the simple mathematical increase you put it out to be. A person who earns ten times more does not pay ten times more tax. This is just ridiculous, painting it in that light.

A much easier, and cleaner way to solve that problem, so that people don't "throw money out the window" is a spending tax. Why you would have to meddle with income, I don't know.


A spending tax is regressive. Suppose the Indonesian government decides to tax kerosene. The problem is that spending constitutes a lowr proportion of income for the poor; poorer Indonesians now have a far higher percentage of their income spent on kerosene due to the spending tax then the rich. This increase inequity.

Whilst tax cuts can be justified, they are only so when applied to correct areas. Increasing income taxes will hardly make a banker quit his job since he still makes millions. Slashing taxes for SMEs is a good tax cut because it reduces cost of production, which is passed on as lower prices to consumers. It also encourages people to invest more since profits are higher since marginal costs are lower.

But education IS wasteful (I know schooling sucks in the US, but it's not because it's underfunded), and should be cut. I actually don't have any problem with a voucher system, I know a lot of good private schools and learn in a private school myself.


If education is not subsidized, then essentially the quality of education would depend much more on how much their parents earn and how much they care. Furthermore, privae schools aren't always cheap, the fact that they have to run it as a business and worry about funding means fees are bucked up relative to public schools unless such schools have large private boards willing to donate.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,604 posts
Regent

Spending consists a HIGHER proportion of income for the poor***

Bollocks typo.

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,604 posts
Regent

quality and quantity of education.**

Cor, my phone loves me.

Uysername
offline
Uysername
72 posts
Peasant

Thus the same spending tax shouldn't be applied to all of produce. Obviously kerosene wouldn't be taxed, or only taxed low. Just like food. And prescription meds. And electronics. But you can have an extended spending tax on precious ores, furs, housing, jewellery, stock....I rest my case. And even of the basics, the rich will buy more than the poor. And I don't meen a spending tax as the only tax, but as a supplement for income.

And as I said, talking about education. Yes, some private schools are expensive. HENCE, vouchers. Which are more cost-efficient that a grid of public schools.

I didn't say that that's how it mathematically goes - that someone who earns 10 times more than you pays 10 times more in taxes. I said that is the way it should be - at least in the realm of income.

Finally, I am against the notion of wealth redistribution. I don't see it as a good thing nor an objective.

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,604 posts
Regent

Thus the same spending tax shouldn't be applied to all of produce. Obviously kerosene wouldn't be taxed, or only taxed low. Just like food. And prescription meds. And electronics. But you can have an extended spending tax on precious ores, furs, housing, jewellery, stock....I rest my case. And even of the basics, the rich will buy more than the poor. And I don't meen a spending tax as the only tax, but as a supplement for income.


The American tax on stocks and shares has chased portfolio funds overseas; one of the FB founders is a new Singaporean PR. 

As said, an additional spending or goods tax is not a good idea. Making it a specific tax on certain kinds of goods will make it all the more inefficient a system of taxation, something which goes against one of Adam Smith's sagely advice on tax systems; that it would not be expensive to implement and Administer. Imagine the bureaucracy needed to determine which goods need to be taxed. And I thought the GoP is against unceasing government size.

We have already witnessed such consumer taxes worldwide. VATs, GST, they have cost an increase in general price levels and increase inequity.

Finally, I am against the notion of wealth redistribution. I don't see it as a good thing nor an objective.


The people who like the status quo generally don't. The people starving on the streets who have been jobless for two years differ. There's no social justice in the system.

I didn't say that that's how it mathematically goes - that someone who earns 10 times more than you pays 10 times more in taxes. I said that is the way it should be - at least in the realm of income.


Again this goes back to the whole idea of proportion of income. A 20% tax on 5 million dollars still leaves one with a very comfortable 4 million whilst a 10% tax on 5 grand might potentially mean mortgage is not paid and food OS not provided.


And as I said, talking about education. Yes, some private schools are expensive. HENCE, vouchers. Which are more cost-efficient that a grid of public schools.




The problem with the whole "vouchers" argument is that it casts taxation and government services in a consumer model.

Government is not in the business of providing services that people want to and can buy individually. Government is in the business of ensuring some kind of minimally supportive society.

The taxes that I pay to support public schools are not a fee to send my kid to school. They are a tax, which should be used to support some kind of common good. In this case, the common good is that society at large should not be saddled with large masses of dangerously uneducated people who are unemployable and therefore a destabilizing element.

My issue with vouchers is not that they drain money from public schools, but that they drain money from supporting a common good. If the best way to spend my tax money is to send poor kids to private schools, that's fine with me. 

But if we are going to support draining money from a public utility, we had better understand what that will mean societally, not just individually because this means negative externalities.

And furthermore vouchers do not reduce spending. Youre merely diverting funding to another source via subsidies and tuition fees. It also assumes that parents can even afford to pay. 

Vouchers do not decrease education costs. Instead, tax money that would ordinarily go to public schools now pays for vouchers, thus harming public schools. A 1999 study of Clevelandâs program showed that the public schools from which students left for private voucher schools were spread throughout the district. The loss of a few students at a school does not reduce fixed costs such as teacher salaries, textbooks and supplies and utilities and maintenance costs. Public schools run the risk of losing state funding to pay for vouchers without being able to cut their overall operating costs. In addition, voucher programs cost the state money to administer. In Milwaukee, which has been disproportionately burdened in a statewide voucher funding scheme, the city has had to raise property taxes several times since the voucher program began in order to ensure adequate funding for the cityâs schools.

Busted my phone. Dang it.
nnoaheec12
offline
nnoaheec12
15 posts
Peasant

I think Obama is still going to be elected, but Romney has high chances for the 2016 election.

Showing 76-90 of 214