I've stated my opinions on Socialism before in other threads, but it wasn't the appropriate place to put the. I have debated with several of you on my ideas, but I crave a more in depth debate.
I think the government should provide services that humans are entitled to. The rest are luxuries, and those luxuries should be provided to companies. These are thing an individual person should have.
The government should provide healthcare, education (this includes money for universities), water, electricity, waste management, parks, and roads.
There should be a 40% tax on anyone who make $25 000 or more annually. That means, if you make $25 000, you don't pay taxes. If you make $26 000 annually, you have to pay 40% tax.
Here is a scenario. The average man makes around $50 000, no? If you make $50 000, then you get to keep $30 000.
With those $30 000, you only have to pay for your mortgage, car, food, and family.
The rule of thumb for paying a house, is five times your annual salary, or five years worth of income. A person who makes $50 000, should buy a house that is around $200 000. If you take out a mortgage for twenty years, you have to pay $10 000 a year. Right there, you only have $20 000 to spend.
Now, an average car that costs $12 000 lasts about six years. If gas costs $50 a month, then in one year, you spend $600 in one year. Right there, you have spent $22 600 and have $ 7 400 to spend.
Food for one month costs around $300 a month. In one year, that is $3 600. So now you have spent $26 200.
Television, phone, internet costs around $100 a month, so in one year, you spend $1 200 on that. Now, you have spent $27 400. The rest, $2 300, can go to your savings.
In your second year, since you already have a car, you have $12 000 extra. Furniture in total costs around $10 000. So, you have spent $25 400 on basic things. The rest of that, $4 600, can go to your savings.
So now you have a car, furniture and beds, a home, television, phone, internet, food, and gas in two years, without going over your budget.
In your third year, since you have another $12 000 to spare, since you already bought your car and furniture. Now, you if you always put $5 000 for every year, on savings, you have $7 000 to spend on whatever else you want. I think that's a pretty good deal. You can collect shoes, buy toys and games for your children, and actually live your life.
Now, for Libertarians, they would do other things. Everything would be privatized.
If the average person makes $50 000, they get to almost all of it. Let's see how that works out.
So, education costs around $9 000 a year. Healthcare costs $10 000 a year. Utilities, such as water, lighting, electricity, etc. costs around $9 000. Water costs $250 a month, so annually, $3 000. Electricity costs monthly, $350 a month, so annually $4 200. Gas costs $600 you have. Internet, phone, and television costs $1 200.
So all that costs, $28 000. That's more than what you would spend in taxes. Taxes only cost $20 000.
Even if you have no children, or conserve your money wisely, you only have, at most, $5 000 extra. Now, wouldn't you miss parks, roads, public transportation, and other things?
Socialism... Prosistibutes wealth more evenly increases workers rights decreases poverty allows for a stable economy many social programs are based on socialism; food stamps, public housing, public health-care, public education
I like how Kevin is ignoring my perfectly good point. He hasn't responded to it for 20 minutes. That's plenty of time to come up with a decent counter-argument. That is, if there were one. He can't defend Socialism when I bring this part of it up.
No you didn't. You said Kirby was arguing the flat tax. Then I said that the flat tax she argued would be the one you would use. Then her argument becomes valid and defeats your flat tax idea.
Don't you remember?
1. Kirby is a guy, and I can't take you serious at all, but I will try.
2. Read the pages after the OP because if you did like I had asked, you would know I fumbled with the math on the tax and decided to change it.
3. Arguing against a flat tax does not DESTROY the idea of Socialism. I don't like smartasses, but I hate failed smartasses.
Just in case you're wondering, you were arguing for a flat tax in the OP.
I know. He said that you were arguing against Socialism, however.
Also would it honestly kill you to look up whatever you were arguing and respond with it. As much as I lurk I don't feel like reading incoherent things not pertaining to the question I was asking.
Yeah but from what you were saying in the OP, there's no incentive to move up a bracket because after taxes you would have less then what you would have at the lowest bracket.
Only a socialist would be optimistic enough to think I'm going to do this.
No, but really, it's a strange proposition.
Also I see absolutely no inclusion of wealth in your OP. Untaxed wealth is the primary cause of inequality and social immobility. Income tax is only one piece of the puzzle.
Also I see absolutely no inclusion of wealth in your OP. Untaxed wealth is the primary cause of inequality and social immobility. Income tax is only one piece of the puzzle.
The direction your op is pushing at, income, is fine. But wealth is a different beast altogether, and it is what causes inequality. Wealth is essentially unearned income. Inheritance passed down through generations, offering various socio economic advantages to its inheritors, preventing anything close to resembling equality of opportunity.
One of the primary reasons wealth has such a bad effect on social mobility is because it is taxed so lightly, and because there is an entrenched idea of entitlement in the psyches of almost all political structures.
Inheritance passed down through generations, offering various socio economic advantages to its inheritors, preventing anything close to resembling equality of opportunity.
QQ
One of the primary reasons wealth has such a bad effect on social mobility is because it is taxed so lightly, and because there is an entrenched idea of entitlement in the psyches of almost all political structures.
All socialists ever talk about is this idea of entitlement to people.
Equality shouldn't be forced. In fact, you should be arguing communism if you want true equality.
