With the elections coming soon for next year, and after reading an article over the issue it sparked a reminder of this debate. Plus this might be a relaxing turn of events from the cumbersome religion v. science debates that are constantly on this section of the forum.
The current minimum income level of the highest tax bracket is $250,000. The argument is that the Department of Treasury shall create five additional tax brackets with minimum income levels of $500,000; $1,000,000; $5,000,000; $10,000,000; and $25,000,000
First The system is antiquated. By relying on an antiquated tax system the administration is missing out on a chance to redefine the top tax brackets in order to distinguish the âso-called richâ from the really rich. By so-called rich I'm referring to the professional class: doctors, lawyers, accountants ect. But the plutocratic "executive suiteâ wealthy, are in a class of their own. Because someone making $375,000 a year is taxed at the same rate as someone making $375 million a year. It's like comparing Ochocinco to Ochocino's denist. If more tax brackets were created at the top end of the scale, more revenue could be collected from the plutocratic class, without putting an extra burden on the professional class. Thereâs a yawning chasm between the professional and the plutocratic classes, and the tax system should reflect that. A better tax system would have more brackets, so that the super-rich pay higher rates.
This system would not only be fairer but also create additional revenue to the economy. A few extra brackets at the top could also bring in tens of billions of dollars in additional revenue. We're looking at a reverse on trickledown economics. If the plutocratic class were to take more of the weight on taxation, the lower tax brackets are not going to have to take as much weight as before, puting more towards our defecit. This in turn will not alienate the constituents but influence them positively in support for a Bill such as this. Millionaires such as Donald Trump have voiced their opposition to proposals such as this. They claim they will state hop if this were implemented state wide rather than federal based. If a bill such as this were implemented by the Department of Treasury then there would be no way for top payers to opt out of the tax by simply switching states. Not only that but it would be wiser to alienate 3% of constituents compared to 97%. There would be political advantages, too: the reform could actually make tax hikes on top earners more popular. Critics like to describe tax hikes as hurting small business, because small-business owners make up a sizable percentage of people in the top two brackets. But because small-business owners, unlike Wall Street traders, are popular on Main Street. It would be harder to mount a defense of millionaires Which may be why last year a poll found overwhelming support, from both the right and the left, for a millionaire tax. Conclusion: A Bill such as this will reflect positively on the economic status we have now and will be supported by constituents on both sides.
From what I see between what you said and what the quote was, it seems as though you're affirming the consequent by saying this is the only way that corporations work.
Then they operate a criminal organization. That's robbery, under their own laws.
It is - I'm pro-free-market. It is a criminal organization, but it isn't automatically wrong because of that. There are other reasons why taxation is wrong. I recommend you read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt, (linked .pdf) because he can explain things much better than I can (he's a clearer thinker and a good writer - and he wrote a book - not a forum post :P).
There is no question of whether you want it, just that you must pay it.
Under current circumstances, yes. However, we are talking about the ideal society, and what should be done - not what is done already.
You wouldn't be able to tell. There is no difference between rich and poor, besides maybe a rock on their finger and a watch made of ****.
Umm...I said "I would be able to tell" as a response to "Do I look like I care?"
I'm a human. Am I not allowed to make emotional interjections? They harden the point well enough
But they aren't valuable logically, and they're fallacious.
You're making all of these ridiculous and if anyone says something different, you have to downplay it as much as possible.
I'd like to think I'm a little more reasonable than that. However, whenever I encounter a fallacious argument that I recognize, I will call them out on it. And if anyone detects any of mine, I'll recognize that and apologize if necessary.
There is no right answer to fix the taxes, and it's really dumb if you think that you, having no government or treasury experience at all think that you can fix the problem because you have some faulty logic that says so.
It is too easy, when presented evidence that there are sunspots on the sun, to say "There is no right answer to this problem, and it's really dumb if you think that you, having never been on the sun or even 50 feet off the ground, to think that you can solve this mystery because you have some faulty evidence that thinks so." But in reality, logic is absolute. You cannot deny it. Read Moegreche's Intro to Logic. It's stickied.
All that is coming out of you is that you think you're God.
Quite honestly, it doesn't matter if I think I am or if I don't think I am (I like to think I am the former, but w.e.) as long as I present logical arguments.
@E1337 You are falsely attributing the entire situation to the minimum wage. The minimum wage, being a regulation, can only impede mutually beneficial interactions.
Now suppose the situation where everyone somehow magically is paid $1 a day. But that $1 means that the cost to make all the items is incredibly small because labor is so cheap. Meaning that to outcompete each other, companies will have to charge minuscule amounts for the items they sell.
The capitalistic economy thus is able to be applied to any situation.
Einfach, I don't even need to answer your questions.
Stop being a robot and start being human, please. It's making you look like a pretentious know-it-all.
I'll answer them anyways:
From what I see between what you said and what the quote was, it seems as though you're affirming the consequent by saying this is the only way that corporations work.
All corporations work in the same, or a similar manner:
Start business Work yourself Make money Hire workers Make more money Buy land, build upon it Hire more workers Make more money
Occasional takeover of other corporations (in this case, other countries (such as France in the Louisiana Purchase, Florida from Spain, Most of the west coast from Mexico, and so forth)).
While it is very basic, and there is not even the slightest bit of detail, it describes what companies do, and the US government does/did.
It is - I'm pro-free-market. It is a criminal organization, but it isn't automatically wrong because of that. There are other reasons why taxation is wrong. I recommend you read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt, (linked .pdf) because he can explain things much better than I can (he's a clearer thinker and a good writer - and he wrote a book - not a forum post :P).
Of course it [the government] isn't. It's a necessary evil, just as taxes are. I just don't like the idea of the wealthy getting punished in higher taxes for being successful. It doesn't make any sense to me; they already hold up most of the government.
Under current circumstances, yes. However, we are talking about the ideal society, and what should be done - not what is done already.
Unless I'm getting confused, don't you want bracketed systems? That's what's already being done. :/
Umm...I said "I would be able to tell" as a response to "Do I look like I care?"
Oh.
But they aren't valuable logically, and they're fallacious.
Are you a psychopath? I'm scared of you now.
But in all seriousness, you don't solve problems with logic alone. That's what computers do, and computers are retarded. Emotions are why we do things, and emotional responses are why things get done. Anyone who relies on logic in everything might as well go sign up as an assassin for the CIA. They look for people who don't value emotions, and I hear the pay is good, too.
Stop being a robot and start being human, please. It's making you look like a pretentious know-it-all.
I don't want to implant too much emotive language into my posts because I want to avoid anything that sounds vaguely like a fallacy as much as possible. Unfortunately the "know-it-all" part may be a side effect right now because I've not quite mastered it and I just type something out and click submit without proofreading. Really I'm not trying to convey that.
All corporations work in the same, or a similar manner:
Start business Work yourself Make money Hire workers Make more money Buy land, build upon it Hire more workers Make more money
This is quite an oversimplification!
It's a necessary evil, just as taxes are.
Ancient people believed that the ruling monarchs were a necessary evil, although all they ever experienced from them were oppression. Other than this assertion, you have provided no backup of why it is necessary. For example, government spending is entirely frivolous.
Are you a psychopath? I'm scared of you now.
Emotive language is a fallacy - it's not a valuable argument. It doesn't make anything right. There's nothing "inhuman" or "sychopathic" about it at all!
Emotions are why we do things, and emotional responses are why things get done.
But there's a difference between emotional responses based off of reason and those that aren't. Only pure logic can distinguish the two.
Anyone who relies on logic in everything might as well go sign up as an assassin for the CIA. They look for people who don't value emotions, and I hear the pay is good, too.
I think you misunderstood the whole "not valuing emotions in argument" thing. I meant that emotions aren't valuable to an argument. Emotions don't make things right or wrong. But logic does. Logic doesn't preclude being emotional and all, but pure emotion impedes logical thought.
I don't want to implant too much emotive language into my posts because I want to avoid anything that sounds vaguely like a fallacy as much as possible. Unfortunately the "know-it-all" part may be a side effect right now because I've not quite mastered it and I just type something out and click submit without proofreading. Really I'm not trying to convey that.
Too much? I'm getting all of 'none'. It makes it hard to debate with you, when I'm not getting any sense of fun. Like playing chess against a computer. I have no problem with the moves, just isn't very fun.
Logic is great, but logic without emotion is useless, and vice versa. Humans are great at combining the two to get things done.
This is quite an oversimplification!
That was the intent.
Other than this assertion, you have provided no backup of why it is necessary. For example, government spending is entirely frivolous.
Government spending isn't frivolous entirely. If you want to go into an ideological side, I don't believe the government should spend anything beyond law enforcement, rights protection (this does not include things like welfare, this means things to make sure people get what is needed (basically just minimum wage) and aren't discriminated against) and military. Someone needs to pay for it, and everyone benefits. Therefore, people have a legitimate reason to willingly hand over their money. Everyone benefits, and there is no parasitism.
Emotive language is a fallacy - it's not a valuable argument. It doesn't make anything right. There's nothing "inhuman" or "sychopathic" about it at all!
Maybe not psychopathic, but inhuman does ring a bell. More like a computer than anything.
But there's a difference between emotional responses based off of reason and those that aren't. Only pure logic can distinguish the two.
Logic is just as much a problem as emotion. Only the two well combined can do anything effectively. To go to an extreme, the logical method of solving a problem permanently would be to kill it. Emotion dictates killing it would be a bad idea, and would bring guilt. Guilt is a bad thing, and makes one feel terrible. Therefore, one will not follow a potential logical path and instead follow an emotional one: Words.
I think you misunderstood the whole "not valuing emotions in argument" thing. I meant that emotions aren't valuable to an argument. Emotions don't make things right or wrong. But logic does. Logic doesn't preclude being emotional and all, but pure emotion impedes logical thought.
That was sarcasm by the way. A mere jest.
In the end, there shouldn't be brackets. They make little sense, and overcomplicate what could be simple. Flat taxes actually make the government's job easier, too. It's win-win.
But ending the problem is not the primary goal. Pure logic =/= a Mr. Hyde at all.
Well, the goal was the end the problem. That's what computers do, and computers are logic machines:
A program is consuming far too much RAM/CPU for the system to handle The system closes the program to maintain system stability (a crash) The problem has been solved
You should start a new thread on this before this one gets locked. D:
The reason capitalists are scared of communists is because once the worker realizes he holds the true power, he can force the capitalist owner to make concessions, for it benefits the worker.
AND if such a reality were true, why wouldn't they, since it would benefit them? And wouldn't such a demand comply with capitalism?
Want to know why you get ****ty service at fast food? Because being paid $7.25 an hour to make food for the most ungrateful, stupid dregs of society is barely worth not leaping over the counter and strangling the yuppie dip**** who insists you sell him a frappachion even though you do not nor have ever sold one in the entire store's history.
If it's so awful - it's a wonder why they work there at all if they had a choice. The point is that they don't.
And it would be even worse if you raised the minimum wage!!! They aren't guaranteed employment - the moment you raise the minimum wage, they are laid off and are forced to live on the streets.
It is not I who misunderstands the reality of the worker - it is you.
The reason capitalists are scared of communists is because once the worker realizes he holds the true power, he can force the capitalist owner to make concessions, for it benefits the worker.
Yeah, because the workers know how to handle a business. Why would you put your life savings to start a business to give your company to your employees. If the company fails, you who spent your life savings lose your money. If you don't fail, you don't make any more money than your employees.
Of course, under communism, the government owns literally everything.
Einfach, you completely misinterpreted E1337's argument.
Without government regulating minimum wage, then companies can pay people who have no where else to turn, pennies. The company has no incentive to raise the paycheck, and the worker has no incentive to pour his heart out into making food when he gets paid ten cents an hour.
Without government regulating minimum wage, then companies can pay people who have no where else to turn, pennies
You're right - they can. But for them to be able to, the worker must also agree.
The company has no incentive to raise the paycheck, and the worker has no incentive to pour his heart out into making food when he gets paid ten cents an hour.
Umm...yes they do - they want to compete for the best workers available - and wages thus are able to increase as a result of competition.
