I just read something in Newsweek about that. Crazy. The idea that on a national scale all money is really debt is probably the most counter-intuitive realization since relativity.
Ha, reminds me of climate change. It's going to be a huge problem if we don't start preparing for it but there's no chance of it killing us all tomorrow.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
Perhaps from an objectivist standpoint. However I'm fairly certain that libertarians and conservatives have an awareness that deciding to kill the poor will damage their own standing, at least until we develop super robots.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
Your claim is that we aren't doing as good as Euro countries because we have too many entitlements. Since those countries offer more entitlements, that argument is incredibly nonsensical and does not support your point at all.
It's not killing the poor. It's refusing to stop them from dying and hastening and profiting from their deaths by contracting social services to for-profit corporations who are motivated to deny the services they are contracted to provide. The Republicans call it privitzation, the Democrats call it reform. Both act like it's a new idea. The fascists called it third-way economics and instituted it specifically to give the illusion of providing services to society's "undesirables" while really neglecting them to death.
__________________ Land of the free, home of the brave...
Do you think we will ever be saved?
In this land of dreams find myself sober...
Wonder when will it'll all be over...
Living in a void when the void grows colder...
Wonder when it'll all be over?
Will you be laughing when it's over?
With Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid I am quite aware that other countries have more entitlements than we do. I said that we kicked the can down the road with these programs, and we continued to bilk them instead of actively funding them, and we left behind IOUs. The Baby Boomers have more bodies than their succeeding generations, which means there won't be a greater workload to fund these entitlements. It's a $50-70 trillion deficit.
Your response is nonsensical. I am not quite sure why you are attacking me.
__________________
Currently: With my reserve money, I buy a hotdog. Foul tasting shit, but Zell eats it right up. Then he, Selphie and I talk with his mother
Speaking of which did you hear about how Texas privatized prisons have been lobbying the government into sending Haitian illegals there permanently without access to lawyers, since it's illegal to send them back to Haiti? That's the kind of shit that happens when you privatize things that are the government's job. One Haitian got sent to prison for being kidnapped because he didn't come legally and is going to be in prison as long as they can keep him.
You realize that with a year and a half of research and production, Monsanto can kill 75% of the US population in a week?
__________________ Land of the free, home of the brave...
Do you think we will ever be saved?
In this land of dreams find myself sober...
Wonder when will it'll all be over...
Living in a void when the void grows colder...
Wonder when it'll all be over?
Will you be laughing when it's over?
Flat tax - if it's high enough with some level of exemptions for the poor, it would create a large increase for the "rich" and a decrease for the "poor" and little change to the "middle class." The idea that a flat tax is silly, is silly. The idea that it would decrease the taxes on the rich, is silly. It would increase the taxes on the rich, if it's high enough.
There's way too many flavors of the "flat tax" to make any sort of legitimate criticism for or against it. You first must specify which version you hate, then explain why you hate it.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
Well, it is a flat tax, as opposed to a progressive tax, because the tax rate is the same regardless of income (excluding the exemption). So the term is right, one will however have to specify what they are talking about, just as with progressive tax, just that that's the standard in the US, I believe, so you just talk about raising or lowering taxes, without specifying that it is progressive tax you are talking about, which is also why people who propose a flat tax system have to specify that as it is not the standard.
Some suggest a straight up, flat tax, by a percentage, regardless. No one is equal. But, as inimalist pointed out, that's rather stupid because out of the $1000 that the poor family of four brings home each month, $150 would cut directly into that families ability to simply survive. Whereas, the single person that brings home $1,000,000 a mont, has to pay a HUGE amount of $15,000 a month, but that $15,000 doesn't even come close to cutting into his or her ability to obtain shelter and food.
Enter the flat tax compromise for the poor.
It's really hard to do a flat tax.
However, if the flat tax is around long enough, the people will adjust and the family of four will either die, increase their wages, or option C: stay the same.
I was reading about a "negative" flat tax system. I don't quite understand that, but it's supposed to bridge the gap and get rid of health care. Could someone educate me more on that type of system?
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
The way that works as far as I understand is that rather than setting an exemption you have a minimum starting point and everything under that point you get some tax money, basically as welfare back.
I don't understand how it would get rid of health care, but it would grant some sort of welfare to poorer people, so I guess they could afford more private health care, however I don't see how it solves the real problem.
KMC Community Forums
Apr 7th, 2010 04:48 AM
