The great debate

Non-Allegiance related. High probability of spam. Pruned regularly.
Camaro
Posts: 2418
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:00 am

Post by Camaro »

Ryujin wrote:QUOTE (Ryujin @ Sep 29 2012, 06:15 PM) However, I am in favor of social programs honoring those who need it,.. ie:

Social Security
Medicare

Both of which require either income tax or sales tax.
As sales tax is regressive (higher income people pay a smaller portion of their income in sales tax than lower income people), I am more in favor of income tax. Preferably a progressive one that isn't too skewed as to discourage entrepreneurs and innovation.

Although with a true universal health care system, medicare would cease to be an issue.
Medicare would just morph into a different issue. Anyways I don't care to debate the merits of a Single Payer system vs reforming our current.

Social Security can be reformed into a true pension system, with sound monetary policy, it should generate sufficient revenue to keep itself solvent for a bit longer.

I actually favor simplification of the tax system as follows:

-Elimination of credits & deductions
-Elimination of different tax brackets for different types of income (i.e. dividends are taxed at the same rate as capital gains which is taxed at the same rate as wages)
-Elimination of payroll taxes (Highly regressive taxes - funding for Social Security & Medicare will come from income taxes)
-Elimination of gasoline taxes (regressive taxes)
-Elimination of business taxes (tax costs are just passed onto the consumer anyways, it is essentially a highly regressive tax. Corporate profits will be taxed when paid out in dividends and salary)
-Somewhat flat progressive tax structure with a 1% tax rate as the bottom tier spiraling up to whatever brackets needed to balance the budget

That way these people end up paying much less in taxes (as they have no payroll taxes) but still have to pay something. 100% of the population will be paying income taxes.


Basically, if you make X from whatever source, then you pay Y. End of story. No loopholes. No tax accountants needed.



Also Ryu, sound monetary policy can have a detrimental impact on the ability to fund Medicare and Social Security. Sound monetary policy would make current inflation rates high enough that the government would have extreme difficulties in funding itself without a gargantuan tax hike... which I would favor if it meant balancing the budget.
Last edited by Camaro on Sun Sep 30, 2012 5:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Image
Duckwarrior
Posts: 1967
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 7:00 am
Location: la Grande-Bretagne

Post by Duckwarrior »

fuzzylunkin1 wrote:QUOTE (fuzzylunkin1 @ Sep 30 2012, 04:32 AM) O brother, where art thou, Slap? :boohoo:
I can make it happen. Do you want me to get him?
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable. John F. Kennedy.
HSharp
Posts: 5192
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:18 am
Location: Brum, UK

Post by HSharp »

Camaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Sep 28 2012, 03:58 AM) Non-Interventionist foreign policy
Camaro the last time America was non-interventionist was December 6, 1941
Image
Image
Camaro
Posts: 2418
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:00 am

Post by Camaro »

HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Sep 30 2012, 12:23 AM) Camaro the last time America was non-interventionist was December 6, 1941
Not quite, we were actively supplying the Allied powers and not the Axis.

Additionally, we had been levying severe economic sanctions against the Japanese which was crippling their military capabilities.

Neither policy is that of a non-interventionist state.
Image
Image
fuzzylunkin1

Post by fuzzylunkin1 »

Duckwarrior wrote:QUOTE (Duckwarrior @ Sep 30 2012, 02:42 AM) I can make it happen. Do you want me to get him?
I'm scared. Yes? :hide:
HSharp
Posts: 5192
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:18 am
Location: Brum, UK

Post by HSharp »

Camaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Sep 30 2012, 10:30 AM) Not quite, we were actively supplying the Allied powers and not the Axis.

Additionally, we had been levying severe economic sanctions against the Japanese which was crippling their military capabilities.

Neither policy is that of a non-interventionist state.
To be fair if the US supplied the Axis then Europe probably wouldn't trade with them.

Japan was planning on invading rest of Asia including US interests there, the attack on Pearl Harbour wasn't because of economic sanctions. But i suppose having intrestst outisde of the US is interventionist as well :P
Image
Image
CronoDroid
Posts: 4606
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:00 am
Contact:

Post by CronoDroid »

HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Sep 30 2012, 01:29 PM) To be fair if the US supplied the Axis then Europe probably wouldn't trade with them.

Japan was planning on invading rest of Asia including US interests there, the attack on Pearl Harbour wasn't because of economic sanctions. But i suppose having intrestst outisde of the US is interventionist as well :P
Actually the attack on Pearl Harbor WAS become of economic sanctions. When France fell and Germany took over, Vichy France resumed their occupation of Indochina. Japan had interests in the area due to their war with China and invaded it, whereupon the two countries hashed out some sort of agreement. Eventually the US stopped exporting a bunch of supplies vital to the Japanese war effort, especially oil, and Japan decided to start blowing @#(! up on a big level. Since Japan didn't (and still doesn't) have any meaningful domestic oil production, there was no way they were going to continue fighting in China if the imports ceased. They only planned on invading SE Asia to seize their oil production to keep their military going. At that point there was still debate between the Japanese Army and Navy whether to invade SE Asia or the Soviet Union, but the US-British-Dutch oil embargo gave favor to the Navy's position.

Now a few people think the attack on Pearl Harbor was unnecessary (and the German declaration of war after even more so), because Japan could have just invaded SE Asia and see if the US would do something. The US was still somewhat non-interventionist in '41, if they weren't going to participate in the European theatre at this point, chances are they probably would have let Japan get away with a fair bit of mischief in Asia. I mean the war in China had been going on for four years and the US contribution was quite insignificant. And let's face it, the US doesn't care about Asians. Even though Japan was the aggressor in WW2, Roosevelt still said his main priority was Europe. Yeah, who cares about all those millions upon millions of Chinks and Gooks getting their asses kicked, right? We should help the white man first! Listen buddy, the Brits and Russians were holding their own, maybe you should have taken care of Asia so that seventy years later you aren't butting heads with the People's Republic of China and North Korea - and potentially avoid the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam.

From the research I've done on this conflict, the US population was firmly against going to war, but that major attack on US soil that killed thousands of actual Americans was going too far. With that said, the US PROBABLY would have joined the war eventually, unless they looked at Europe, saw the USSR was making a comeback and said "eh, they can handle it." But if they started against Japan later, like post '42, the Japanese position would be very well entrenched and it would have been a more difficult war overall.

So all things considered, things turned out for the best even if millions of Jews, Chinese, Russians and whoever else died senselessly. At least the other side didn't win, although who knows, if Japan won maybe we'd be fighting aliens in giant robots now. The real question is, if Japan won and continued to occupy Korea...would K-Pop exist? Those sorts of questions make it hard to sleep at night.
HSharp
Posts: 5192
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:18 am
Location: Brum, UK

Post by HSharp »

CronoDroid wrote:QUOTE (CronoDroid @ Oct 1 2012, 12:11 AM) Actually the attack on Pearl Harbor WAS become of economic sanctions.
Maybe I worded it incorrectly, I don't think Japan attacked the US as retaliation for economic sanctions which is what I felt Camaro was coming across as. Japan was already planning on invading most of SE Asia anyway and the US had a few territories around there (The Philippines).

The attack was more about discouraging the US from intervening in Asia rather then trying to cripple their fleet. It backfired badly for them in the long run. Who knows America might not have joined WWII.

Pre WWII the US was happy keeping their noses out and only attacked when provoked (WWI - Lusitania sinking, WWII Pearl Harbour attack). Since then they have been interventionist extraordinaire much to the chagrin of Camaro.

Still how knows how the world might be now it the US remained non-interventionist after WW2 as well, USSR up and controlling most of Europe? Middle east monopoly by the British?
Image
Image
Adept
Posts: 8660
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 12:53 pm
Location: Turku, Finland

Post by Adept »

I wonder if this thread would be a good place to talk about the rather polarised rhetoric heard from the US republicans and right wing parties all over the world. The classic claim is that right wing parties promote "freedom" and "capitalism" and left wing parties will choke the life out of the economy, and punish business owners. Nordic countries like Sweden and Finland are sometimes used as examples of European big government nanny-state hellholes.

It's quite interesting to see what the highly esteemed Economic Freedom indexhas to say on the matter. The most recent, fully finished and released survey is from 2010.

QUOTE In this year’s index, Hong Kong retains the highest rating for economic freedom,
8.90 out of 10. The other top 10 nations are: Singapore, 8.69; New Zealand, 8.36;
Switzerland, 8.24; Australia, 7.97; Canada, 7.97; Bahrain, 7.94; Mauritius, 7.90;
Finland, 7.88; and Chile, 7.84.

• The rankings (and scores) of other large economies in this year’s index are the United
Kingdom, 12th (7.75); the United States, 18th (7.69); Japan, 20th (7.64); Germany,
31st
(7.52); France, 47th (7.32); Italy, 83rd (6.77); Mexico, 91st, (6.66); Russia, 95th
(6.56); Brazil, 105th (6.37); China, 107th (6.35); and India, 111th (6.26).[/quote]
Add that to the survey that put Finland as the least likely country to experience political instability, and I would really like to feed this stack of paper to our own conservative party, who keeps preaching how we should be more like the USA where free enterprise is so much easier. :doh:
ImageImageImageImageImage
<bp|> Maybe when I grow up I can be a troll like PsycH
<bp|> or an obsessive compulsive paladin of law like Adept
NightRychune
Posts: 3065
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:00 am

Post by NightRychune »

the republican party is religious-based ideologies (anti-gays, anti-abortion, etc) plus "our campaigns are paid for by financial institutions so we have to pander to them"

the democrat party is "our campaigns are paid for by financial institutions so we have to pander to them"

internationally, i think we see a lot of right-wing extremism gaining ground because it's become so popular in the united states, so foreign politicians following the same ideologies can go "look the united states is doing it and they're free and they're $#@!ing rich so we need to do this bat@#(! crazy @#(! so we can be free and $#@!ing rich too!"
Post Reply