I pay a local tax based on the estimated value of my house as determined at some point in the mid 90s. This tax is collected by local government, then passed on to central government who distribute it back to local government. We also have things like car tax (pay to use your car on the public highway, and no, the highways don't get the money), airport tax on all flights, Sales tax (we call it VAT) on most items, National Insurance (like income tax but not included in income tax for reasons that escape me) and various other nonsense.
Spidey: Can't think of a reason I'd need to know anything
Don't forget that included in that 50% that dont pay taxes are combat personel (who dont pay income tax on stuff they earned while deployed), and the litterall poor elderly whose only income is social security.
Blanket stats are nice and all, but rarely telling of the entire story.
What SHOULD be done in the US is to have a really good social welfare system. I'm all for low taxes and small government, except when people "on the right" talk about policy decisions, it's always a combination of LOW TAX, LOW SPENDING and NO WELFARE...unless of course you're a large corporation, or related in any way to the military.
What a lot of countries with respectable social welfare models do (like Australia and the Nordic countries) is actually have a lot of sales tax. If you actually look at the statistics, countries with socialist models don't actually have tax rates any more progressive than the US, in fact the US does have a fairly progressive taxation model and talking tax policy is stupid anyway. The difference between countries where lower income people are better off...and the US, is that the US has the worst welfare system in the industrialized world. No subsidized tertiary education, no single payer healthcare system, @#(!ty unemployment benefits, very few drug rehabilitation facilities, etc. It sucks to be poor in the US, you don't need me to tell you that. A sales tax, while regressive on paper, may actually turn out to be somewhat progressive in practice. After all, rich folks spend more of their money on @#(! than poor people do. You could use all of that revenue towards social programs.
In my mind, the solution is a lot simpler than people make it out to be. You could start by cutting a lot of subsidies, for one. Downsize the military and cut the procurement budget. Redirect that money to the VA. End the War on Drugs. These shouldn't be considered drastic steps, I mean if you really are fiscally conservative, you shouldn't support a policy that incarcerates millions of Americans and costs billions if not trillions of dollars. How can you expect anyone to pull themselves up if you throw their ass in jail?
Then you can go onto the good stuff, like giving people decent unemployment benefit, subsidizing tertiary education (no, student loans don't cut it), providing universal healthcare, and so on.
Also, you need to stop throwing around the word SOCIALISM without actually knowing what it means. Every country has some "socialist" elements to its economy. Almost every country has capitalist elements too. The video in question isn't even saying inequality is a bad thing. I mean, on paper, extreme inequality isn't in and of itself bad, if the lower end of the scale are well off. But most people who argue that live in a fantasy libertarian paradise that is just not reality. It sucks, really, really bad, being poor in the US. Shouldn't the "Greatest Country In The World" aspire to have its most downtrodden citizens live in conditions that aren't similar to those of a developing country?
Last edited by CronoDroid on Fri Oct 11, 2013 3:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Oct 8 2013, 12:01 PM) Really? I thought it was a string of bank failures triggered by a stock market crash coupled with a massive drought. I guess my history class must have been taught by an evil republican neocon.
You forgot the loose credit that led up to the bank crash.
I'd pay teachers more because most of the people who are smart enough to be good teachers are smart enough to know it doesn't pay well enough, so don't do it.
Sheriff Metz wrote:QUOTE (Sheriff Metz @ Oct 14 2013, 04:52 AM) I'd pay teachers more because most of the people who are smart enough to be good teachers are smart enough to know it doesn't pay well enough, so don't do it.
On this thing - you and I agree totally Metz.
Teaching should be seen as a desirable career for people, and should cream off at least a percentage of the better graduates from University.
At the moment in the UK (and I believe the US) it's seen as a vocation for those who really really want to do it, and don't mind the relatively poor pay.
Passion for the subject alone is not the be all and end all of whether you can be decent at something, or whether you should be doing something, no matter what Rudytold you.
