for the USA peoples

[RipperRoo]

I say to communism- poor people should work for their money; it should not be given to them. Invariably in a communist state, people become lazy, since there is no motivation to work hard (since no one gets more wages). I also say it's the government's responsibility not to interfere with the workings of business/try to control it, or to provide any more than basic welfare support for the lower classes.

Now there you are completely wrong. Those with the most money tend to do the smallest amount of work... Such as footballers, Bill Gates, and the Royal Family.

[mole]

i dont think the royal family counts in that seeing as though they inherited it.

besides if people dont go to work tax payer money feeds them

[smi256]

On behalf of government interference, I’d like to point my finger at Canada.  Ganted, I don’t live there, and I really don’t know a LOT about what they do.  But I do know that the Canadian government has a very high tax on it’s people; not good.  However, the government does provide an enormous amount of subsidized services; like medical.  Note: our medical (in the US) has gone to the dogs.  Only PPOs will actually provide major care, and only people with fat wallets can afford such an expensive medical plan.
/me moves to Canada

[EDIT]
I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be rich people.  I’m just saying that outrageous prices of things like medical aren’t within reach of a lot of people.  Another point I could make is that it was this government that let these people get rich, and they are the ones that are most able to play taxes without any significant consequences to there well-being.  I’m not going to go into any unlawful/immoral activities that have helped them get to where they are.

I’m most certainly not suggesting that the US have a revolution into Communism

& an Interesting Link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3640754.stm

[mole]

there was a notion here about 18 months ago about putting the £70k+ tax band to 65% of somthing. which is completely outrageous. and people wonder why all the biggest companys opperate from abroad and our technicians, scientists, designers etc move to the US.

the reason for that (relating to the link now) is because, the media complains and we're all subnjected too it. basically its a legalised subliminal messaging, so we're not entierly to blame for our views.

[Lord Lanair]

Since we've moved to an economic discussion, I'll go with it.  

I think the government should stop/cut back on provding some services like Medicare, and let the people worry about paying for drugs.  The government should also stop taxing the rich more than the poor (with a possible exception of the ultra-super rich), and created a flat tax rate.  

[mole]

*applauds* you shouldnt have to pay more when you earn more. wheres the motivation?
"yes i want to graduate and get myself a good job so that i can give back the majority of my hard earned cash to the government so that they can give dropped out alcoholic bums a chance to live in a better world apart form the one they created by spending all their money of fags, weed and drugs so that they look cool infront of the assholes who hold back my personal enjoyment of lessons that i feel im reasonably good at because we have to recap everything 4 times so they can get their punctuation right in a science class."

[Lord Lanair]

Hehe... nicely said.      

Isn't Britain one of those countries with like a 60% tax rate?  :miffed:  

[evilknight]

you know, i think america used to use a flat tax rate system. it fucked up bad, because it was taking a large amount of the poorer people's money and a grand total of bullshit from those who were better off.
that's why instead of having a set amount of money payed each year, it's relative to how much you make.
 

[smi256]

A flat tax affects the lower classes more then the upper class
Crap, now I can’t think of what the economical term for it is..  (EX: sales tax)

[Lord Lanair]

A flat tax rate makes for much less bureaucracy, and is a lot simpler for the government to deal with.  Furhtermore, why should rich peope be punished for getting off their asses and making more money?  The poor should just work harder if they want more money.

Of course, the government should not be spending so much money in the first place- significantly cut back on welfare and some other social programs, and you can reduce the income tax rate as well (leaving the general public with more money).  Voila- 2 problems fixed.    

[Hyvry1]

Hehe... nicely said.       

Isn't Britain one of those countries with like a 60% tax rate?  :miffed:

40% and that is the upper tax rate not the lower one.

[smi256]

Lanair, how can we have a country of all CEOs or VIPs (extreme case)?  What about the people that do the things that NOBODY wants to do, like picking up trash at schools/parks (around here, it’s the privet school that are filthy when there’s no custodian).  What about the teachers that help us become smart enough to make money?  Teachers don't make much money to support themselves, let alone a family (heaven forbid that it's a single parent/provider family)
There are good honest people that work harder in one day then management positioned person works in a week (this is an extreme case, ya, I know) and it seems so very wrong to have such people making so little.  And no, I don’t think that this should go to the other extreme; that is to say that the government is singularly responsible for it’s people.  Which brings in the problem of illegal immigrants.  Which also partakes in the situation below.  
Imagine what is happening to so many people (especially here where I am, Silicon Valley) where they are hard workers, who have lost their job due to off shoring.  Why off shoring?  Because there are people in dirt poor counties that will work for peanuts practically, which in return makes for a much greater profit margin; for who? Not the few workers that are still in the states, but the big guys at the top…  there’s no way that anyone could possibly work here (the bay area) on the wages of illegal immigrants working the field.  Reference: you’d be damn lucky to find an apartment here for $1,000 a month.  There are so many people here, and so many more that want to be here, but don’t have the money to buy a home.  

DUDE! Do you want us to be like the USSR, where all the peasants are in some sort of sick loop like the snack eating it’s own tail; it’s a death spiral.  “it takes money to make money” yes, that’s not always true, but it’s sure hard to do otherwise, or else we’d be going it already.

I don’t think that anyone here can possibly claim that they know exactly how to build a country in all it’s intricacy and yet still be viable, or even remotely realistic.  And I have a good feeling that Rug might dispute that, but hey, just because he could (per say) rule the whole world in peace and defeating poverty everywhere… why the bloody hell would any current rich man want him to do so.  Could it would undoubtedly cut into his slice of the preverbal green pie or wealth, and if not (by some unknown means), he would no longer have such power then he had before.

Shit yo (wow, I haven’t said that in a long time), this was suppose to be a short post… >.>

[Rug]

Flat tax rates. Hm. Pile of stinky shit comes to mind. I shall prove this via example.

Lets say I earn $20,000/year. I work as a secretary. so this is not uncommon.

Lets say mole earns $10,000,000 a year.

There is a flat tax of 70%, because the government is evil.

Who gets fucked up the ass by that? The guy who loses $7,000,000 dollars, but still has a very, very nice salary, or the guy who is losing $14,000 dollars, leaving him with precisely shit all?

The government gets 7,014,000 dollars from this plan.

If they taxed the Rich guy 71%, and the poor guy 10%... they'd get more money, and the poor guy wouldn't die. Sounds more fair, hm?

I don't care if the rich guy worked really hard for the uber salary, or if he sits on his ass all day. He does NOT need that extra 7 million dollars, whereas the poor guy DOES need that 14 thousand, therefore the flat tax is wholly unfair on the poor guy, not the rich guy.

This is smi's point, but in short paragraphs and an arrogant tone.

I don’t think that anyone here can possibly claim that they know exactly how to build a country in all it’s intricacy and yet still be viable, or even remotely realistic. And I have a good feeling that Rug might dispute that, but hey, just because he could (per say) rule the whole world in peace and defeating poverty everywhere… why the bloody hell would any current rich man want him to do so.

I may be arrogant, but I'm not that arrogant. I'm an thinker, not a doer in that sense.

And no rich person would ever want to lose that extra 1%, let alone be taxed 61% more than a low paid peon...


Edited to make my numbers right.

[mole]

poverty wont be solved in a long time and world peace is a unrealistic world goal.

[smi256]

Rug: I figured you’d go to the next best thing of setting up a model like the ones you read about.  (oreo)

Mole: True, but doesn’t that mean we should start working on at least curbing it a bit, instead of polarizing the situation (which I think would make the whole situation harder to work with)