• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wealth distribution

Cally said:
A certain amount of debt, sure . . . but over over $20 trillion? Definitely unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the national debt is not over $20 trillion. You might want to check your facts,, you have been mislead - that $20 trillion figure is just wishful thinking on the part of people who wish to bash Obummer by making up crap.
 
Born Free said:
That's a big relief I don't have to worry about the National Debt anymore. Now the government needs to borrow more and more to really get this economy growing. Obama has borrowed over 8 trillion so far with nothing to show for it. Lets borrow another 50 trillion next year and really set the economy on fire.
Click to expand...

I'm glad I eliminated your worries over the national debt. There are way too many people stomping around complaining about something that's really not an issue at all. We have serious issues in the country, they national debt isn't even in the top 100.

The government could eliminate all taxation, double it's spending, and still not have a need to borrow $50 trillion. But more government spending to create valuable infrastructure would improve our economy without a doubt.
 
imagep said:
Sorry, but the national debt is not over $20 trillion. You might want to check your facts,, you have been mislead - that $20 trillion figure is just wishful thinking on the part of people who wish to bash Obummer by making up crap.
Click to expand...

It is if one also includes state and local debt. Without that, it is still over $18 trillion.
 
imagep said:
I'm glad I eliminated your worries over the national debt. There are way too many people stomping around complaining about something that's really not an issue at all. We have serious issues in the country, they national debt isn't even in the top 100.

The government could eliminate all taxation, double it's spending, and still not have a need to borrow $50 trillion. But more government spending to create valuable infrastructure would improve our economy without a doubt.
Click to expand...

Got it, why not eliminate all taxation. I mean if the national debt is really meaningless and really not an issue at all, then no need for taxes.
 
Logicman said:
The ideal government is one with low taxes, a balanced budget, and no debt. That's the conservative model. Any government based on something other than that is either going to eventually go bust, or it won't perform as well as the conservative model. And that's how private individuals should run their households.

The liberal model is higher and higher taxes to support more and more spending. When does that get to be too much? And with liberal governments you also have a lot of debt that goes on the backs of the kids and grandkids to screw up their futures.
Click to expand...

Your ideal government is flatly impossible in the first world. Why? Because in order to have a population with a first-world standard of living, you must have high effective taxes. The balanced budget and no debt can be had - see "Germany" - but low taxes? If having a prosperous, highly-educated population is your goal - and it must be, if you want your nation to maintain first-world status - then you must have high taxes.

In other words, high taxes are the price of admission to life in a first-world democracy. If you don't want to pay high taxes, then go to almost any third-world democracy.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Your ideal government is flatly impossible in the first world. Why? Because in order to have a population with a first-world standard of living, you must have high effective taxes. The balanced budget and no debt can be had - see "Germany" - but low taxes? If having a prosperous, highly-educated population is your goal - and it must be, if you want your nation to maintain first-world status - then you must have high taxes.

In other words, high taxes are the price of admission to life in a first-world democracy. If you don't want to pay high taxes, then go to almost any third-world democracy.
Click to expand...

It's undeniable that taxes are necessary and inevitable. But define "high" taxes. In Switzerland, its citizens pay a marginal tax rate of 20% and in Canada, it's 31%. I guess that's high, but considering Canada's national healthcare, it's not a bad deal.
 
Born Free said:
Got it, why not eliminate all taxation. I mean if the national debt is really meaningless and really not an issue at all, then no need for taxes.
Click to expand...

Taxation actually is one of the things that gives value to our money. We need to pay taxes, thus we have a need to acquire money, and since we have a need to acquire money, it has value to us.

Aside from that, taxation is used as a tool to control inflation. Yes, in 2015 we could have and should have ran a larger deficit because inflation was low or non-existent. There are also other social uses for taxation, like as a way to discourage excessive use of certain products, like fossel fuels, alcohol, tobacco, etc.

We should probably cut taxes though (how much is a guess), particularly on the worker/consumer class because if we did, demand would increase, and businesses would expand to meet demand, and more jobs would be created, incomes would increase, and more wealth would be created.
 
Cally said:
It's undeniable that taxes are necessary and inevitable. But define "high" taxes. In Switzerland, its citizens pay a marginal tax rate of 20% and in Canada, it's 31%. I guess that's high, but considering Canada's national healthcare, it's not a bad deal.
Click to expand...

Ya gotta be careful about looking at the marginal tax rate and assuming that's the whole story - it's usually not:

But these numbers might understate how low taxes have been in the U.S. Unlike most advanced economies, the U.S. don't supplement personal income taxes with a national sales tax, or value-added tax (VAT). Consumption taxes accounted for about a fifth of total U.S. revenue in 2008 (mostly at the state and local level) compared to an OECD average of 32 percent. In other words, the U.S. relies uniquely on personal tax rates to raise revenue -- and we have relatively low personal tax rates.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Littered is a good term as I tend to engage an individual who has yet to propose a solution. Your comment is dross.
Click to expand...

I take such feedback as a compliment when it comes from a "partisan avenger" who enters a thread, shooting from the hip, and cannot actually respond to arguments on merits.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Your ideal government is flatly impossible in the first world. Why? Because in order to have a population with a first-world standard of living, you must have high effective taxes. The balanced budget and no debt can be had - see "Germany" - but low taxes? If having a prosperous, highly-educated population is your goal - and it must be, if you want your nation to maintain first-world status - then you must have high taxes.

In other words, high taxes are the price of admission to life in a first-world democracy. If you don't want to pay high taxes, then go to almost any third-world democracy.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. If when America was founded they set aside some monies every year in a trust account, and each administration added to that yearly, we'd have an enormous bankroll now that we could be making interest on to fund our economy.

In addition, if progressives and others weren't so darn intent on propagating the murder of 50 million innocent unborns, we'd have one hell of a lot of additional tax money for our coffers.
 
Absentglare said:
I take such feedback as a compliment when it comes from a "partisan avenger" who enters a thread, shooting from the hip, and cannot actually respond to arguments on merits.
Click to expand...

You must be hard up for compliments. Again, I wasn't addressing your points, assuming you made any.

Nice projection when I referred to mmi as a partisan avenger when he referenced winning elections. I've expressed no party affiliation and have taken no sides. Partisans always take the position that anyone who questions their position must be on the other side.

I'm the one that pointed out that if you see the current distribution of wealth as a problem, then the taxing of wealth is the obvious solution.
 
jaeger19 said:
Honestlyl. how can savings "just sit there"..

Unless someone is sticking it in a jar and burying it in the garden.. or putting it under the mattress... how does savings "just sit there"..
Click to expand...

How else would you describe it? Are you still thinking that savings allow a bank to make loans? That simply isn't true.
 
Absentglare said:
No one would want to buy a slow growth company except people who want ownership of a slow growth company. If your company is growing slowly, why do you deserve to be rewarded for that ?

Many of these companies have substantial assets, even if the growth is slow, such that the shareholder could make money off of a complete liquidation. And frankly, if the shareholder couldn't make money that way (where he lost money on his investment), he has no reason to own the stock other than the assumption that the company will grow in the future.

So i still don't understand why we should feed speculative bubbles. Why not let stocks reflect the "value of ownership" and not "the extent to which money is funneled toward shareholders" ?
Click to expand...


there is a major difference between slow/moderate growth and no growth

i bet you are type to always bet on the hare in race race between the tortoise and the hare

take a company like proctor & gamble....

a company everyone knows

mainly sell basic consumer goods...paper towels, toilet paper, etc

other than opening new markets in other parts of the world, there is only so much growth for a company like that

but they are consistent performers....earnings, and revenue over an extended period of time

it is a LOT safer to own a company like that than a high growth/high risk company....

and with their earnings, they use some every year to reward their shareholders in the form of dividends

with the rest, they try to grow organically, and to use the cash to buy other companies in other products

that sir is the way the market works....and SHOULD work

some people can handle the high reward high risk equities....others prefer the proctors of the world

different strokes for different folks
 
jaeger19 said:
And to believe that premise.. you would have to believe that poor people are too stupid to think for themselves. Sorry.. but I was born into a lower middle class family like most of these folks.. and I don't by the "they were too stupid to know better".. Honestly.. how can you believe that they think "gee the bank has my best interest at heart"..
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you don't work with the general public much. There are mobs of otherwise smart people that are not financially savvy, and could be talked into buying too much home.

And "stupid"? Not necessarily, but certainly some or many of them were. But even the ones that weren't too stupid to think for themselves were lulled into the optimistic mindset that they would be able to afford the home they were buying. I'm not a stupid person, but even when my wife and I bought our house, we spent 15-20% more than I was comfortable spending, because it was the house she wanted. And when she lost her job in '09, we lived on coupons, sales, cheap food, part time work and odd jobs for three years until she was able to find employment.

Because military people are owned by the government. They don't in general get to decide where they live. they sign up and the government says.. you are going to live in texas. And then you are buying a house in texas.. and three years later.. suddenly.. you are in virgina.. or south Carolina even thought the government told you that you would probably retire in texas... and you have to sell your home, but now you are upside down in it. And you don't get to quit and say.. well screw you.. I am staying in texas... you do that and you get to have a nice bedroom shared with a cell mate.
Click to expand...

Lots of people have non-military jobs with the same problem. I know, I know, "find another job, you loser". :rme
 
jaeger19 said:
If you are talking that specifically then yes.. you are absolutely correct. and its not surprising that the system has headed that way since the tax code punishes those that invest in construction and rewards those that invest in playing the stocks.

I make 600,000 starting a construction company (and S corp), pay wages, pay wage taxes, and spending in the economy. And I have to pay earned income on the money likely 39.6%. Have a C corp.. great.. then its taxed first at the corporate rate.. and then again as an individual.

Now.. make 600,000 dollars buying and selling Boeing after one year? I pay 20%. About half a tax liability and a lot less headaches.

....
Click to expand...

Just for giggles, in Boing's most successful recent year (2013), you'd have had to buy (or already own) about $750,000 in Boeing stock to make $600,000 in one year off of it.
 
Critter7r said:
I'm guessing you don't work with the general public much. There are mobs of otherwise smart people that are not financially savvy, and could be talked into buying too much home.

And "stupid"? Not necessarily, but certainly some or many of them were. But even the ones that weren't too stupid to think for themselves were lulled into the optimistic mindset that they would be able to afford the home they were buying. I'm not a stupid person, but even when my wife and I bought our house, we spent 15-20% more than I was comfortable spending, because it was the house she wanted. And when she lost her job in '09, we lived on coupons, sales, cheap food, part time work and odd jobs for three years until she was able to find employment.



Lots of people have non-military jobs with the same problem. I know, I know, "find another job, you loser". :rme
Click to expand...

I'm not a stupid person, but even when my wife and I bought our house, we spent 15-20% more than I was comfortable spending, because it was the house she wanted.

want versus need

now versus later

that one sentence epitomizes this generation....and so many people in this age

banks says we can afford a 300k mortgage....lets spend it all and get what we WANT

stupid? no.....shortsighted? maybe

just as too many never save for the rainy day anymore....they spend it all, and live paycheck to paycheck

again....stupid? no....shortsighted? maybe
 
Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post

If you are talking that specifically then yes.. you are absolutely correct. and its not surprising that the system has headed that way since the tax code punishes those that invest in construction and rewards those that invest in playing the stocks.

I make 600,000 starting a construction company (and S corp), pay wages, pay wage taxes, and spending in the economy. And I have to pay earned income on the money likely 39.6%. Have a C corp.. great.. then its taxed first at the corporate rate.. and then again as an individual.

Now.. make 600,000 dollars buying and selling Boeing after one year? I pay 20%. About half a tax liability and a lot less headaches.



Critter7r said:
Just for giggles, in Boing's most successful recent year (2013), you'd have had to buy (or already own) about $750,000 in Boeing stock to make $600,000 in one year off of it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And don't get me wrong, that's a really nice return in one year on $750k. But nobody living below the top 1 or 2% has that kind of money available to wrap up in Boeing.
 
gdgyva said:
I'm not a stupid person, but even when my wife and I bought our house, we spent 15-20% more than I was comfortable spending, because it was the house she wanted.

want versus need

now versus later

that one sentence epitomizes this generation....and so many people in this age

banks says we can afford a 300k mortgage....lets spend it all and get what we WANT

stupid? no.....shortsighted? maybe

just as too many never save for the rainy day anymore....they spend it all, and live paycheck to paycheck

again....stupid? no....shortsighted? maybe
Click to expand...

Thank you for acknowledging my point (no sarcasm). Even though I understand that you don't really agree with it.

We could have made a cheaper choice, yes, but "wellll, it'll be fine, honey" (and every married man knows what I mean). As it turns out, it worked out, because we purchased a home that we would never need to upgrade from. Had we purchased a starter home that we intended to sell after a few years, we'd have been stuck in a home we had originally had no intention of staying in, but would be unable to sell. As it was, we felt as if we were looking long term by buying the last house we would ever need to buy first, instead of buying a starter home and then flipping it to buy our "real" home later.

So for us, it worked out, as we were able to scrape by and stay in the house. Many others weren't as fortunate. And not because they were stupid ... but they were just too optimistic, or "short sighted" as you mentioned.
 
Critter7r said:
Thank you for acknowledging my point (no sarcasm). Even though I understand that you don't really agree with it.

We could have made a cheaper choice, yes, but "wellll, it'll be fine, honey" (and every married man knows what I mean). As it turns out, it worked out, because we purchased a home that we would never need to upgrade from. Had we purchased a starter home that we intended to sell after a few years, we'd have been stuck in a home we had originally had no intention of staying in, but would be unable to sell. As it was, we felt as if we were looking long term by buying the last house we would ever need to buy first, instead of buying a starter home and then flipping it to buy our "real" home later.

So for us, it worked out, as we were able to scrape by and stay in the house. Many others weren't as fortunate. And not because they were stupid ... but they were just too optimistic, or "short sighted" as you mentioned.
Click to expand...

the real estate brokers, the mortgage brokers, the customers....everyone contributed

everyone had this idea that prices just had to keep going up in their heads

and since the rules were relaxed regarding the sales of those mortgages on the secondary markets, it was a win/win for everyone involved.....until the prices stopped going up

and then one thing led to another, which led to another, which led to a third and before you knew it....we had a full fledged credit halt

and the world stops revolving when the credit stops flowing....nothing works

it seemed like everyone was culpable to some extent....but i am glad you guys were able to hang on.....

so many who did what you did, just couldnt....the payments eventually smothered them
 
imagep said:
Taxation actually is one of the things that gives value to our money. We need to pay taxes, thus we have a need to acquire money, and since we have a need to acquire money, it has value to us.
Click to expand...

The need to acquire money has nothing to do with the government taking away my money. If the government took nothing from me I have more to spend.

Aside from that, taxation is used as a tool to control inflation. Yes, in 2015 we could have and should have ran a larger deficit because inflation was low or non-existent. There are also other social uses for taxation, like as a way to discourage excessive use of certain products, like fossel fuels, alcohol, tobacco, etc.
Click to expand...

Interest rates help control inflation. As for the control of uses, all government has to do is limit the products it wants to control.

We should probably cut taxes though (how much is a guess), particularly on the worker/consumer class because if we did, demand would increase, and businesses would expand to meet demand, and more jobs would be created, incomes would increase, and more wealth would be created.
Click to expand...

I rest my case as I said above and now you agree, I suggest to cut all taxes as you claim the national debt means nothing. In which case the government can borrow all it wants with never a consequence.
 
Born Free said:
Interest rates help control inflation. As for the control of uses, all government has to do is limit the products it wants to control.
Click to expand...

That's a myth. Interest rates are a response to inflation. When we have high inflation, interest rates follow because lendors expect a higher rate of return (to compensate for inflation) and borrowers are willing to pay a higher rate because inflation reduces the net effective rate.


I rest my case as I said above and now you agree, I suggest to cut all taxes as you claim the national debt means nothing. In which case the government can borrow all it wants with never a consequence.
Click to expand...

I never said that it means nothing, I said that it's not a big concern. Our biggest concern is or at least should be unemployment. I do agree that we should reduce taxes, but only to the point where we get about 2% inflation due to a maximized economy. Cutting taxes below that amount does nothing.

Nothing in this universe is all or nothing. And improving our economy isn't about any one particular issue. It's a matter of fine tuning. Currently, we have unemployment, so considering that we also had deflation in 2015, this year would have been ideal to either cut taxes on the consumer class (so that demand increases) and/or for the government to spend more on infrastructure, but I'm not suggesting massive amounts of either, just enough so that we have full employment and around 2% inflation.
 
Last edited:
AliHajiSheik said:
You must be hard up for compliments. Again, I wasn't addressing your points, assuming you made any.

Nice projection when I referred to mmi as a partisan avenger when he referenced winning elections. I've expressed no party affiliation and have taken no sides. Partisans always take the position that anyone who questions their position must be on the other side.

I'm the one that pointed out that if you see the current distribution of wealth as a problem, then the taxing of wealth is the obvious solution.
Click to expand...

We tax income, not wealth.
 
gdgyva said:
there is a major difference between slow/moderate growth and no growth

i bet you are type to always bet on the hare in race race between the tortoise and the hare

take a company like proctor & gamble....

a company everyone knows

mainly sell basic consumer goods...paper towels, toilet paper, etc

other than opening new markets in other parts of the world, there is only so much growth for a company like that

but they are consistent performers....earnings, and revenue over an extended period of time

it is a LOT safer to own a company like that than a high growth/high risk company....

and with their earnings, they use some every year to reward their shareholders in the form of dividends

with the rest, they try to grow organically, and to use the cash to buy other companies in other products

that sir is the way the market works....and SHOULD work

some people can handle the high reward high risk equities....others prefer the proctors of the world

different strokes for different folks
Click to expand...

Well i guess i'm at a loss for why we would want ownership to be a form of reliable income. Seems that the investors are bleeding stagnant companies who grow slowly, if at all.

Shouldn't investment be risky? Why should anything short of maybe t-bills be treated as a safe bet?
 
Absentglare said:
We tax income, not wealth.
Click to expand...

Actually we tax some income and some wealth via the inheritance (death?) tax and property taxes. I prefer a consumption (sales) tax applied to most goods/services to an income tax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom