• 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!

Income tax; Flat tax; National Sales tax; No tax

Which do you prefer:

  • Total voters
    133
Z3n said:
He was a corporatist. An advocate of both capitalist economics for the benefit of the state, and the military aggression he believed he and Hitler needed to propagate
Click to expand...

He was the leader of many an issue of the progressive left - nationalized education, healthcare, youth corp, elderly care. I agree with you, he was corporatist, but that is a symptom of the left. Look at the left today.
 
reefedjib said:
He was the leader of many an issue of the progressive left - nationalized education, healthcare, youth corp, elderly care. I agree with you, he was corporatist, but that is a symptom of the left. Look at the left today.
Click to expand...

While one can argue that both fascism and communist at empirical levels offer the same thing, but there are a few, absolutely ideologically polarizing factors.

Communists are godless(denounce religion as a mean to political structure and are more or less atheists), internationalists( one world government?), communitarians(identity is irrelevant-- UNION of soviet socialist republics)

Fascists are usually religious( catholic fascism in Italy, Christianity in general under Hitler), nationalists(without question; pride in state), and individuals( hey, fascism is great if you are part of the identity group that is being promoted--the aryans)

Two radically different approaches to the same more or less dystopian end


Hope that clears up the misunderstanding! :)
 
Last edited:
Z3n said:
Corporatism is historically more synonymous with reactionary conservatism. While one can argue that both fascism and communist at empirical levels offer the same thing, but there are a few, absolutely ideologically polarizing factors.

Communists are godless(denounce religion as a mean to political structure and are more or less atheists), internationalists( one world government?), communitarians(identity is irrelevant-- UNION of soviet socialist republics)

Fascists are usually religious( catholic fascism in Italy, Christianity in general under Hitler), nationalists(without question; pride in state), and individuals( hey, fascism is great if you are part of the identity group that is being promoted--the aryans)

Hope that clears up the misunderstanding! :)
Click to expand...

What's this reactionary conservatism that you say Corporatism is synonymous with? Fascism has nothing to do with it. The fact is that where you say socialism and fascism offer the same things at an empirical level, that is the case for 95% of their agendas. That last 5% of fascism does not make it a creature of the right. Religious nationalism versus godless internationalists is merely a scoping issue. Fascists adhere to the nation-state, whereas socialists/communists look past those political boundaries.

Fascism is a creature of the left.

Now, did that clear it up for you? :mrgreen:
 
reefedjib said:
What's this reactionary conservatism that you say Corporatism is synonymous with? Fascism has nothing to do with it. The fact is that where you say socialism and fascism offer the same things at an empirical level, that is the case for 95% of their agendas. That last 5% of fascism does not make it a creature of the right. Religious nationalism versus godless internationalists is merely a scoping issue. Fascists adhere to the nation-state, whereas socialists/communists look past those political boundaries.

Fascism is a creature of the left.

Now, did that clear it up for you? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Honestly, try to explain to a poli sci major, who has been explained by leading intellectuals, your own beliefs.

fascism is right and communism are left....zz

COMMUNIST THEORY: ANTI-FASCIST. COMMUNAL. COLLECTIVIZED. ECONOMICS FOR THE WORKING CLASS/PROLETARIAN. STATELESS. CLASSLESS. INTERNATIONALIST. NO RELIGION. INCLUSIVITY

FASCIST THEORY: INDIVIDUAL. PRIVITIZED. ECONOMICS FOR THE IDENTITY GROUP AND THE MILITARY/ECONOMIC ENDEAVORS OF THE STATE, ONLY. STATE EXISTS FOR THE PEOPLE. CLASS EXISTS IN THE EXTREME--THERE ARE THE IDENTITY GROUP THAT MAKE THE NATION STRONG, AND THERE ARE "OTHERS". RELIGION IS A FOCAL POINT ON MORALITY AND CONDUCT. EXCLUSIVITY IN ITS FINEST.
 
Last edited:
Z3n said:
Honestly, try to explain to a poli sci major, who has been explained by leading intellectuals your own beliefs. fascism is right and communism are left....zz

COMMUNIST THEORY: ANTI-FASCIST. COMMUNAL. COLLECTIVIZED. ECONOMICS FOR THE WORKING CLASS/PROLETARIAN. STATELESS. CLASSLESS. INTERNATIONALIST. NO RELIGION. INCLUSIVITY

FASCIST THEORY: INDIVIDUAL. PRIVITIZED. ECONOMICS FOR THE IDENTITY GROUP AND THE MILITARY/ECONOMIC ENDEAVORS OF THE STATE, ONLY. STATE EXISTS FOR THE PEOPLE. CLASS EXISTS IN THE EXTREME--THERE ARE THE IDENTITY GROUP THAT MAKE THE NATION STRONG, AND THERE ARE "OTHERS". RELIGION IS A FOCAL POINT ON MORALITY AND CONDUCT. EXCLUSIVITY IN ITS FINEST.
Click to expand...

First, DON'T ****ING YELL AT ME AGAIN, BITCH!

Second, Fascism is collectivized. The left is not just communism or socialism or progressivism or fascism. In both communism and fascism the perfect individual is exalted.

Third, screw you, I am going skiing. Be back tonight. :)
 
reefedjib said:
First, DON'T ****ING YELL AT ME AGAIN, BITCH!

Second, Fascism is collectivized. The left is not just communism or socialism or progressivism or fascism. In both communism and fascism the perfect individual is exalted.

Third, screw you, I am going skiing. Be back tonight. :)
Click to expand...

Fascism is anything but collectivized. You think that Jews and aryans called each other Comrades in Nazi Germany?
 
reefedjib said:
First, DON'T ****ING YELL AT ME AGAIN, BITCH!

Second, Fascism is collectivized. The left is not just communism or socialism or progressivism or fascism. In both communism and fascism the perfect individual is exalted.

Third, screw you, I am going skiing. Be back tonight. :)
Click to expand...

Claiming that fascism is a child of the left is deliberate stupidity and unwillingness of the right to take responsibility for its own black sheep.

Where ever fascism has arose it has been fighting workers rights and crushed unions. It was not unions who funded Hitler; it was capitalists and it was not the USSR who put Pinochet in Power but the US. Fascism has many times been proven a useful tool for the capitalist class to fight socialism.

The only similarity between fascism and socialism is that the fascist ideology addresses the class issue which contemporary rightists just want to forget. But the fascist approach to solve the class issue is fundamentally different from the socialist. While socialism is all about abolishing class society fascism is about justifying it. The fascist notion of national unity is meant to make workers forget about class struggle and instead feel like they are chosen because of their ethnicity or religion. Because they are made to feel part of the same chosen group as the capitalists they don't direct their anger against them but against The Enemy whomever it might be.

So while socialists want to abolish class structures fascists want to lock them in place.

The fall of the Berlin Wall and the revelation of the crimes committed in the name of socialism has forced the left to confront its own authoritarian tendencies. It has been a good thing for the left and has made contemporary socialism more mature and responsible. It is a shame for the right that it has never been forced to do the same and confront itself with fascism, apartheid and other crimes committed in the name of capital accumulation. It would suit the right to confront its own demons. Alas this is not likely to happen; instead rightists try to rub off their own dirt on the left.
 
Catawba said:
How does that equal to no contribution which was what your previous claim was?
Click to expand...

I didn't say they contributed nothing, they do need to pay for the share they use though.

It creates perverse incentives otherwise.

Catawba said:
The FairTax is a consumption tax in the form of a national retail sales tax on new goods and services.
Click to expand...

I know, I was even a supporter of it at one time but the bureaucracy would still be large because of the prebate.

Catawba said:
Exactly, consumption tax would be less onerous on the wealthy and more onerous on the middle class.
Click to expand...

Not really, the rich would still pay more than everyone else.
They spend more than everyone else.


Catawba said:
That is one of the things the health care reform will address by reducing Medicare/Medicaid waste and fraud.
Click to expand...

Ummm well, they haven't done anything to cut those types of things.

They say they have but it's just not true.

Catawba said:
And don't forget about the taxpayers trillion dollar transfer of wealth to the rich during the bailouts.
Click to expand...

That went to banks, I'm pretty sure the majority of the rich did not benefit from that like your making it seem.
Not every rich person is employed by banks and investment brokerage houses.


Catawba said:
Oh, we are speaking of the poor now rather than the middle class? OK, I suggest we start by paying a living wage to full time workers, so working people do not have to rely on the government for subsistence.
Click to expand...

The middle class can receive those benefits just like the poor can.
We are talking about both though, both use more than they pay for.

Living wages are subjective, what one person can live on another can't and it mostly based on wants.

Some people do not do anything worth a living wage.
 
Last edited:
Z3n said:
Fascism is anything but collectivized. You think that Jews and aryans called each other Comrades in Nazi Germany?
Click to expand...

Fascism is statist, it can be either left or right in it's political stance.

Fascism attempts to control both industry and labor, just like we have seen with state communists.
 
Z3n said:
While one can argue that both fascism and communist at empirical levels offer the same thing, but there are a few, absolutely ideologically polarizing factors.
Click to expand...

Do you think the man who's face is being kicked in cares if the boot belongs to a fascist, a communist, or some other form of socialist?

No, all he sees is that the particular variant of socialism has produced a regime that's kicking him.

In capitalism he at least has his freedom and thus a chance to better his position in life.

Z3n said:
Communists are godless
Click to expand...

No, Marx is their god.

Z3n said:
internationalists( one world government?),
Click to expand...

Funny, so are socialsts.

Z3n said:
communitarians(identity is irrelevant-- UNION of soviet socialist republics)
Click to expand...

Just like the socialists and their "It Takes a Really Stupid Villager to Believe that Socialist Nonsense" nonsense.

Z3n said:
Fascists are usually religious( catholic fascism in Italy, Christianity in general under Hitler), nationalists(without question; pride in state), and individuals( hey, fascism is great if you are part of the identity group that is being promoted--the aryans)
Click to expand...

And socialists all believe in socialism, which is a religion.

why are you trying to drawing signficant distinction from insignificant points?

Fascism/Communism/Liberalism/Socialism all the other non-Capital-isms deny the freedom of the individual to own his own body and command what he does with it.

So, if it ain't capitalism, it's evilism.

If you're not a capitalist, explain why you support slavery.

It's that simple.
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
I also find it amusing that you don't even bat an eyelash at the fact that the article acknowledges the general consensus among economists that mandated wage increases decrease overall employment.
Click to expand...

It used to be the general consensus that the earth was flat as well.

David Card and Alan B. Krueger have already made national news with their pathbreaking research on the minimum wage. Here they present a powerful new challenge to the conventional view that higher minimum wages reduce jobs for low-wage workers. In a work that has important implications for public policy as well as for the direction of economic research, the authors put standard economic theory to the test, using data from a series of recent episodes, including the 1992 increase in New Jersey's minimum wage, the 1988 rise in California's minimum wage, and the 1990-91 increases in the federal minimum wage. In each case they present a battery of evidence showing that increases in the minimum wage lead to increases in pay, but no loss in jobs.

A distinctive feature of Card and Krueger's research is the use of empirical methods borrowed from the natural sciences, including comparisons between the "treatment" and "control" groups formed when the minimum wage rises for some workers but not for others. In addition, the authors critically reexamine the previous literature on the minimum wage and find that it, too, lacks support for the claim that a higher minimum wage cuts jobs. Finally, the effects of the minimum wage on family earnings, poverty outcomes, and the stock market valuation of low-wage employers are documented. Overall, this book calls into question the standard model of the labor market that has dominated economists' thinking on the minimum wage. In addition, it will shift the terms of the debate on the minimum wage in Washington and in state legislatures throughout the country.

Reviews:

"The Card-Krueger work is essentially correct: the minimum wage at levels observed in the United States has had little or no effect on employment. At the minimum, the book has changed the burden of proof in debates over the minimum, from those who stressed the potential distributional benefits of the minimum to those who stress the potential employment losses."--Richard B. Freeman, Journal of Economic Perspectives

"Card and Krueger didn't just question the conventional wisdom; they attacked it in a novel and powerful way. Instead of concocting a mathematical model and `testing' it with advanced statistical techniques, which is what most economists call research, they decided to test the theory in the real world. . . . The work of Card and Krueger was worth a hundred theoretical models in The American Economic Review."--John Cassidy, The New Yorker

"David Card and Alan Krueger have written a book that represents a phenomenal amount of careful and honest research and that will be a classic in the minimum wage literature and also in the broader field of empirical labor economics.... A model of how to do good believable research, this book will be influential for a long time."--Paul Osterman, Industrial and Labor Relations Review

"Clearly, this book should be read by any economist who wants to stay abreast of substantive, high level debates within the profession.... The book already has assumed an important position within the field of labor economics, and significant research in years to come is likely to revolve around its principle thesis."--K. A. Couch, Journal of Economics
Card, D. and Krueger, A.B.: Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage.
 
rally2xs said:
Supposing this is true, is it a good thing to simply "have more jobs?" I mean, I found a pay stub from one of my Dad's jobs during the 30's depression. He was making 38 cents an hour. Would it be a good thing to simply remove the minimum wage, and allow employers to beat up workers like that again?

So, you've got full employment - I mean something like 2.9% jobless rate - and... nobody's got any money left over to buy new cars, big-screen TV's, maybe not even an Ipod. Maybe people are demanding that their workplace install showers, so they can get cleaned up before they go to work, because there's no shower where they live, which is under the railroad bridge on the other side of town.

There's something to be said, I think, for making it illegal to beat up workers with predatory wages anywhere in the USA. If you can't pay someone $7.50 an hour, then maybe the enterprise you have in mind isn't really worth doing.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the minimum wage helped create a middle class.

"We are morally outraged by the number of people living in poverty in the United States, and believe that now is the time to give hard-working low-wage workers a raise and take the first step toward a true living wage for America's workers… We appreciate the commitment made by the leadership of the 110th Congress to address the woefully inadequate federal minimum wage. We will continue to raise our voices on behalf of "the least of these" and proclaim that a job should keep you out of poverty, not keep you in it”— The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop, The Episcopal Church; The Reverend Dr. Stan Hastey, Executive Director, The Alliance of Baptists; The Reverend Dr. Clifton Kirkpatrick Stated Clerk, The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); Bishop Roy Riley, Chair, The Evangelical Lutheran Church Conference of Bishops; and one thousand other U.S. religious leaders (January 8, 2007)

“The federal minimum wage increase of 1996/97 was followed by the best low-wage labor market outcomes in decades. When that proposed increase was under discussion, opponents predicted massive job losses among those affected by the increase... Instead, the employment rates of the least advantaged workers soared to unprecedented levels, poverty rates fell to historic lows, particularly for minority populations, the least skilled workers, and single mothers. Low wages rose in step with productivity growth for the first time in almost thirty years. Note that I do not claim that the federal minimum wage increase was solely responsible for these outcomes… But Congress should take note: the 1996/97 increase complemented these conditions; it did not preclude them.” –Jared Bernstein, Economist, Economic Policy Institute (January 10, 2007)

"We all lose when American workers are underpaid. Whether as business owners or employees, women have a significant stake in providing for their families and their communities. More than a quarter of all working women hold service, production, transportation and material moving occupations, which are often subject to low pay, minimum wage earnings. The majority of women are living without a spouse. By not paying workers a living wage, we assure that a mother working hard to support her family will not be able to make ends meet." - Margot Dorfman, CEO, the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce (January 29, 2007)"
Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 | TheMiddleClass.org
 
Catawba said:
It used to be the general consensus that the earth was flat as well.

David Card and Alan B. Krueger have already made national news with their pathbreaking research on the minimum wage.
Click to expand...

And since they've concluded that minimum wage doesn't lead to unemployment, why aren't they advocating that minimum wage be raised to $250,000 a year?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Not really, the rich would still pay more than everyone else.
They spend more than everyone else.
Click to expand...

As they should. They own most of the wealth. That is why our forefathers set up a progressive tax system almost a century ago.


Some people do not do anything worth a living wage.
Click to expand...

I am speaking of people that work full-time. If a person is valuable enough to be kept as a full-time worker, they deserve a living wage.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I find it curious that some argue both that what we need is a regressive tax scheme, and that a National sales tax/Fair tax/flat tax is not regressive but support it anyway.

You don't think that is transparent to those of us that support a progressive tax?
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
As they should. They own most of the wealth. That is why our forefathers set up a progressive tax system almost a century ago.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately those people aren't my forefathers, there ideas have lead to greater class conflicts and not less.

"Rates under the Act were 3% on income above $800 (adjusted for inflation: $17,679 in as of 2008[update] dollars [2]) and 5% on income of individuals living outside the country."
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1861]Revenue Act of 1861 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

"(2% on income over $4,000 or $88,400 in 2008 dollars, which meant fewer than 10% of households would pay any)"
Wilson?Gorman Tariff Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those tax rates are reasonable, taxing more than 10% of any wages is crazy.
Now the absolute minimum tax rate is 10% with this highest being 35%.
» 2009 Federal Income Tax Brackets (Official IRS Tax Rates)


Can you not see the difference in how insane things have gotten?

Catawba said:
I am speaking of people that work full-time. If a person is valuable enough to be kept as a full-time worker, they deserve a living wage.
Click to expand...

Not true, a "living wage" is entirely subjective, what happens when one person can live on $8 an hour while another needs $20 an hour.

Who makes the living wage and which is one right?
 
Catawba said:
I find it curious that some argue both that what we need is a regressive tax scheme, and that a National sales tax/Fair tax/flat tax is not regressive but support it anyway.

You don't think that is transparent to those of us that support a progressive tax?
Click to expand...

Those are only regressive because they are not progressive.

National sales tax and flat taxes are naturally progressive and don't need to be manipulated by politicians.

The rich will still pay more regardless.
 
As fun as it would be to rehash the same "who was really a fascist/communist" argument that we have every two weeks, let's try to keep it on topic.


rally2xs said:
Supposing this is true, is it a good thing to simply "have more jobs?" I mean, I found a pay stub from one of my Dad's jobs during the 30's depression. He was making 38 cents an hour. Would it be a good thing to simply remove the minimum wage, and allow employers to beat up workers like that again?
Click to expand...

.38 cents an hour in the 30's is the equivalent of $6/hr today. Your dad had a job during the worst depression in history and still made $6/hr. That's not getting beaten up on.

So, you've got full employment - I mean something like 2.9% jobless rate - and... nobody's got any money left over to buy new cars, big-screen TV's, maybe not even an Ipod.
Click to expand...

And you're basing this on...?

Think logically - what percent of people actually have their salary impacted by the minimum wage. If you work in an office making $35/hr and the minimum wage goes up or down a dollar, it's unlikely that that will have much of an impact on your salary.

Maybe people are demanding that their workplace install showers, so they can get cleaned up before they go to work, because there's no shower where they live, which is under the railroad bridge on the other side of town.
Click to expand...

:rofl

There's something to be said, I think, for making it illegal to beat up workers with predatory wages anywhere in the USA. If you can't pay someone $7.50 an hour, then maybe the enterprise you have in mind isn't really worth doing.
Click to expand...

So everyone who doesn't generate more than that in revenue should be forever unemployed?

Catawba said:
It used to be the general consensus that the earth was flat as well.
Click to expand...

Great analogy.

David Card and Alan B. Krueger have already made national news with their pathbreaking research on the minimum wage. Here they present a powerful new challenge to the conventional view that higher minimum wages reduce jobs for low-wage workers. In a work that has important implications for public policy as well as for the direction of economic research, the authors put standard economic theory to the test, using data from a series of recent episodes, including the 1992 increase in New Jersey's minimum wage, the 1988 rise in California's minimum wage, and the 1990-91 increases in the federal minimum wage. In each case they present a battery of evidence showing that increases in the minimum wage lead to increases in pay, but no loss in jobs.

A distinctive feature of Card and Krueger's research is the use of empirical methods borrowed from the natural sciences, including comparisons between the "treatment" and "control" groups formed when the minimum wage rises for some workers but not for others. In addition, the authors critically reexamine the previous literature on the minimum wage and find that it, too, lacks support for the claim that a higher minimum wage cuts jobs. Finally, the effects of the minimum wage on family earnings, poverty outcomes, and the stock market valuation of low-wage employers are documented. Overall, this book calls into question the standard model of the labor market that has dominated economists' thinking on the minimum wage. In addition, it will shift the terms of the debate on the minimum wage in Washington and in state legislatures throughout the country.
Click to expand...

Again, citing one study from 1997 does not outweigh the much more substantial body of evidence coming out the other way. I really don't know how to explain this any further to you. You're going about this entirely the wrong way - deciding what you think would be good policy, searching for a study that supports it, and then clinging to that in the face of logic and reason.

Minimum Wages - The MIT Press

This is a comprehensive analysis of over 300 studies on the minimum wage, including the one you cite. It concludes that the minimum wage "reduce employment opportunities for less-skilled workers and tend to reduce their earnings; [is] not an effective means of reducing poverty; and [] appear to have adverse longer-term effects on wages and earnings, in part by reducing the acquisition of human capital."

Look, it even has its own blubs!

"This is a superb book, notable for both breadth and depth of coverage, on one of the most fundamental topics in economics ... Summing Up: Essential. Economics collections, upper-division undergraduate through professional."
—J. P. Jacobsen, Wesleyan University, Choice

Endorsements

"Beyond covering previously sparsely treated issues such as effects on prices, inflation, profits, and inequality, Neumark and Wascher demonstrate the overwhelming weight of careful U.S. evidence and other evidence showing the detrimental effects of minimum wages on low-skilled workers. The volume is a must for anyone interested in research on labor markets."
—Daniel S. Hamermesh, Centennial Professor of Economics, University of Texas at Austin

"Neumark and Wascher provide what will be the post-Card and Kreuger consensus on the new economics of the minimum wage. Minimum Wages is an extraordinary synthesis of the new empirical literature on the employment and distributional consequences of minimum wage legislation. It is an A to Z review of the history of minimum wage legislation, the motives of supporters and opponents, and how such laws affect all of us."
—Richard V. Burkhauser, Sarah Gibson Blanding Professor of Policy Analysis, Cornell University

"Over the past twenty years, the focus of research on the minimum wage has changed from federal to state minimum wages as the key policy variable, and from effects on teen employment to a broader range of outcomes. David Neumark and William Wascher have been important contributors to these innovations. Minimum Wages combines a very accessible summary of their research with helpful discussions of others' work."
—Charles Brown, Professor of Economics, University of Michigan
Click to expand...
 
Catawba said:
I am speaking of people that work full-time. If a person is valuable enough to be kept as a full-time worker, they deserve a living wage.
Click to expand...

Let's say my labor as a high school graduate is only worth $8-10/hour. Under your proposed system, I would be forever unemployed, because no company is going to pay me $12/hour when I'm only worth $8-10. But hey, "living wage" sounds progressive, right?
 
RightinNYC said:
Let's say my labor as a high school graduate is only worth $8-10/hour. Under your proposed system, I would be forever unemployed, because no company is going to pay me $12/hour when I'm only worth $8-10. But hey, "living wage" sounds progressive, right?
Click to expand...

I graduated High School and never went to college and I make 50 thousand a year.

The living wage will do more harm to small Business and the economy then it will help. People need to get off their ass and not be satisfied with low wages.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Can you not see the difference in how insane things have gotten?
Click to expand...

The rates during our most prosperous times were much higher than they are today. So that argument doesn't work for me.


Not true, a "living wage" is entirely subjective, what happens when one person can live on $8 an hour while another needs $20 an hour.
Click to expand...

$8 to $20 huh? The current minimum federal wage is $7.25 an hour. States may set a higher minimum wage to account of higher living costs in there states.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Those are only regressive because they are not progressive.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are in fact opposites.

National sales tax and flat taxes are naturally progressive and don't need to be manipulated by politicians.
Click to expand...

They are sold as being less onerous on the middle class which does not betray that they will be more onerous on the middle class. That is why they are regressive from the point of view of the middle class.
The rich will still pay more regardless.
Click to expand...

As they should since they own a majority of the wealth. The problem is that with the National sales tax more burden will be shifted to the middle class.

Who do you think the 3 trillion dollar war to conquer the middle east for their oil is going to benefit the most? Or the 1 trillion in tax cuts for the rich that Bush gave away?
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
The rates during our most prosperous times were much higher than they are today. So that argument doesn't work for me.
Click to expand...

Prosperity isn't what this is about, having to forfeit 1/3 of your income to pay taxes on services you don't use isn't reasonable, rational or fair.

On the other end of the spectrum, lobbying for more benefits at the expense of someone else is unethical, the perverse incentive has been created that we can add as much government programs and dump the costs on the rich.

That is of course after the middle and lower classes defer the costs for multiple decades until it becomes to much to ignore or borrow for.


Catawba said:
$8 to $20 huh? The current minimum federal wage is $7.25 an hour. States may set a higher minimum wage to account of higher living costs in there states.
Click to expand...

Yep, but what if someone doesn't need $7.25 an hour to live?
What if their personal living wage is lower than $7.25?

There is no such thing as a static living wage for everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom