By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Should I Leave The Site?

SciFiBoy on 10 April 2009
MrBubbles said:

what?! its just fine for you to go around insulting everyone else but someone says something to you and you breakdown into an emo "no one loves me, wheres a razor" fit?  get real.

 

i try not to insult people, but like anyone i get worked up and snap at people, if i have done this to you, then i apologise

the emo part was uncalled for



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 10 April 2009
SciFiBoy said:
Kasz216 said:

To make it more clear. Picture a situation like this.

You and I go out to dinner.

You make more money then I do... So we decide to split the bill 70-30%.

Now we go out to dinner again... but this time we get desert. So I think we should split the bill 75-25%

Now we go out to dinner again. In addition to the main course and desert... we decide to get apetizers. So I think we should split the bill 80-20%.

Our incomes stay the same... yet our burdens on the meal change based on how much we spend.

Why?

 

This is how progressive taxation ALWAYS goes.  If someone were to say... "Ok I think the rich get an inhernt advantage from being rich.  Therefore we should have a set in stone never changing policy that the rich pay 2X the amount the poor do."  or something like that.  I'd be willing to listen to that argument based on various facts and factors. you mean fixed tax rates?


However someone who simply says the rich should pay more and more no matter how much the government spends (which is how all governments work now...) that's just discrimination. i think i understand, i wouldnt ask them to pay more if government spending was the same amount or less than when the rate was introduced (infact, if spending goes down, they can have a cut if its feasable) but if the government spends more, then yes i might consider rasing the rate, but im against any tax rate above %50

o

 

Yes. 

I believe if people want to keep a progressive tax it would have to be after multiple large scale studies on how having more money effects your ability to make money and quality of life.  Of which we need much better measures as it stands.

Once the rates are set they should be untouchable for 2-3 election terms.   With any tax raises or cuts having to be proportional.  Aka.  If the "Rich" are paying 20% and the Poor are paying 10%... and they want to raise the rich rate to 22% they would have to raise the poor tax rate to 11%.

After 2-3 elections it woulf be followed by the same studies to see if the results have changed, and the rates being set to be changed either up or down based on the same studies after another 5 years or so. 

Why 5 years or so?  So polticians will not be able to set that money to special projects since in 5 years as the political landscape will be different.

Until such a system is in place.  Progresssive taxation will be nothing but a tool for politicians to raise moneys for their pet projects while keeping their power.



supermario128 on 10 April 2009
SciFiBoy said:
JL = John Lennon

 

Oh, he looks weird. (sorry)




Nintendo still doomed?
Feel free to add me on 3DS or Switch! (PM me if you do ^-^)
Nintendo ID: Mako91                  3DS code: 4167-4543-6089

SciFiBoy on 10 April 2009
Kasz216 said:

Yes. 

I believe if people want to keep a progressive tax it would have to be after multiple large scale studies on how having more money effects your ability to make money and quality of life.  Of which we need much better measures as it stands.

Once the rates are set they should be untouchable for 2-3 election terms.   With any tax raises or cuts having to be proportional.  Aka.  If the "Rich" are paying 20% and the Poor are paying 10%... and they want to raise the rich rate to 22% they would have to raise the poor tax rate to 11%.

After 2-3 elections it woulf be followed by the same studies to see if the results have changed, and the rates being set to be changed either up or down based on the same studies after another 5 years or so. 

Why 5 years or so?  So polticians will not be able to set that money to special projects since in 5 years as the political landscape will be different.

Until such a system is in place.  Progresssive taxation will be nothing but a tool for politicians to raise moneys for their pet projects while keeping their power.

 

i can agree to that, infact it makes alot of sense to me.



GamingChartzFTW on 10 April 2009

 

Here.  :3

I made you a more 'Laid Back' Avatar.

Like it?



Around the Network
SciFiBoy on 10 April 2009
GamingChartzFTW said:

 

Here.  :3

I made you a more 'Laid Back' Avatar.

Like it?

 

cool, lol, ill use that if its ok with you?



GamingChartzFTW on 10 April 2009

Sure. I figured it would look better than the old one. No problem..



SciFiBoy on 10 April 2009

^^thanks!



Kasz216 on 10 April 2009
SciFiBoy said:
Kasz216 said:

Yes. 

I believe if people want to keep a progressive tax it would have to be after multiple large scale studies on how having more money effects your ability to make money and quality of life.  Of which we need much better measures as it stands.

Once the rates are set they should be untouchable for 2-3 election terms.   With any tax raises or cuts having to be proportional.  Aka.  If the "Rich" are paying 20% and the Poor are paying 10%... and they want to raise the rich rate to 22% they would have to raise the poor tax rate to 11%.

After 2-3 elections it woulf be followed by the same studies to see if the results have changed, and the rates being set to be changed either up or down based on the same studies after another 5 years or so. 

Why 5 years or so?  So polticians will not be able to set that money to special projects since in 5 years as the political landscape will be different.

Until such a system is in place.  Progresssive taxation will be nothing but a tool for politicians to raise moneys for their pet projects while keeping their power.

 

i can agree to that, infact it makes alot of sense to me.

In that case I suppose we'll just have to argue what is better until such a situation is achievable.

Of which I believe a flat tax is because it's the only thing you can assure is fair.

Also it's a lot easier to make taxes more progressive and harder to make them less progressive.

In fact just about every tax change in the US has been progressive since WW2.

Even most of the ones that people see as handouts to the rich such as the Bush tax cuts.

http://www.ncpa.org/media/did-the-bush-tax-cuts-favor-the-wealthy

That's the one funny thing about Bush.  He's actually been the best president when it comes to keeping the distribution of wealth fairly even in a long time.  Better then Clinton....

but he doesn't get any credit for it.

It's like the one thing he did right.

 



supermario128 on 10 April 2009
SciFiBoy said:
GamingChartzFTW said:

 

Here.  :3

I made you a more 'Laid Back' Avatar.

Like it?

 

cool, lol, ill use that if its ok with you?

Still scares me.

 




Nintendo still doomed?
Feel free to add me on 3DS or Switch! (PM me if you do ^-^)
Nintendo ID: Mako91                  3DS code: 4167-4543-6089