What's wrong with communism?

[jaguar]

That's not true at all. Rich people are just as interested in providing for their future, and that of their families, as anyone else.

Read 'Stark' by Ben Elton.

"Stark has more money than God and the social conscience of a dog on a croquet lawn. What's more, they know the Earth is dying. Deep in Western Australia, where the Aboriginals used to milk the trees, a planet-sized plot takes shape. Some green freaks pick up the scent. A Pommie poseur, a brain-fried Vietnam Vet, Aboriginals who lost their land ... not much against a conspiracy that controls society. But EcoAction isn't in society; it just lives in the same place, along with the cockroaches.

Sold over a million copies, fantastic.

[Xugumad]

Originally posted by Tobiasly
That's not true at all. Rich people are just as interested in providing for their future, and that of their families, as anyone else.

And the easiest way to provide for your family is to make a lot of money, quickly. When you can choose between long-term investment and short-term profits, the past has shown how pretty much everybody will want to reap profits.

Here's an <a href="http://www.fortune.com/indext.jhtml?channel=print_article.jhtml&doc_id=209015"> example</a> from Fortune Magazine (not exactly a left-wing rag), which eviscerates some of those practices.

Thus the proof how unchecked 'let the big rich people deal with the economy' is a certain path to ruin.

X.

Link: http://www.fortune.com/indext.jhtml?...&doc_id=209015

[Tobiasly]

The stock market bubble popping and all of the sleazy accounting practices that go along with it hardly has anything to do with the liberal-market argument. The people who took advantage of individual investors during the "bubble" would have done so regardless of how much tax they're paying.

True, they both deal with "letting rich people deal with the economy", and it's a very good example of why we need some regulation with strict consequences for people who try to take advantage of the system. But I've said all along that controls are necessary to prevent abuses.

I'm all for making sure people pay their fair share of taxes, and I see no problem with a progressive tax structure. But a common argument one hears during these sorts of debates is "if someone is making $100 million a year, what's wrong with taking half of it in income tax? By the time you have that much money, you're not going to miss it anyway."

<I>That's</I> the mentality that I have real issues with. We have no right to determine what amount of money someone "needs".

[Xugumad]

Originally posted by Tobiasly
I'm all for making sure people pay their fair share of taxes, and I see no problem with a progressive tax structure. But a common argument one hears during these sorts of debates is "if someone is making $100 million a year, what's wrong with taking half of it in income tax? By the time you have that much money, you're not going to miss it anyway."

<I>That's</I> the mentality that I have real issues with. We have no right to determine what amount of money someone "needs".

You are contradicting yourself: if 'we have no right to determine' how much money a person needs, you are directly arguing either against a progressive tax structure (which you said you have 'no problem' with), or against income tax altogether.

What is it, then. Do we have the right to determine how much money they need, thus allowing us to tax rich(er) people more, or don't we, thus taxing everyone equally?

It's the only logical conclusion. That's why you will always hear 'rich' people (at least those with a modicum of intelligence) arguing in favour of a completely flat tax rate, such as for instance Steve Forbes during his several failed runs for the presidency.

X.

[jaguar]

Its not about how much they 'need', its about how much they should contribute back into the society that they live in and how much they *can*.

[Undertoad]

And yet, some of those folks should be rewarded to the ends of the earth for what they do. The ones who actually create things, the ones who actually invent incredibly useful things, the ones who take disorder and make order. The ones who really add value. The visionaries, the geniuses.

How do you reward those folks, or are they still indebted to society after having created so much of society to start?

[jaguar]

We cannot. Well not though tax. I don't think we need a reward points system for those that invent cool stuff, the financial benifits are enough in most cases, but i see you arguement.
A flat tax system is stupid as far as i'm concerned. I think there is an arguement for aboloshing income tax and intead doing what we have here and in parts of Europe, VAT(Value Added Tax) or GST(Goods and Services Tax): a tax on what you buy instead of what you earn. We have both here at the moment, just having the second is far better. Firstly its far harder to avoid than income tax so hopefuly some of those bastards who earn less than their pool cleaners would actually have to contribute to society like the rest of us. Secondly you can discriminate effectivly, low tax on basic items, high tax on luxury cars, boats, etc which better spreads the tax budren to those who do not shoulder their weight. The fact is the majority of tax is paid by the middle class. The upper class pay no tax because they are rich enough to know how to avoid it and the lower class pay negligable tax. By making the upper class pay their fair share we create a fairer system all round and one which would benifit the lower and middle classes making it politically viable. Pity those in politics are in the upper class.

Would not be perfect, but it would be better.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by Xugumad
You are contradicting yourself

True.. maybe I should just quit talking now.

A progressive tax structure is fine, as long as it's a relatively even progression. But we shouldn't try to find creative new ways to gouge the rich.

Originally posted by jaguar
Its not about how much they 'need', its about how much they should contribute back into the society that they live in and how much they *can*.

No, it's not about how much they <I>can</I>. I think <I>should</I> is a bit closer. They <I>can</I> contribute about all of it, but that doesn't mean they <I>should</I> have to.

A flat tax system is stupid as far as i'm concerned. I think there is an arguement for aboloshing income tax and intead doing what we have here and in parts of Europe, VAT(Value Added Tax) or GST(Goods and Services Tax): a tax on what you buy instead of what you earn.

Then you have what amounts to a regressive tax, where people who have little money and essentially live paycheck to paycheck, spending almost all they have, pay a higher percentage of their income on tax than people who are able to save some away. Although I don't know too much about the VAT and GST systems, and surely they've found ways around this.. do those taxes completely replace income tax?

Pity those in politics are in the upper class.

The pity is hearing statements like this. Do you truly believe that the reason we don't have what you'd consider a fairer tax system is because politicians tend to be upper class?

[jaguar]

The pity is hearing statements like this. Do you truly believe that the reason we don't have what you'd consider a fairer tax system is because politicians tend to be upper class?

Hell no, but inertia from those who would suffer under such a system i'm sure if a signifigant factor, but so is a signifigant lack of consensus.

Then you have what amounts to a regressive tax, where people who have little money and essentially live paycheck to paycheck, spending almost all they have, pay a higher percentage of their income on tax than people who are able to save some away. Although I don't know too much about the VAT and GST systems, and surely they've found ways around this.. do those taxes completely replace income tax?

Firstly i'm not *entirely* sure about the UK but i know here they don't entirely replace income tax. We have a flat 10% GST with some items such as basic foodstuffs exempted and progressive income tax that goes up to 49%. They do remove wholesale tax though. Having both evens out some of the unfairness of both, which relates to your first point.

As for avoidance, there are of course various tricks around it but they are harder to do, and because you are dealing with *everything* you buy it is far harder to avoid.

No, it's not about how much they can. I think should is a bit closer. They can contribute about all of it, but that doesn't mean they should have to.

Point taken

But we shouldn't try to find creative new ways to gouge the rich.

Yes we bloody well should, because as it stands they gouge us and pay buggar all tax. Unless i make it big in which case......

[passthedutchie]

Capitalism sucks for some, communism sucks for some. There is no pure form of either anywhere.

The communism we have seen in the world was not what Marx invisioned. On the flip side, capitalism has many down falls, especially for those who show true altruism or who cannot grasp the free market ideas. What's best is a mixed system, but everyone seems to be always so ignorant to the other side!

Take a look at the best places to live, according to the UN Human Development Index. All are more concerned with social aspects than countries like the United States. Norway, Canada, Holland, etc. are higher taxed, but people as a whole have higher standards of living, and they have systems that are quite mixed with heavy attention to social aspects, but still have strong capitalism roots. Now of course guys like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet live above and beyond the standards most of us can dream about, but as a whole, these nations are better off, even if some do ride along the coat tails of the United State's technological advancements. If everyone would work together, everyone would be better off, but there are far too many influences beyond the market system we choose for our countries that are working against a global system that we can use.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by passthedutchie
as a whole, these nations are better off, even if some do ride along the coat tails of the United State's technological advancements.

Now there's an understatement for ya. Our economy generates innovation and development, more so than any other nation. That's why we're the only superpower left.

I don't care what some UN study says, there is no nation on earth right now where an individual has as much opportunity as he does in the U.S. Of course, that does mean that there will be those who fall through the cracks, I'll admit.

But those other nations wouldn't enjoy such a high standard of living if it weren't for the advancements made here in the States.

[passthedutchie]

Originally posted by Tobiasly

Now there's an understatement for ya. Our economy generates innovation and development, more so than any other nation. That's why we're the only superpower left.

I don't care what some UN study says, there is no nation on earth right now where an individual has as much opportunity as he does in the U.S. Of course, that does mean that there will be those who fall through the cracks, I'll admit.

But those other nations wouldn't enjoy such a high standard of living if it weren't for the advancements made here in the States.

C'mon, it's not an understatement, 'cus now you make it sound as if the United States invents everything and anything that is important, when that's just rubbish.

Yes the United States generates innovation and development, but it also loses points in the humanity department. Take a look at the pharmaceutical and agriculture industries, and how their advancements could greatly benefit the third world and developing countries, but they are more focused on the profits that go above and beyond funding their R&D budgets.

Sorry to tell you, but there are countries out there that have just as much, if not more opportunity than the United States. There are a handful of countries, and they basically are listed in the top 12 of the UNHDI, that are at par and are above the United States in terms of human development, and you don't have to look at the statistics to see this, you just have to visit or live in these countries.

[jaguar]

passthedutchie i've been here far too long as so far you're the only person i'd 100% agree with.

Yes the United States generates innovation and development, but it also loses points in the humanity department. Take a look at the pharmaceutical and agriculture industries, and how their advancements could greatly benefit the third world and developing countries, but they are more focused on the profits that go above and beyond funding their R&D budgets.

I'd go one step further and say they could also benifit many US citizens - if they could afford them.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by passthedutchie
Yes the United States generates innovation and development, but it also loses points in the humanity department. Take a look at the pharmaceutical and agriculture industries, and how their advancements could greatly benefit the third world and developing countries, but they are more focused on the profits that go above and beyond funding their R&D budgets.

You see, that's exactly what I was talking about when I started this thread. Why should pharmaceutical companies strive to break even? You think just covering their R&D expenses is enough? Do you devote your life to helping third world and developing countries? You obviously own a computer, you selfish bastard. Why didn't you give the money you used to buy that computer to a charity for sick children in a developing country? $800 goes a long way, you know.

That's exactly what you're asking a company to do if you think they should recoup their R&D budgets and nothing more. Those companies take risks. Many of them go bust, and their investors lose everything. Why shouldn't they get big rewards if they develop something useful? Why do you think someone in what you consider a developing company is entitled to have corporations work to cure their ills, with no profit? What motivation would these companies have in the first place to develop new medicine, if they didn't get any profits in return?

During the big antrhax scare, people were up in arms because XYZ Drug Company (I forget who it really was) had the only known anthrax innoculation, and they were charging more than people thought was fair. Of course some knee-jerk politicians were suggesting legislation to force XYZ to sell at a steep discount. XYZ just happened to take the risks necessary to see a need for an anthrax innoculation in the first place, and then develop it. And people want to punish them for taking those risks. Who would have bailed out XYZ if a natural cure were found for anthrax, and they went bankrupt?

Sorry to tell you, but there are countries out there that have just as much, if not more opportunity than the United States.

You were talking about standard of living, not opportunity. I maintain my original position that the U.S. has more opportunity than any other nation.

[passthedutchie]

Originally posted by Tobiasly

You see, that's exactly what I was talking about when I started this thread. Why should pharmaceutical companies strive to break even? You think just covering their R&D expenses is enough? Do you devote your life to helping third world and developing countries? You obviously own a computer, you selfish bastard. Why didn't you give the money you used to buy that computer to a charity for sick children in a developing country? $800 goes a long way, you know.

That's exactly what you're asking a company to do if you think they should recoup their R&D budgets and nothing more. Those companies take risks. Many of them go bust, and their investors lose everything. Why shouldn't they get big rewards if they develop something useful? Why do you think someone in what you consider a developing company is entitled to have corporations work to cure their ills, with no profit? What motivation would these companies have in the first place to develop new medicine, if they didn't get any profits in return?

During the big antrhax scare, people were up in arms because XYZ Drug Company (I forget who it really was) had the only known anthrax innoculation, and they were charging more than people thought was fair. Of course some knee-jerk politicians were suggesting legislation to force XYZ to sell at a steep discount. XYZ just happened to take the risks necessary to see a need for an anthrax innoculation in the first place, and then develop it. And people want to punish them for taking those risks. Who would have bailed out XYZ if a natural cure were found for anthrax, and they went bankrupt?

Oh crap, give me a break. There is a HUGE difference between the profits pharmaceutical companies make and the computer I purchased, which by no means makes me selfish.

I was talking about the enormous profits pulled in by drug companies that are not justified. Do you really think someone needs millions upon millions of dollars for personal use? Hell no. It's fine to take care of shareholders and executives, but we're talking about these people raking in cash while people die who cannot afford the drug they so desperately need. Yeah sometimes you can blame the regime these people live under, but I do not accept allowing these innocent people to die in the name of making a millionaire even richer. There is a difference between a respectable and honourable return for the great work they have done and true greed.

I'm a student and I give what I can to charity. A computer is necessary for my own advancement. A couple extra million for a man/woman who has tens of millions is not necessary if that money could potentially save millions of lives.

I was not asking for drug companies to just recoup their R&D budgets. I'm asking for empathy.

I really do not see how it is so hard to balance empathy and profit motivation.

Oh, and I do not blame just the drug companies, there is enough evidence to blame the intellectual property rights system, not just in the US, but also around the world. Lester Thurow has written extensively about IP and how it can be improved, and I agree with many of his points.

You were talking about standard of living, not opportunity. I maintain my original position that the U.S. has more opportunity than any other nation.

No, I used the Human Development Index, which is just that. It encompasses both opportunity and standard of living. Maybe you're talking about opportunity to work only, then yes the United States is the land of opportunity. But look at other opportunities, such as the opportunities to earn a good living, to be safe and secure, to live in peace, and above all be happy. I will not debate the United States is the place of opportunity for employment, but if it's the opportunity to earn a good living and live a good life, then I have to disagree. The opportunity is better in other places because the opportunity to live a good life contains many criteria, and many are listed above.

Currently I have opportunities to work in 5 countries, including the United States. Of that list, the United States is the last.