Deconversion And Politics

[Guest Valk0010]

I identify publicly as a libertarian socialist, btw.

ditto

[TrueFreedom]

True Freedom,

 

Not intentionally misrepresenting your views, all I am stating what generally goes on when it comes to the modern day Libertarian movement. You can't tell me that is not happening within the modern day Libertarian movement what I said though. Because you got to see it.

 

I can see how I might have seen things 20 years ago... Backup up your arguments, friend. Take a step back, eat crow, and then bring the goods.

[Ramen666]

There is two elements wrong with Libertarianism, the utopian thinking, the faith based ideology that the only way it can ever work is having faith and ignoring human nature. The second element which we are talking about, is how modern day Libertarians are nothing but sell outs to corporations/wealthy and mimick whatever is told to them by the right wing media.

 

The arguments backed up by a load of facts, have been actually been made loads of times by me (I don't want to really repeat everything), all you got to do is go to my post history and search "libertarian". Also 20 years ago? The Libertarian Party was actually more crazy and out of touch reality then than it is now (which to me, it still is but it was actually worse then and whole different level).

 

 

Here is a good place to start about Libertarianism:

http://world.std.com...n/libindex.html

[Guest Valk0010]

I am lukewarm on the subject mostly now. About the only things that interest me now in regards to politics are the following.

 

My own survival.

 

Gay rights

 

Womens Rights

 

Secular/Atheist activism.

[stryper]

Where are you getting those statics? The top 10% makes about 75% of the money which is highly unequal and the other 90% makes the small quarter or third part of the pie.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ealth,_2007.jpg

 

http://www.motherjon...ica-chart-graph

 

Depends where you look and if you are evaluating income or net worth. It's hard to knows who's statistics to believe.

 

What do you think is an appropriate tax rate for the rich?

 

As long as there are deductions and loopholes in the tax code it doesn't matter what tax rate you put on the top income earners. They will never pay it.

 

I personally would be in favor of straight flat tax with no loopholes deductions, credits, exemptions, or any other type of subsidy that would lower the tax rate. So if you made 40k you'd pay 4000, if you made 1,000,000 you'd pay 100,000 everybody would pay the same rate.

 

Even if you made it a graduated flat tax like the lower income earners pay like 10% and the highest paid 20%. The simple fact is that the more wealthy you are the more you are able to take advantage of deductions and loopholes that use regular joes can't. Because of those you can lower the amount of taxes pay per income to less then your secretary.

 

Taxes are kinda big in economics. Look up the lorenz curve as a start. All taxes have as part of their goal, income redistribution.

 

Edit:

 

http://www.unc.edu/depts/econ/byrns_web/Economicae/Figures/Lorenz.htm

 

The lorenz curve measure % of total income vs % of population.

 

Currently 60% of the population of the US controls 27% of the income. So if you are talking about raising money for the government you need to raise taxes on where the money is.

[stryper]

True Freedom,

 

Not intentionally misrepresenting your views, all I am stating what generally goes on when it comes to the modern day Libertarian movement. You can't tell me that is not happening within the modern day Libertarian movement what I said though. Because you got to see it.

 

I can see how I might have seen things 20 years ago... Backup up your arguments, friend. Take a step back, eat crow, and then bring the goods.

 

 

[TrueFreedom]

True Freedom,

 

Not intentionally misrepresenting your views, all I am stating what generally goes on when it comes to the modern day Libertarian movement. You can't tell me that is not happening within the modern day Libertarian movement what I said though. Because you got to see it.

 

I can see how I might have seen things 20 years ago... Backup up your arguments, friend. Take a step back, eat crow, and then bring the goods.

 

 

 

That image is blocked here. Can you describe it?

[Vigile]

True Freedom,

 

Not intentionally misrepresenting your views, all I am stating what generally goes on when it comes to the modern day Libertarian movement. You can't tell me that is not happening within the modern day Libertarian movement what I said though. Because you got to see it.

 

I can see how I might have seen things 20 years ago... Backup up your arguments, friend. Take a step back, eat crow, and then bring the goods.

 

 

 

That image is blocked here. Can you describe it?

 

It says you're a booger.

[LifeCycle]

I am apathetic post-deconversion... feeling a bit like there is no stopping the machine that is our political "leadership". Obama? Romney? Any given congressperson/senator? HA. People who think picking a wealthy person from one side of a two-party system will make anything better are as delusional as a bible-believing xian.

 

I'll stick to playing the game the best that I can, supporting my local community with money when I do well financially and with my time when I don't.

 

Werd! I won't even vote anymore. When it comes to influencing the outcome of a political race, voting is probably one of the least effective methods... Contributions of money and time by corporations and volunteers have a much larger impact.

 

It's all a scam... We're lead to believe we have a voice but when it really comes down to it. Our government does as it pleases and what's best for the people isn't even part of their decision-making processes.

[VacuumFlux]

Even then they hoard it and become richer and richer while the lower middle class and poor have zero chance to save.

 

The rich used to pay 70-90% taxes, now its about 35% and even less once they get through their loop holes. I'd never think that 90% is a fair amount to pay but I think they should pay more. There are people smarter than me who can figure these things out, I just know that since we've lowered the rich tax rate we've seen wealth inequality spirial out of control. One thing's apparent wealth doesn't trickle down.

 

Bolding mine.

 

Nope, it's not even 35%, more like 15%, because the really rich people get most of their money from capital gains, not normal income, and those are taxed at a much lower rate. And that's still before you factor in all the loopholes.

[jblueep]

Where are you getting those statics? The top 10% makes about 75% of the money which is highly unequal and the other 90% makes the small quarter or third part of the pie.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ealth,_2007.jpg

 

http://www.motherjon...ica-chart-graph

 

Depends where you look and if you are evaluating income or net worth. It's hard to knows who's statistics to believe.

 

What do you think is an appropriate tax rate for the rich?

 

As long as there are deductions and loopholes in the tax code it doesn't matter what tax rate you put on the top income earners. They will never pay it.

 

I personally would be in favor of straight flat tax with no loopholes deductions, credits, exemptions, or any other type of subsidy that would lower the tax rate. So if you made 40k you'd pay 4000, if you made 1,000,000 you'd pay 100,000 everybody would pay the same rate.

 

Even if you made it a graduated flat tax like the lower income earners pay like 10% and the highest paid 20%. The simple fact is that the more wealthy you are the more you are able to take advantage of deductions and loopholes that use regular joes can't. Because of those you can lower the amount of taxes pay per income to less then your secretary.

 

Taxes are kinda big in economics. Look up the lorenz curve as a start. All taxes have as part of their goal, income redistribution.

 

Edit:

 

http://www.unc.edu/d...ures/Lorenz.htm

 

The lorenz curve measure % of total income vs % of population.

 

Currently 60% of the population of the US controls 27% of the income. So if you are talking about raising money for the government you need to raise taxes on where the money is.

 

I agree with you in that I think a flat tax straight across the board (with no loopholes or deductions) would be fair. I also think that we should dramatically reduce the size of the federal government so that the flat tax could be no more than 10%.

 

How about doing away with all income taxes and institute a federal sales tax? That would catch everyone that consumes and reward those that save.

[jblueep]

Even then they hoard it and become richer and richer while the lower middle class and poor have zero chance to save.

 

The rich used to pay 70-90% taxes, now its about 35% and even less once they get through their loop holes. I'd never think that 90% is a fair amount to pay but I think they should pay more. There are people smarter than me who can figure these things out, I just know that since we've lowered the rich tax rate we've seen wealth inequality spirial out of control. One thing's apparent wealth doesn't trickle down.

 

Bolding mine.

 

Nope, it's not even 35%, more like 15%, because the really rich people get most of their money from capital gains, not normal income, and those are taxed at a much lower rate. And that's still before you factor in all the loopholes.

 

But capital gains are from investments, i.e. these people were willing to (generally) risk 100% of their invested money to build/fund companies (likely maintaining/creating jobs). I don't think the capital gains tax should go up. If it did, why would people take that kind of investment risk anymore and where would private equity financing come from?

[Vigile]

more like 15%, because the really rich people get most of their money from capital gains, not normal income, and those are taxed at a much lower rate.

 

I really don't like these tax debates as I doubt there are any "right" answers. I do think there is a huge problem with income disparity simply because it leads to monopolization of the mode and means of production; not to mention political access. I'm not sure giving more money to the government, which in turn gives it back to the wealthy in the form of contracts, subsidies, etc... is going to fix anything.

 

That disclaimer out of the way, cap gains are earned on money that has already been taxed. I.e., you earn money, pay tax at your rate less deductions, etc..., then invest it. If your investments pay off, you are taxed again. I don't see the low cap gains tax rate as an issue of fairness personally. And, if you raise cap gains tax, you chisel investment dollars, which in turn chisels away at job growth, et al. It's a poor approach to achieving income equality IMO.

 

I think rather than trying to fix the problem of wealth disparity through the tax code, it would be more effective to just limit campaign spending. This would even the playing field, taking away the advantage those who are the haves currently have when they game the system.

[stryper]

I agree with you in that I think a flat tax straight across the board (with no loopholes or deductions) would be fair. I also think that we should dramatically reduce the size of the federal government so that the flat tax could be no more than 10%.

 

How about doing away with all income taxes and institute a federal sales tax? That would catch everyone that consumes and reward those that save.

 

There is book out by the Chief Economics Editor at the Wallstreet Journal called Red Ink. I haven't read it yet. However, he was on Fresh Air with Terri Gross on NPR. He talks about the fed budget, taxes, the whole she bang.

 

If we fired every federal employee, it would not eliminate the deficit. It would cut it by about half. So obviously that is not the answer.

 

However he talks about how the Pentagon has a plan to replace every carrier in our fleet every 5 years. It costs about 13-20 billion just to put on in serivce and about 2 billion to decommission it and scrap it. This doesn't even include the daily operational cost of running one, or the maintenance while in service. There are I believe 11 carriers in service right now. So you are looking at the defense department needing at least 30 billion every year and 45 billion every 5 years just replace aging carriers.

 

That is just an example of a broader issue. Most of the money that is taken in as taxes, goes right back out as spending. Medicare, welfare, unemployment, salaries, research grants, student loans, disability, retirement pensions, subsidies, and the list goes on. Since Medicare, Social Security, and Defense spending make up about 50% -60% of the budget, if you are going to be serious about cutting, that is where you have to go.

 

The biggest issue when related to the tax code is that tax cuts, credits, holidays, etc. are just spending by other means. Anytime the government gives tax breaks for certain economic activities such as investing, economically it is the same as if they cut those individuals or businesses a check. It is simply politically easier to talk about tax cuts than spending increases.

 

Because of that we have the loopholes and such mentioned before. This has created an entire industry that does nothing but look at the tax code and figure out how the company or individual can shave a few more dollars off the tax bill. There are entire divisions eating up resources in companies that do nothing but look at tax burden, risk and exposure, and find ways to cut it. This also has led to things like Romney's blind trust. Which for all practical purposes is a company set up that he owns but has no say in the activities of, that simply moves money around to get the highest return and allow Romney to pay the least amount of tax.

 

The other issue why tax debate can get so heated is because of the point Ramen and you are making. There is a tug of war in taxes between equity (fairness) and efficiency (goals). Every tax reform that has taken place from Roosevelt to Bush 2 was aimed at moving the tax code toward one or the other. This will continue. You make the tax more Fair, You stifle innovation. You make the tax more efficient, its less equitable.

 

This is why I would advocate for a tax code that would have maybe three or four lines.

 

HOw much did you make from all sources of income?

Mupltiply by 10% this what you owe.

How much did you pay in advance?

 

Difference is your refund or additional burden.

 

It would be totally fair because everyone pays the same. It would also be completely efficient because then the markets could determine where the money goes. Tax breaks would no longer exist. Government incentives would have to be given in the form of loans, grants, and direct spending. Not to mention the retraining of legions of tax lawyers, accounts, and transfer pricing agents.

 

It would solve one problem. It would have many issues and recurring effect. So it would be something that would need to be phased in over a series of years.

 

Eventually, I would like to see the complete elimination of money; but that is not happening in my lifetime.

[Carolorado]

Have any of you lived in poverty so bad it worried you every second of the day? If you had lived in the 'I have no idea where my next meal is coming from' group? If you ever had, you have zero questions about where your politics lie. It amazes me that so called Christians hate welfare, hate healing the sick, hate helping the poor. The atheists/agnostists/humanists here are following Jesus teachings far closer than the merged right wing xianity/republican political party.

 

Ron Paul doesn't want taxes or war and wants pot legal. I agree on two out of three, but we need taxes for schools, roads, everything! We don't need to cut government spending, we need to INCREASE it where we are failing such as education and caring for the least among us.. Part of Obama's stimulus was a tax cut on middle class. Check you tax return in 2009 v 2008. The middle class paid less. The rich were mad because they didn't get the cut. THAT is why they tell you it is a failure. I maintain it wasn't enough money to fix the problems. And I cannot believe people bitch about the stimulus without realizing most of it was tax cuts for middle to lower Income people. Read it. You came out ahead. Obama used too much caution. He should have went big and insisted on a WPA type project. Spending money makes money. Face it, WWII ended the last of the Depression. And the war was a massive government spending program. I maintain if we spent that much money to, oh,cure cancer we would win that. But we gotta keep that industrial military complex going to the expense of everything else. that is the big horror in our government. We lost our soul.

 

And whomever ever thought that keeping the Capitol gains rates low is fair, doesn't consider that the uber wealthy shield their assets in hedge funds that are only taxed at 15%, maximum. There is a good reason Mitt won't realease his tax returns: YOU are probably paying the 'little people' tax that the wealthy avoid. Study the percentages. Also, those who make money from just their investments, pay zero payroll tax. Doesn't it piss you off they don't have to pay on that? Believe me, they will get their social security even if they never paid. And do not get me started on corporate welfare! Exxon got more money than all the welfare recipients in most states. Then there is GE that got 6 billion in government money. Who knows how many millions Romney has received from he government?

 

As for a flat tax, 10% of 20K hurts a lot more than 10% of 20 million. Although the person with millions pays more, he is paying the same percent and is getting off pain free. It hurts less to pay a million or two in taxes when you have many more millions. 2k can destroy you if you have just 20k. The millions the uber rich pay just seems like a lot to most of us. That should tell you the uber rich live in an entirely different world. And if you aren't born for the correct gene pool, your chances of becoming a billionaire means you better be as smart as a Steve Jobs type and have people savvy as well.

 

Politics should be evaluated just like you did religion. Read legislation. Read the facts. Go to Snopes.com to get quick verification. But always, always double check the original source. This is the ugliest political season I have seen since the Vietnam era. But even then, they didn't make up so many lies and Orwellian doublespeak.

 

No one likes to pay taxes. But taxes will never get cut for war (Eisenhower's ghastly prediction came true); what will get cut is education, infrastructure and help for elderly. Resources for real living people get cut. The party that wants to stop abortion also wants to stop birth control and aid for those women forced to raise a child they cannot afford. Vote for whomever you want. But I give this warning: Any political party aligned with right wing religion is AGAINST you.

[stryper]

 

Ron Paul doesn't want taxes or war and wants pot legal. I agree on two out of three, but we need taxes for schools, roads, everything! We don't need to cut government spending, we need to INCREASE it where we are failing such as education and caring for the least among us.. Part of Obama's stimulus was a tax cut on middle class. Check you tax return in 2009 v 2008. The middle class paid less. The rich were mad because they didn't get the cut. THAT is why they tell you it is a failure. I maintain it wasn't enough money to fix the problems. And I cannot believe people bitch about the stimulus without realizing most of it was tax cuts for middle to lower Income people. Read it. You came out ahead. Obama used too much caution. He should have went big and insisted on a WPA type project. Spending money makes money. Face it, WWII ended the last of the Depression. And the war was a massive government spending program. I maintain if we spent that much money to, oh,cure cancer we would win that. But we gotta keep that industrial military complex going to the expense of everything else. that is the big horror in our government. We lost our soul.

 

Correct and not. The WPA, CCC, and all the other programs were all eventually challenged in federal court and lost. From an economic, stand point the increased spending increased consumer spending. This allow us to start positive economic growth. Through the multiplier effect, this eventually stimulated the rest of the economy.

 

However, when it became apparent that WWII was going to happen and it was simply a matter of time. Instead of commandeering the factories to produce tanks and plane, Roosevelt listened to his advisers and started upping the Government contract for military hardware. This allowed the companies to retool and produce those items they were best at. THAT got us out the Great Depression.

 

 

 

As for a flat tax, 10% of 20K hurts a lot more than 10% of 20 million. Although the person with millions pays more, he is paying the same percent and is getting off pain free. It hurts less to pay a million or two in taxes when you have many more millions. 2k can destroy you if you have just 20k. The millions the uber rich pay just seems like a lot to most of us. That should tell you the uber rich live in an entirely different world. And if you aren't born for the correct gene pool, your chances of becoming a billionaire means you better be as smart as a Steve Jobs type and have people savvy as well.

 

Yes to the bolded. It can. All taxes are regressive in that regard. An extra $2000 to someone making $20,000 can be a literal lifesaver. However, that 2000 would be taken most likely through the systems already in place. You would pay it through your employer. So you would never see it to begin with. Besides if you are making $20,000 a year now you are already paying 15% I believe if you are single. Keep in mind that they refund you get every year is because of all of those loopholes. By changing the tax code to a flat tax, you would only get a refund if they took too much.

 

While I can appreciate the emotion of your point, the fact remains that for the tax system to be completely equitable a flat tax with no deduction, credits, etc would accomplish that.

[freeasabird]

Something tells me that if we simply had a law that said no one in any given company can make more than, I don't know, 500x their lowest paid employee, a lot of things would balance out. Does that make me a socialist?

[FeelHappy]

I agree with you in that I think a flat tax straight across the board (with no loopholes or deductions) would be fair. I also think that we should dramatically reduce the size of the federal government so that the flat tax could be no more than 10%.

 

How about doing away with all income taxes and institute a federal sales tax? That would catch everyone that consumes and reward those that save.

 

 

Which benefits are we going to drop? Medicare, medicaid, social security? Further doing a federal sales tax will actually hit the poor and lower middle class far harder because once again they spend the majority of their income each month on goods, the rich can only buy so much and the vast majority of their funds isn't spend on buying goods.

[Carolorado]

Hi Stryper, the WPA stood until the beginning of WWII. That is why we have National Parks and many government buildings. The WPA worked. (Check out the Slave Diaries by the WPA writers --a great idea that recorded wonderful history that would have been lost.) The CCC and the others were overthrown because of a conservative court. FDR was going to appoint additional justices until Congress stopped that, interesting history.

 

Please, whatever you do, do not forget to take care of the least among us. A ten percent tax rate on low income people is draconian. Why in the world would you make them suffer more? Maybe it isn't fair that the poor people pay less taxes, but by God (if there was one) they deserve a break. Every penny they earn is taxed and double taxed because they have to spend it all just to survive.

 

After having lived in poverty, and then not, I can tell you things cost more when you are poor. Don't think so? Well, it is everywhere. Look at discounts if you have a better credit score (if you have money, it is a good one unless you are very stupid), education, health care, etc. etc. etc. The more money you have, the less it costs to live. You may spend more, but the basics cost more for the poor.

 

Perhaps there are poor who do not deserve help, but 90% of them are hardworking people who lack opportunities or education. A flat tax, deductions or not, is regressive. So are sales taxes. In my prior state, we passed 2 cents tax on every dollar spent (in addition to the already existing 7.5% state tax) for a freaking basketball team that only people with money could pay to attend. Yet the poor paid, two cents out of every dollar they earned while the wealthy get to enjoy and benefit and were only taxed on what they spent, not what they earned. What really pissed me off was that all the profits went to the top investors. The 'little people' that paid taxes? No ROI. Nada, zip. It was just mean, IMHO.

 

Part of the reason I quit xianity was that very few took up for the least among us; fixating on the unborn and gays was all they wanted to do. ENOUGH! Someone has to be reasonable. Not all poor people are lazy bums. Many are EXTREMELY hard working but lack the skills to do better.

 

Should the Romneys of the world pay more to help them? You betcha. I would be ASHAMED if I were Mitt Romney trying to hide my taxes. There comes a point when your children and their children and ten generations to come have more than they can spend. When people are hurting and they won't help? I have no use for them. They never think twice about buying anything, even a jet or a car or a house. NOTHING is out of their reach. And of course, right wing churches support that kind of greed because most think they will get there someday. If they did, they really would see that paying taxes is nothing when you are a multimillionaire.

 

It is a testimony to how bad xianity is to support such arrogant greed.

[Guest Valk0010]

I have given up saying i have solutions to most political problems. Adequately helping people in say my situation or similar I still think is a deathly important priority. Working out the details is not something that I think we will ever be able to actual do until the system falls apart.;