Originally posted by aging blitzerIsn't just using VAT as a means of taxation rather regressive?
You could probably say the same of many taxes.
But how much of that is down to inefficient implementation.
In the UK, inheritance tax accounts for less than 1% of tax,
but that is more than the tax on:
cider
gambling
air passengers
landfill tax
climate change levy
aggregates levy
and about the same as:
capital gains tax
spirits duty
b ...[text shortened]... cense fee as well and just fund the BBC from general taxation. Save on all that administration.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
1 edit
Originally posted by wedgehead2Yes actually I would prefer that tax revenue go to local governments instead of Federal as much as possible. I'd still prefer taxes be kept as low as possible but the trade off of having local accountability would be worth it.
So would you be happy with higher taxes if the revenues went to local governments- more accountability?
Originally posted by UllrIndirectly or directly, purposely or under the disguise of fogged logic, every
Oh c'mon. Many people have become wealthy without screwing over poor people. You can't seriously believe that every single monetarily succesfull person in the world got there only because they took advantage of someone else?
person who has more than he needs because someone else is willing to
work for less, is screwing that someone else. You can't argue with that.
Give me an example of any place in the world where you have a rich person
who got rich not by taking more than (s)he needs and leaving someone
else with less.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
Originally posted by stockenYes I can argue that. Its called economic growth. The overall pie does grow and so it is not a zero sum game. Therefore it is possible to get rich without screwing over someone else. Its sad that you think the world is such an awful place that this is not possible. Again America is an example of such a place.
Indirectly or directly, purposely or under the disguise of fogged logic, every
person who has more than he needs because someone else is willing to
work for less, is screwing that someone else. You can't argue with that.
Give me an example of any place in the world where you have a rich person
who got rich not by taking more than (s)he needs and leaving someone
else with less.
As far as whether or not someone takes more than they need. I agree that this happens all the time and personally don't like to see it but who am I to tell a person how much they need?
Originally posted by UllrYou're saying that everyone involved in the incredible wealth of the US
Yes I can argue that. Its called economic growth. The overall pie does grow and so it is not a zero sum game. ... America is an example of such a place.
nation is getting their equal share? Is that what you're saying? Careful now.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterWhat is your defination of 'wealthy' are you talking about the mega rich or do you class a millionaire as being rich (and if so in which currency)
Wealthy people do more good by investing their money and building businesses that create jobs and help others to become wealthy, rather than giving it away to charities like the United Nations, a bureaucracy famous for squandering money, says John Stossel:
http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/12/13/are_the_rich_cheap
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
Originally posted by stockenNo I'm not saying that at all. I thought my argument was that you don't have to screw someone else over in order to gain wealth. Of course there are scumbags who do just that. Sadly too many of them. But I'm arguing against the broad brush that is being used here to paint all rich folks as that kind of scum.
You're saying that everyone involved in the incredible wealth of the US
nation is getting their equal share? Is that what you're saying? Careful now.
Originally posted by stockenHow can that be answered? by defination is someone is rich then they have (and therfore took) more than they need (as opposed to want)
Indirectly or directly, purposely or under the disguise of fogged logic, every
person who has more than he needs because someone else is willing to
work for less, is screwing that someone else. You can't argue with that.
Give me an example of any place in the world where you have a rich person
who got rich not by taking more than (s)he needs and leaving someone
else with less.
Originally posted by UllrYou can only get rich through exploiting other people. Resources are finite- those who get more than their fair share are sending others into poverty. This applies with, for example, manufactering- manufactered goods are sold for more than the cost of the labour, capital and raw materials used. That extra money doesn't go to the labourer- it goes to the owner. This applies to countries as well as companies- globalisation, e.g. global capitalism, has lead to poorer nations becoming the labourer, and the west the owner.
No I'm not saying that at all. I thought my argument was that you don't have to screw someone else over in order to gain wealth. Of course there are scumbags who do just that. Sadly too many of them. But I'm arguing against the broad brush that is being used here to paint all rich folks as that kind of scum.
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
Originally posted by stevetoddI have to agree because I get the feeling I'm debating about a different level of success/wealth than those on the other side of the debate. I'm talking about someone that can retire comfortably without having to rely on Social Security, own their own home outright, take a couple of nice vacations a year, leave behind a nice inheritance for their family, and in general not worry about paying their bills too much. For the record I'm not defending the global capitalist/oil tycoon type with billions of dollars and manufacturing plants over the border in Mexico.
What is everyone here defining as rich! surely you have to define it before you can debate it?
Originally posted by UllrHow much money are we talking here? $50k?
I have to agree because I get the feeling I'm debating about a different level of success/wealth than those on the other side of the debate. I'm talking about someone that can retire comfortably without having to rely on Social Security, own their own home outright, take a couple of nice vacations a year, leave behind a nice inheritance for their family, and i ...[text shortened]... /oil tycoon type with billions of dollars and manufacturing plants over the border in Mexico.
Originally posted by UllrThen the system you speak of, where it's possible for people to get
No I'm not saying that at all. I thought my argument was that you don't have to screw someone else over in order to gain wealth. Of course there are scumbags who do just that. Sadly too many of them. But I'm arguing against the broad brush that is being used here to paint all rich folks as that kind of scum.
wealthy without exploiting others is a figment of your imagination. It might
be possible, but I don't see how when the resources at our disposal simply
isn't enough to support the entire human population of planet earth. We're
much like a virus, multiplying in a maniacal rate and eating up the very
body that supports us. To survive we must now eat each other. That's the
harsh reality and the very foundation upon on which capitalism relies. It
makes it possible even for people with no muscle power or dexterity to
survive and pass on their genes.