Paying your "fair share" of taxes

I fear for the safety of our country if solaris1 is running around in the US Army

There's really no need to resort to ad hominem attacks. Let's debate ideas, and not just insult each other m'kay?

Ofcourse that nationmaster is not a source that u were looking for because it supports the argument that u dont like. It shows that the US is ranked highly in crime (unfortunetaly) and one should be aware of that not just ignore it in order to address this issue. If its true whats the problem

The world bank link that u posted only says gdp or services consumed as quality of lfie and does not address the issue at all. GINI index (the gap between rich and poor) has to be taken into consideration if u want to go by gdp per capita but i am not gonna get into this.

jerz; that wasnt ad hominem as u put it, i was just wondering what kind of perspective he got

I was just going to offer my point of view but I have been called 'in pain' and my statements 'ridiculus' by previous posters

I didnt post anything offensive to anyone in my posts

How does the murder rate represent the highest crime rate? Also, that survey is from 1998-2000 and conducted by the UN. The credibility is shot right there. That is the same organization that has condemned Israel 9 times for human rights abuses while Sudan is of 'deep concern'. Let's just use the smell test for safety. Where would you feel most comfortable walking down the street at midnight in an average neighborhood? London, NYC, Tokyo, Mexico City, Rio, Berlin, or Paris. Anyway, I know the US is not #1 in every category, but it is undeniable that the US has the highest living standard of any major country in the world. Just name one major country and I'll be happy to do a comparison. Would you prefer Russia, China, Japan, India, the UK, Germany, Mexico, or France?


In fact you are more a socialist than you might imagine. I believe everyone should have access to healthcare, education, and a fair wage, but it is how we believe they should receive them that determines whether we are in fact a capitalist or anti-capitalists, socialists or libertarians. Not whether we think they should exist. You believe the government should provide healthcare for free to all of its citizens. That is socialism. I believe the private market should offer healthcare as a service and the government should stop distorting that market through arcane price controls and regulations. That is capitalism. You believe everyone should be paid fairly in the mind of the worker, which is socialist. I believe the market should set the proper wage based on the skills and abilities of the worker. If he doesn't like the wage than he can go somewhere else for a higher wage or educate himself and demand a higher wage through increased skill and productivity. That is capitalism.

See the definition of socilism:
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (i.e. your view on healthcare), and a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals (i.e. tax the rich more), with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation(fair pay).

How are you not a socialist?

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/busin ... .html?_r=2

Look, it's clear that elements of capitalism and free enterprise are the greatest driver for human economic progress in the world. Countries that have liberalized their markets and allowed enterprise to flourish - China, India, Viet Nam, etc. - have prospered. As a guy with an economics background going into international development, I know that's clear. So let's not make this an argument about capitalism vs. communism, because that debate's been done already.

It's worth pointing out that the U.S. is really rather socialist in many ways. Social security? Unemployment insurance? Folks back in the 30s thought stuff like that was the encroaching hand of the Third International. And we have a very robust regulatory atmosphere that keeps things stable. A much better example of more bare-knuckled capitalism would be India or China - where endemic corruption and weak/absent regulation makes the markets much less stable. So it's all a matter of degrees. A healthy free market needs prudent government guidance to be sustainable.

Also, it's debatable whether we have the "highest standard of living" in the U.S. Just pointing to Bill Gates doesn't prove much. We do have much higher crime rates than in, say, Europe (though very far from "the highest in the world" - that's ridiculous); we also have greater social mobility, but not nearly so much as we like to think. We have a deeply unequal society in terms of income and privileges, and it's not an endorsement of socialism to point out that that is very unhealthy for our society and our democracy.

Well said, toubab.

For zoinnk, I don't have a problem paying taxes for government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. Even if it means that to keep those programs I'll have to pay higher taxes than I have now (although we can debate how best to allocate those increases across the income spectrum). I think that it's important that government provide a safety net. I'd even be in favor of an *effective* jobs training program to help workers switch jobs/industries away from industries that have been affected by trade (such as manufacturing). However, what makes tax increases hard to swallow are things like that at a time when families and businesses throughout the country are tightening their belts to control their spending and pay down debt, the House passes a spending bill for the remainder of FY09, separate from the recent stimulus bill, that raises spending by about 8% - far higher than GDP growth or inflation - and that is full of pork. This isn't a Democrats are bad, Republicans good post either. Under a Republican administration, government spending increased 6.9% a year from 2001 to 2008 (again higher than inflation or GDP growth). So where does that leave us? Well, the Congressional Budget Office is projecting that over the next 5 years we'll have a cumulative budget deficit of about $4.5 trillion. And that's without addressing the pending multi-trillion hole in Social Security and Medicare. So yeah, tax increases are going to be necessary. But it's only fair that our elected officials stop acting like teenagers at the mall with daddy's credit card and get their spending under control.

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

Really, the question is not whether or not we should help people less fortunate. It's how to do it and to what extent. As Toubab said, we are already socialized. The question is how do you make these programs better and what benefits each American should be entitled to (e.g., social security, health care, etc.).

Regarding your post, random quotes are not a particularly good way to support your arguments. There are just as many good quotes that run counter to yours. It's a pointless game:

Ghandi
"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."


Churchill
"You measure the degree of civilisation of a society by how it treats its weakest members."


Matthew 25:31-46
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory.

All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.

For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,

I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?

When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?

When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,

I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Yeah, Zoinnk, I don't believe anyone here is talking about not helping the poor and turning our back to them. Rather we are advocating teaching a man to fish to better himself instead of keeping someone dependent on your generousity of fish, which is what the government is doing. Giving someone a handout for doing nothing is what we are headed towards, not rewarding them for putting in effort to better themselves. Helping the poor is a fantastic idea, but giving them something for free is no way to help them.

Free healthcare, which will result in the rationing of services, helps no one. It hurts everyone else who is currently paying for and receiving quality medical care. Free healthcare rewards the minority at the expense of the majority, which I believe is not right. Also, social security - you ain't getting any. It won't happen. It's the world's greatest Ponzi scheme and the jig will be up before we retire. It will all come down like a house of cards. Plus, have you ever looked at your statement on how much you put in in any given year? If you instead put that money into an IRA, you'd easily have 10-20x the amount social security will pay you when you retire. Oh well, government knows best, right?

Also, you are not 'entitled' to anything but life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Since, in order for you to have 'social security' either someone else's rights or property must be infringed upon by force of government, it is not a right bestowed on anyone.

Yeah, I really don't want to get drawn into this debate, so I'll just say I disagree with a lot of what you said, and you make a lot of assertions but don't actually support them with an empirical evidence.

You can disagree all you want, but it is an economic fact that anything with value that is offered for free will become scarce, resulting in shortages, and thus must be rationed. It also a fact that social security is a ponzi scheme. The government pays current retirees with taxes from current workers, which is fine as long as you have an ever growing supply of current workers to feed the system. That is the very definition of a ponzi scheme. You can call it whatever you want, but an apple is still an apple.

What did I say that is not a fact?

The fact that you can't figure out which one of your assertions requires evidence is exactly why I don't want to get drawn into this argument. I don't have a calm enough temperament to be spoken to like a child just because I have a different viewpoint than you do.

Eh, that's not really true. Social Security can be made sustainable... what's required is benefits reform. But that's politically unpalatable, which is a political problem, not an economic one.

Remember how Bush and his Republican band of thugs wanted to privatize the whole system? Let people put a big chunk of their SSI taxes into the stock market and grant the banks a multi-billion dollar bonanza? I just wonder what that crackerjack system would look like right about now. Thank god we averted disaster.

Exactly

Reagan-Bush-Bush clique could not grasp several major points

- how important is to step back from fossil fuels and push for green technologies (finally that is becoming trendy these days but could have come 25 years ago) We could all drive electric cars by now.

- how important is to support the basic education in the poor districts of the US and thus prevent those kids from becoming thugs and drug dealers when they grow up dropping out of school and behind the bars

- how important is to provide healthcare and social welfare to citizens and thus to keep many from stealing, so they wont end up growing feeling inferior and agressive towads society

IN summary, creating an educated, well skilled and healthy workforce would boost productivity and competiveness at the world stage. You couldnt sell as much fast food to educated people versus dumb. Financial institutions could not pressure as many people escape their reality taking expensive credits for every thing that they cannot really afford.

Tv ads propagate fast food, insurance, credits, spending, going to debt ... kim kardashian, paris hilton etc... those are the trend-setted values. So, what can you espect in which direction todays teenagers are going to move. What are going to be theiur life goals? The role of government should be to protect the wellbeing of its citizens and to create equal opportunities for everyone. The society is as strong as is its population or middle class which is a popular term in the US

I want my neigbhor to be educated and rich, i dont want him to rob my house.

Actually, Social Security might have worked much better under Bush's proposed reform. His plan was actually tried in 1981 by the nice folks working for the Galveston County government. Here were there results:

https://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514/
Seems that crackerjack system of yours turned out ok for the good ol' folks of Galveston County, huh?

Also, Social Security is not sustainable in its current form. It will require either higher taxes or lower benefits to remain in existence. Did you know that SS started as a 2% tax on workers and has now blossomed into a 12.4% tax? It also had 16 workers for every retiree in the beginning, but now that ratio is 3 - 1 and will be 2 - 1 by 2030. Seems like that is the very definition of sustainable?

Why is this a partisan debate? It's fine to blame the republicans for not investing in green technology, but you skipped over clinton/gore who were in power for 8 years. Clearly they could have started that revolution.