King Jippo
Banned
In a perfect world...
your manifesto please.
your manifesto please.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Raoul Duke...
- Thread starter King Jippo
- Start date
- Status
Oh wow. Simply put, in a PERFECT world, society would pretty much run on anarcho-syndicalism.King Jippo said:
But I don't think that's the answer you wanted. I think what you want out of me are specific things I would do with the world we have? Here you go.
-Abolish Corporate Personhood.
-Add a penny tax to every stock transaction.
-Highly tax the wealthier members of society/corporations.
-Elimnate taxes on those earning less than 100k/year.
-Use the extra revenue generated by those taxes to fund massive social programs and government funding of scientific research.
-Add a $20,000 tax to SUV purchases. Include non-necessary truck/van purchases as well.
Pretty much put Ralph Nader in charge for about four years. We deserve the ass whupping he would give us. America has grown fat, proud, and lazy, not unlike Rome before it's fall.
Is there anything else specific you wanted answered or was this thread simply to bait me?
King Jippo
Banned
Your SUV thing is noble, but totally unrealistic. As I suspected many free market, cap loving, USA/Euro fans dont see eye to eye with you, but your intentions are noble. But please, dont be that guy who just needs to spite everyone with that Chavez avator. Youre too smart for that,
Thanks. I certainly appreciate your candor especially on boards like these.
Thanks. I certainly appreciate your candor especially on boards like these.
:lolKing Jippo said:
Dude, I had a Karl Marx avatar for like a year. I'm not even really a communist, it's just funny. I guess I'm like the only guy in the world that doesn't believe in a 100% free market?
Honestly, I don't know how everyone gets the idea that I'm a rabid leftist freak. Sure my politics are pretty left of center, and I give a lot of my self and time to various charitable institutions around town(including bars), but I've also owned guns most of my adult life and like to blow shit up like a stereotypical backwoods southerner. I guess if you care a lot and have a bullshit detector, people think you're a communist or something. Honestly, I don't care for the Democratic party that much either(didn't vote for Kerry), really see them as the other side of the same coin.
King Jippo
Banned
Raoul-
Read Adam Smiths "Wealth of Nations". I'm not trying to change your views, just broaden them. Shit, the book was written in 1776. It still has many principles that apply today. Somehow I get the feeling that you & I are totally diff politically, but subscribe to the same end result. THe internet scares me.. Bye
Read Adam Smiths "Wealth of Nations". I'm not trying to change your views, just broaden them. Shit, the book was written in 1776. It still has many principles that apply today. Somehow I get the feeling that you & I are totally diff politically, but subscribe to the same end result. THe internet scares me.. Bye
xabre said:
Why not just eliminate third world debt? Most countries will never pay it off.
R.D., my old buddy, my only issues with your listed plans would be the nature of "highly tax the rich" (I'm a stubborn idealistic type guy... I'd feel guilty taking a large percentage of ANYONE's cash, even if they are stinking rich) and the "sin tax" on SUVs.
Frankly, I've never understood the "SUVs ARE THE DEVIL'S OFF ROAD VEHICLES" thing. Is it entirely the "gas guzzler" thing? If so, what about pickups and vans? Are we suddenly trying to penalize anyone who drives a larger vehicle? The only other arguement I've heard is something about them being "more dangerous in accidents" -- although that applies to ANY large vehicle involved in an accident with a small vehicle. The big guy is better off.
Me? I drive a '95 Oldsmobile and I'm trying to figure out how to up the MPG.
DjangoReinhardt
Thinks he should have been the one to kill Batman's parents.
MVS said:
What the hell do you think is the current situation? :lol
Targeted conspicuous consumption taxes are the way to go: only focus on yachts and the like, though; let people have nice TVs. Find the products that don't crossover into the middle-class much, and invest in resources to combat the sure-to-expand black market. It would probably be wise to exterminate most accountants, too.
DjangoReinhardt
Thinks he should have been the one to kill Batman's parents.
MVS said:
And a lot of poor people now don't pay FICA taxes at all right now. Introducing them to a tax burden is not a good idea.
Most flat tax plans I've heard of exclude people making under $___. They aren't all encompassing...
Now, a question for everyone -- what is the point of a tax? Is it to bring in revenue to pay for governmental expenses, or (and?) is it to punish folks who make too much money?
I'm being quite serious here. Whenever I run into folks complaining about taxes not being high enough on "the rich", they always seem to base their arguements on how the rich folks have too much money... which seems to imply that the tax exists to remove their cash, and is thus a punishment for their being rich in the first place.
Now, a question for everyone -- what is the point of a tax? Is it to bring in revenue to pay for governmental expenses, or (and?) is it to punish folks who make too much money?
I'm being quite serious here. Whenever I run into folks complaining about taxes not being high enough on "the rich", they always seem to base their arguements on how the rich folks have too much money... which seems to imply that the tax exists to remove their cash, and is thus a punishment for their being rich in the first place.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
...actually the top 5% of people in the country pay the most moneywise I think. For them to sustain their way of life they require the man hours of countless people below them though so I say tax the shit out of em. Also base all their fines and penalties on income, if bill gates gets a ticket it should be a 5million dollar ticket so that he notices , just like id notice a 150 dollar ticket.
Squirrel Killer
Member
The point of taxes is to fund government. A side effect is that government can use their power of taxation to influence society. Some argue that the side effect is justification enough for a tax, regardless of the funding justification.DavidDayton said:
A family of four slightly above the poverty line can less afford x% of their total income than a single person making $100k.MVS said:
SteveMeister
Hang out with Steve.
Don't put a blanket tax on SUVs. Make it a tax based on a vehicle's fuel economy. Minivans, pickup trucks, muscle cars, etc. can get crappy gas mileage, too. Make the tax gradual, so that when you get up around 30MPG city or better, there's no tax.
Increasing taxes on gasoline is another way to tax low-mileage vehicles, but it has the nasty side effect of increasing commercial transportation costs, which results in inflation of consumer goods. Plus it penalizes those who have high mileage vehicles, too.
But don't just focus on SUVs. They're not the only low mileage vehicles on the road, not by a long shot.
Increasing taxes on gasoline is another way to tax low-mileage vehicles, but it has the nasty side effect of increasing commercial transportation costs, which results in inflation of consumer goods. Plus it penalizes those who have high mileage vehicles, too.
But don't just focus on SUVs. They're not the only low mileage vehicles on the road, not by a long shot.
dammitmattt
Banned
A (relatively) free market is the only possible model to sustain humanity. Anyone who wants to change that has obviously not learned a damn thing from past failures of communist/socialist governments, and the incredible rise of the United States in a short amount of time.
If you are not happy making $23,000 a year, do something about it. Get a degree. If you already have one, get a better degree. Yeah, it's hard work to support yourself and put yourself through college, but I did it, and I'm doing fine now. Not rich, but fine, and I was not given a cent by my family nor did I have the fortune of sliding into a family business. You have every opportunity to better your situation instead of trying to steal money away from people who earned it to give it to people like you that did not. Your idiotic idealism has no place in the real world.
If you are not happy making $23,000 a year, do something about it. Get a degree. If you already have one, get a better degree. Yeah, it's hard work to support yourself and put yourself through college, but I did it, and I'm doing fine now. Not rich, but fine, and I was not given a cent by my family nor did I have the fortune of sliding into a family business. You have every opportunity to better your situation instead of trying to steal money away from people who earned it to give it to people like you that did not. Your idiotic idealism has no place in the real world.
Instigator
Banned
callous said:
Norway is the safest bet since oil revenues secure social benefits for decades.
Your country, Callous, is hardly a model anymore.
Instigator
Banned
To me, a 100K of American dollars is a lot of dough. You don't need that much to raise 2 kids. They won't be living in luxury or go to the best colleges, but there's no reason not to tax that income bracket, especially when it is added to a second income from the other parent.
I suspect Raoul Duke might be earning close to that amount and is just asking for a special provision that concerns him specifically.
I suspect Raoul Duke might be earning close to that amount and is just asking for a special provision that concerns him specifically.
Warm Machine
Member
Instead of SUV taxes what about making smaller or more energy efficient cars more appealing to buy? Something like a Smart For Two should be more along the lines of what we see on the road as opposed to the behemoth wastes that fill the streets now.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
Well i dont see why there should be an SUV tax like its an import or something...some of these families NEED these vehicles...trust me my uncle isnt fitting his Ogre children in a camry. He's no spring chicken either. I agree when certain SUV's got trendy people who dont NEED the space still bought them...*I dont know why cars are so much more fun* but there are still quite a few traditional families of 3 or more kids that need the space for the kids, packing luggage , etc etc.
SUV's suck ass because they are so freaking huge. If I'm turning onto some semi major street there are times I have to just sit there waiting because I can't see if there is any oncoming traffic because so many SUV's are up in my fucking face.
To make a clearer example, say you are on a somewhat smaller street, turning onto a relatively major enough one such that it has a right turn lane to turn onto the street Im on. If a bunch of SUV's decide to turn right, I have to wait for them to finish because they are too huge to see around, and that pisses me off.
As for tax, the point is to fund the government as much as possible without having a significant negative impact on the people. The reason to tax 'the rich' is because taking like 40% of someone that makes 10 million dollars a year means nothing to them (or shouldn't, and if they bitch about having *only* 6 million dollars a year then fuck them) vs if you take 40% of someone making only 10,000 and trying to support a family they might have to make desicions about whether to fucking eat or not.
20% of a rich man's income is not as vitally important to him as much as 20% of a poor man's income.
To make a clearer example, say you are on a somewhat smaller street, turning onto a relatively major enough one such that it has a right turn lane to turn onto the street Im on. If a bunch of SUV's decide to turn right, I have to wait for them to finish because they are too huge to see around, and that pisses me off.
As for tax, the point is to fund the government as much as possible without having a significant negative impact on the people. The reason to tax 'the rich' is because taking like 40% of someone that makes 10 million dollars a year means nothing to them (or shouldn't, and if they bitch about having *only* 6 million dollars a year then fuck them) vs if you take 40% of someone making only 10,000 and trying to support a family they might have to make desicions about whether to fucking eat or not.
20% of a rich man's income is not as vitally important to him as much as 20% of a poor man's income.
SteveMeister
Hang out with Steve.
slayn said:
Pickup trucks and minivans are big, too.
fortified_concept
Banned
SantaCruZer said:
There no reason to write the same things again so I copy-pasted my reply to norinrad:
You sound like the usual superficial Republican who screams "the state will steal my money if these commies (Democrats) come to power". Now some simple math my friend. Say the rich guy makes 100,000,000 dollars a year. You make 30,000 dollars a year. Now let's say the tax is 15%. The rich guy will pay 15,000,000 which are taken by the state and eventually are spent for the citizens (like you) of a country (health care, social services, construction, etc etc etc). You pay 4,500 dollars. Who do you think benefits from a tax cut? You?
And even if you have no embathy for the poor or the ones that need help, and even if you don't need public health care (I don't know maybe you're immortal or filthy rich) or public education, the unemployment support etc, think that your son or your daughter might need it someday.
SteveMeister said:
trucks are never as boxishly huge. And only the front can be rather large. Perhaps not as many people have trucks, but I have never felt the need to curse out someone in a truck for being too huge and up in my face. Where as an SUV blocking my sight is pretty much an every other day occurance.
minivans have bothered me on occasion too, but not as much.
Can we finally disperse with this idea that most of the rich people earned what they have by being sooo skilled? Most of the money is old money in that it's been in certain families forever. The idea that people think Bill Gates deserves to be worth $51 billion is ludicrous. Without the lower levels of society, the higher levels cannot exist. It only makes sense to the rich, furthermore, to lower the taxes for the poor and increase their own taxes. If you're a rich business owner, it does you no good to live in a society where your entire market is hampered by taxes. So you take their burden of taxes, knowing that most likely they're going to reinvest their saved money into markets... most likely your own.
Bah. I'm just so sick of this "flat tax is fair" bullshit. Since when did fairness enter into American economics? Since when did it enter into economics at all? Does Japan taxing the shit out of American cars seem fair? No. Does the fact that the people who put the work into making the car get only a fraction of it, while the people who boss around those who build the car get more? Of course not. Life isn't fair, and I find it hilarious when rich people come to whine to me about how everything isn't fair. I don't see their kids in public schools with 60 grand in student loans to pay off after college. That's not very 'fair' either. Fuck 'em. Tax anyone making over $5 million annually a 35% income tax, and tax anyone making between 40K and 65K 10%.
Bah. I'm just so sick of this "flat tax is fair" bullshit. Since when did fairness enter into American economics? Since when did it enter into economics at all? Does Japan taxing the shit out of American cars seem fair? No. Does the fact that the people who put the work into making the car get only a fraction of it, while the people who boss around those who build the car get more? Of course not. Life isn't fair, and I find it hilarious when rich people come to whine to me about how everything isn't fair. I don't see their kids in public schools with 60 grand in student loans to pay off after college. That's not very 'fair' either. Fuck 'em. Tax anyone making over $5 million annually a 35% income tax, and tax anyone making between 40K and 65K 10%.
whytemyke said:
With all due respect, Bill Gates is one of the rich folks who actually did earn his money himself. I can't say I like his methods, but he certainly isn't loaded with "old money that's been in certain families forever."
I never liked the "TAX THE CHILDREN" inheritence tax plan, anyway. If I start a company and own 90% of the stock, then die, my kids would have to sell large chunks of that stock to pay the taxes on it. Forcing a family to lose control of a family company seems... evil. Yeah.
I'm not rich, and I'm never going to be... but I don't understand the "THEY DON'T DESERVE THAT MONEY! TAX 'EM 'TILL IT HURTS" mentality.
As said above, Bill Gates deserves to be worth all that money. He started a company, made all the right moves and created an empire. His yearly salary isn't that absurd, he just has a ton of stock of a company that has done amazingly well. The guys is the world's biggest philantropist as well.whytemyke said:
Anyways, I know a number of rich people who have earned what they have by going to college without support from their families, gotten higher degrees by working hard and by working hard at work with the same company for many years. That's to be respected and rewarded. Of course there are exceptions to the case, but a big reason to make so much money is to give your children the opportunities they never had.
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
I think a flat tax is good if there's no loophole. Many of the richest people pay very little tax. If all these were closed, I guarantee you'd see many more billions of dollars than you would with a pyramid tax system.
Raoul, how old are you?
I suspect that you are probably college age, and the lure of complete freedom is intoxicating.
Not to mention that most social theory, especially post-modernism and deconstructionism, are mired in the pits of Das Kapital. Basically, major liberal arts and research universities predicate that Karl Marx was right. History has proven this wrong.
Not to mention that "what you would do with the world" directly clashes with anarcho-syndicalism. Consider that the massive social programs you would adminster would lead to a further intrusion and expansion of government. 20K tax on non-essential trucks and vans and SUVs... well, who would determine this? A government.
The creation of a vast welfare state creates a society of people dependant on government, and your stated perfect world is the exact opposite.
Not to mention that Ralph Nader is a complete goofball. Have you seen him speak in person. It was absolutely ridiculous some of the stuff spewing from his mouth. Ideas like a 90% reduction in military spending (hello, constitution states in the preamble that providing for the common defense is central to the concept of government in the US... you can't just stop) ect. It was absolutely infeasible, and discounts various important points.
For instance, if you eliminate military spending, what happens to all the people employed in the military-industrial complex? Lots of not rich people work there you know. Unionized little socialists making bombs expensive bombs. Kinda fucks with your world view huh?
Basically, I think you view the world in much too simple terms, and the idea that you have a "Bullshit detector" is absolutely false. Your ideas, and the contridictions implied within, are evidence of a lack of a "bullshit detector".
--------
I suggest you move to Venezuela. Hugo Chavez is establishing a nice little socialist state there, by taking land from foreign land owners, redistributing wealth, and generally pissing off the middle class.
I suspect that you are probably college age, and the lure of complete freedom is intoxicating.
Not to mention that most social theory, especially post-modernism and deconstructionism, are mired in the pits of Das Kapital. Basically, major liberal arts and research universities predicate that Karl Marx was right. History has proven this wrong.
Not to mention that "what you would do with the world" directly clashes with anarcho-syndicalism. Consider that the massive social programs you would adminster would lead to a further intrusion and expansion of government. 20K tax on non-essential trucks and vans and SUVs... well, who would determine this? A government.
The creation of a vast welfare state creates a society of people dependant on government, and your stated perfect world is the exact opposite.
Not to mention that Ralph Nader is a complete goofball. Have you seen him speak in person. It was absolutely ridiculous some of the stuff spewing from his mouth. Ideas like a 90% reduction in military spending (hello, constitution states in the preamble that providing for the common defense is central to the concept of government in the US... you can't just stop) ect. It was absolutely infeasible, and discounts various important points.
For instance, if you eliminate military spending, what happens to all the people employed in the military-industrial complex? Lots of not rich people work there you know. Unionized little socialists making bombs expensive bombs. Kinda fucks with your world view huh?
Basically, I think you view the world in much too simple terms, and the idea that you have a "Bullshit detector" is absolutely false. Your ideas, and the contridictions implied within, are evidence of a lack of a "bullshit detector".
--------
I suggest you move to Venezuela. Hugo Chavez is establishing a nice little socialist state there, by taking land from foreign land owners, redistributing wealth, and generally pissing off the middle class.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
tetsuoxb said:
I only understood half of that shit, but I'm pretty sure somebody got owned on a message board on the internet.
Since this post contains no content now, I will say this. Fuck robert mugabe. that guy kills white people and/or takes their land to give land to black people. history has proven time and again that hardcore racism is bad. The UN should look harder at Zimbabwe.
Squirrel Killer
Member
Right now? A family of four, slightly above the poverty line pays $0 in federal taxes. In a straight flat tax system, they'd owe x% of their total income (where x = flat tax rate). In other words, they'd owe more under a straight flat tax system.MVS said:
A flat tax is good if there's no loopholes AND there's some form of a personal/dependent deduction/credit. Asking a single mother making $25k to support two kids to pay even $1k in taxes is wrong.The Experiment said:
Squirrel Killer said:
A flat tax is simpler, but this idea that rich people do not pay their fair share is ridiculous. So I agree with you.
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5746&sequence=1
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2004/10/on_class_warfar.html said:
This pretty much destroys the image that the rich do not pay their fair share into the government. Could they afford to pay more... Sure. Do those 90% who pay the other 32.1% of taxes have a right to dictate that they pay more. Yes, they have that right.
However, the question is whether it is morally equitable to penalize the largest contributors to our government further for their success. Should we only tax the top 10% of all earners? What do you say to someone who must not only pay for their own way, but for the way of others.
Redistribution of wealth does little to encourage success, which ultimately eats away at the top 10% paying taxes until you reach a point of equilibrium. That point of equilibrium being the basic idea of pure communism, as everyone's net worth would be equal, and owenership of property would basically be controlled by the state (effectively through the tax rate and social programs).... so then what? You have society of equals.
Nice to think about huh?
Then you realize the problem... Half of society has been brought down by the government to the equilibrium. They are resentful and will probably worth against any idea of social progress. Half of the society has been brought up by the system, but now they know they can go no further. They no longer have an incentive to work any harder because it will just place them into a position to be brought down by the system.
A free market is a violent system. Swings in wealth, poverty, etc. all make it essentially unacceptable for those who are unable to deal with inequity in the world in general. There is alot to hate about a market economy, and freely submit that a pure free market system would override social protections and probably make things worse.
That being said, the modified free markets currently in place are not bad at all. A responsible government can drive that style of economy to excellent social ends. My socialized health care in Japan has various free market ideals that make it easy and cheap to go to the doctor. China realized that communism will not drive their economy, and since enacting free market reforms, Chinas economies, cities, and citizens have benefitted greatly.
The ideas behind people like Nader, Anarcho-Syndicalists, etc. prey on the fact that poor people want the economic stability of the middle and upper class. What they don't deal with is what the poor will do once they get stability...and any government with the power to enact such wide reaching social reform and redistribution of wealth is most likely going to abuse it. They are making a social contract with only the percentage of the population that will benefit from the socialist policies and must use their power to keep the people being brought down economically from lashing out. Hence the totalitarian nature of many socialist regimes. Hence the problems with the middle class in Venezuela.
Hence why Raoul Duke is wrong.
- Status