OT: US President (US Dom Players only)

[Mithras]

Originally Posted by NTJedi

LOL... if you earn $200 a week paying $2 for that week in taxes won't be changing anything. Second I never said EVERYONE would be paying taxes... nice jump of wild assumptions.

Hmm sorry I guess I shouldn't have taken this at face value, so you propose something more like 0%-8%? Anf 200 dollor a week thing was more of an example of tax exemptions, but I must say the lower your income is the more every penny of your money is worth, its an inversely exponentol relation ship (I think) therefore the rate of increase in taxation should increase in higher incomes. I think its whats happening now?

Originally Posted by NTJedi

Well the flat tax should first be tested in two small sections of America. Then any problems/imbalances can be identified and adjusted and gradually expand into the rest of America. I've heard the flat tax has worked terrific for the Russian government. The purpose of the flat tax is so when someone like Bill Gates earns 12.8 billion in a year he would pay a solid flat tax... even an 8% tax means 1 billion dallors. In my opinion the flat tax should gradually increase depending on income, thus the single mom would pay 1%.

Originally Posted by NTJedi;650130[QUOTE=Mithras

Oh and stop blaming the civil servants! Pay the elected representatives less, and make the presidental candidates donate their campaign money instead of throwing it at the voters. Never mind wastage in govenrment any elected represntative of the people is forced to wastefull... I prefer the argumant over Robin Hood, its hard to argue over government efficiency because making something like that more efficient would require genocide

Unfortunately none of these suggestions will occur because elected representatives will never vote for a pay decrease, presidential candidates won't donate their money lottery ticket for the presidency, and tossing more money at the government has not worked in the past and won't work in the future. Finally Robin Hood stole from the government and returned the money to the poor.[/quote]
I hope people saw that at a joke, just in case I am not promoting the murder of civil servants. BTW I was just saying I'd rather argue over the morality of Robin Hood as apposed to what type of taxing system we should use. Seeing as I knownothing about taxation and any fool who's read half the Bible (or other holy book) or in fact lived in society can argbue about morality. And before you say anything I wont stop because what I lack in expertise I make up for in having a slightly differant pointof view.
I noticed you used the word returned, there may be hope for you yet .

Originally Posted by NTJedi

As I wrote earlier Robin Hood was stealing from the government... not hardworking farmers who had extra food. And in regards to your question... would it be wrong for a starving homeless individual to break into your home so he has the nourishment to continue living? Because you weren't home when he knocked on the door and to him you are rich.

Hard working farmers? I said landlords i.e. the people given the authority to tax the peasants, and abusing it.
And to answer the question it would be right if said farmer was directly responsable for the starvation of said thief. Thats the thingabout old Hood, he didn't take from any old rich people, just rich people who'd abused the poor people in the first place.

Oh and because the tax row is boring me, a summery of my stance.
Any current system of taxation leaves someone unhappy (rich, poor, government, or all of them) any other system of taxation would be costly to change to and cause at least one of the above groups unhappy. There will always be ineffiency and to a lesser degree corruption.
As long as people who could reasonalbly be saved aren't dying(this means no over taxation of the poor, a decent police service, free/affordable universal healthcar etc) Then the tax systems ok for me. But as I said I neither pay taxes nor vote, so take it all with the boring spice of your choice

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by Mithras

Hmm sorry I guess I shouldn't have taken this at face value, so you propose something more like 0%-8%? Anf 200 dollor a week thing was more of an example of tax exemptions, but I must say the lower your income is the more every penny of your money is worth, its an inversely exponentol relation ship (I think) therefore the rate of increase in taxation should increase in higher incomes. I think its whats happening now?

The 0% should be for any household earning less than $25,000 a year. The difference with my suggested taxation compared with what's happening now is because currently the wealthy and very wealthy have multiple loop holes for not paying taxes. As previously mentioned Bill Gates and the others of the wealthy class use these loop holes for paying zero or little taxes.

Originally Posted by Mithras

BTW I was just saying I'd rather argue over the morality of Robin Hood as apposed to what type of taxing system we should use. Seeing as I knownothing about taxation and any fool who's read half the Bible (or other holy book) or in fact lived in society can argbue about morality. And before you say anything I wont stop because what I lack in expertise I make up for in having a slightly differant pointof view.
I noticed you used the word returned, there may be hope for you yet .

Even Robin Hoods morality can be questioned depending on what version is being referenced.

Originally Posted by Mithras

Oh and because the tax row is boring me, a summery of my stance.
Any current system of taxation leaves someone unhappy (rich, poor, government, or all of them) any other system of taxation would be costly to change to and cause at least one of the above groups unhappy. There will always be ineffiency and to a lesser degree corruption.

I'm sure my taxation system would primarily upset the very wealthy which would have deep pockets for fighting against it. In the end however the people and markets in the USA is where they're probably getting all their money so they'd have to live with the fact of giving more money because they're earning millions a year. Now a better checks&balances system would reduce many of these ineffiencies and corruptions. Its only after someone reports an issue to the police or FBI does the government realize a problem exists.

Originally Posted by Mithras

As long as people who could reasonalbly be saved aren't dying(this means no over taxation of the poor, a decent police service, free/affordable universal healthcar etc) Then the tax systems ok for me. But as I said I neither pay taxes nor vote, so take it all with the boring spice of your choice

I've described multiple problems with a universal healthcare within another post. Basically the US government is not wise enough or experienced enough to accept such a critical responsibility. Within previous posts I listed my suggestions for moving forward.

[Mithras]

Originally Posted by NTJedi

Even Robin Hoods morality can be questioned depending on what version is being referenced.

It would be a dull argumant if there was only one side to take. And as far as folk legends go he's one of the not so contreversial, discussion on wether Hansel and Gretal did the right thing anyone?

Originally Posted by NTJedi

I'm sure my taxation system would primarily upset the very wealthy which would have deep pockets for fighting against it. In the end however the people and markets in the USA is where they're probably getting all their money so they'd have to live with the fact of giving more money because they're earning millions a year. Now a better checks&balances system would reduce many of these ineffiencies and corruptions. Its only after someone reports an issue to the police or FBI does the government realize a problem exists.

You've managed to make the whole thing more apealing, the thing is its still going to come with the cost of changing the system. And the rich pretty much run the US government, or so I have been led to believe... So you'd have trouble anyway.

Originally Posted by NTJedi

I've described multiple problems with a universal healthcare within another post. Basically the US government is not wise enough or experienced enough to accept such a critical responsibility. Within previous posts I listed my suggestions for moving forward.

On this basis alone I would disagree with the policy, as stated above, any form of universal healthcare is better than none at all. I refuse to attach any worth to human life, except in terms of other human lives. (any 3 is always greater than any 1, any 2 is always greater than mine. Incase you were interested) So I can't stand for the it would be inefficient argumant.

Oh and Omni, thanks for clearing that up. At first I just thought you were using lots of words to not say much (one of my favorite tricks ) but it started to make sense in the middle, so I'll just stick to that.

I'm still confused though, I present my view that taking the life of another human is wrong as a final interpritation. It is a fact, I'd happily help anyone who didn't agree into a high security mental asylum. And I can't accept any other opinion on that matter.
I guess my point is, we all have absolute truths. Perhaps conservatives have more of them and they are more contreversial but we still have them. And the thing about final interpritations is its kind of hard to accept that other people have differant interpritations.

[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by Mithras

You've managed to make the whole thing more apealing, the thing is its still going to come with the cost of changing the system. And the rich pretty much run the US government, or so I have been led to believe... So you'd have trouble anyway.

I'd rather go thru the trouble of arguing with the rich instead of feeling guilty of what could have been done for those less fortunate.

Originally Posted by Mithras

On this basis alone I would disagree with the policy, as stated above, any form of universal healthcare is better than none at all. I refuse to attach any worth to human life, except in terms of other human lives. (any 3 is always greater than any 1, any 2 is always greater than mine. Incase you were interested) So I can't stand for the it would be inefficient argumant.

If universal public healthcare is not done correctly many more will suffer in the long term. This universal public healthcare is in demand because many only see the short term solution without identifying the long term problems of such a move. Universal public healthcare for one of the largest countries should be researched with multiple government and non-government options... and hopefully you know the rest as previously mentioned.