Have taxes destroyed the american dream?

Save and buy stuff that makes you money.

I recently got my emergency fund together. Some financial shit went down, and I didn't skip a beat. Life is still good and I still have more money in the bank.

I figure the more you save and invest, the more you'll get that feeling of "that would have fucked me up a year ago, but today it was no problem."

Sounds like you are looking for an excuse.

People are getting rich, so obviously it's possible.

>>1131112
By the way, which tax rates are you referring to? They're very fair in the US.

Which tax bracket are you concerned with?

>>1131129
They don't seem fair to me. A progressive tax system is in itself an ambition killer, isn't it?

>>1131131
Why isn't it unfair?

Which tax bracket do you belong to?

Or are you just counting how much money you'd be paying in taxes of money you have not earned, and are not going to earn?

>>1131112
Yeah right. In some European countries income taxes might be up to 80% and sales taxes 25%.

You are just lazy OP.

>>1131149
Hey man shut up.

If he was earning $500k/yr he'd be paying a lot in taxes so that's why he's poor.

That's a new one. Usually it'd be about Jews or liberals holding him down.

>>1131137
>Or are you just counting how much money you'd be paying in taxes of money you have not earned, and are not going to earn?
I'm in college right now, so basically this.
But that doesn't make my concern any less valid, does it?
I just can't see myself moving to the upper class, regardless of how much efford i make.
The only people l see getting rich are those who built some obscure startup that by pure chance took off.

>Why isn't it unfair?
Even with my economics degree, working overtime and everything, i'll hardly have any more net money than my low ambition carpenter brother, because the state decides to simply take more from me. Doesn't sound fair to me.

>>1131157
How in the hell is anyone supposed to make 500k/yr?

>Get a 20k signing bonus
>Obama takes 25% right off the top for no reason at all
>Bernie wants to make that 90% off the top

Thanks democrats.

>>1131168
Nigga, have you even paid taxes yet?

Why don't you just set up your company in a country with little or no tax?

>>1131208
This.

>Complaining about taxes you've never even paid

Holy kek.

>>1131208
>>1131226
first of all, yes l have
secondly, does it matter? Even though 've never had a six figure salary, l can still look at the figures and do the math.
The point is, this tax system crushes ambition and rewards lazyness. l don't need to "have been there" to realize that.

>not using tax as motivation to make more
>crying like a defeatist

You sound like a middle classer, which by the way doesn't exist. You're either rich or you're poor, and you OP? Are a poorfag

>>1131261
You're crying up a problem you'd have to be successful in the first place to have.

>>1131274
1. I certainly plan to be successful
2. The problem exists nontheless
Does one really have to have first hand experience to be able to have an opinion?

>>1131283
Move away then. There are cheaper places to live if you want to escape taxing.

>>1131283

Ok, speaking as someone that does make six figures (cleared $117,000 last year). Taxes are nothing if you use your ability to keep yourself from paying too much in taxes. 401k, being a home owner, and other such.

Wow
I wouldn't have guessed that so many guys on here like paying taxes.
Do you plan on being poorfags for the rest of your lifes?
I thought this was /biz/.

>>1131112
There is no law in the Constitution that actually enforces taxation.


In my opinion, taxes are highly immoral and should not exist.

USA has had no taxes for a longer period of time than it has had federal reserve and IRS.

And you are right OP, the government is constantly devaluing your savings while taxing it at the same time.


The federal reserve scam is one of the biggest scams known to mankind.


Irwinn Schiff died in a government prison a year back trying to fight the government on taxes.

I would not recommend fighting it OP, the govt will rekt you

>>1131299

You come from a shit hole country, don't you? China building the one good road there? Mom, dad, and 15 brothers and sisters had to save up to send you to the US so you could be a wage cuck so they can add onto the shack they live in.

Taxes are taxes. Taxes pay for shit I use every day. Roads, clean water (unless you are in Michigan), the regulated radio spectrum, thinges like that.

>>1131299
...America is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold. No such tales are told by the American poor. They mock themselves and glorify their betters.

>>1131303
>Muuuh roads

I am pretty sure the U.S. grew at a faster rate than any nation ever to exist during the 1870s without the I.R.S.

Taxes are immoral.

You almost sound as bad as a bernie supoorter

>>1131303
I'm ok with taxes. But why punish people for their ambition and hard work? Why not have a flat tax that taxes people equally?
lf l put a lot of efford in my work and overcoming my determined social position l should be able to be rewarded accordingly and not just make a few peanuts more than some guy working at a gas station.
The super rich can deal with paying high taxes, their life quality will hardly change because of that. The real victims of ptogressive tax rates are the people from the lower and middle class trying to escape these.

OP, stop being a retard. Income tax is MARGINAL. I may be off base, but you seem to be implying that for people in the top tax bracket, have 38% of their income taken away. This is not the case. They have 38% of every dollar they earn above the amount that puts them in that tax bracket, and so forth. So, if you make 40 grand, that puts you in 3 different brackets. Whereas the marginal tax rate for that bracket is 25%, the effective tax rate (income after-tax divided by before-tax) is only 14.4%)

I just can't see what you're bitching about, exactly. At all levels, each additional income is still making you more money. There is always incentives there, and in the US that incentive goes down to 60% on the dollar after $400k. I don't see how this is supposedly preventing the American dream from taking place.

>>1131311
Ancaps should be gassed, desu senpai.

>>1131328
Don't even go for flat tax, go for no tax

A progressive tax is literally socialist cringe

>>1131335
That rebuttal though,

Read some Mises retarded, educated yourself

>>1131340
I'll stick with my degree in economics. I may not know enough to contribute to the field, but I know enough to know when people are being literally retarded.

I would suggest you google concepts such as "negative externality" and "asymmetric information" so you can better understand what role government has to play.

>>1131332

>>1131345
>being this indoctrinated to believe that government should have a role in the economy

Rip anon

>>1131332
>There is always incentives
true, but they shrink with if with every dollar you make, a higher percentage of that dollar is taken by the state.
l just don't see myself ever leaving the middle class because of that. And the life quality between low middle class and high middle class doesn't really seem to differ much.
lt's frustrating man.

>>1131353
I don't understand how it's frustrating, or how a 39% tax rate for people making more than $415k is the only thing stopping you from being rich. I just don't know how many people out there honestly go "I will work up to this amount of money because I will keep 75 cents on the dollar for what I earn, but as soon as it gets to 70 cents I'm not working any harder!" That's not how the job market works, and it's not how wages are distributed. Perhaps your indifference curve is shaped just so that that's how it is for you, but I can assure you you're the minority. The fact is that if you're implying a causal relationship between lack of social movement and income tax rate, you're dead wrong. There's a clear correlation in the opposite direction, where moments in US history with high tax rates have had the highest social mobility and vice versa. Note, i'm not making the argument it's causal, but teh fact that the correlation doesn't even exist for your argument means causation necessarily doesn't.

>>1131350
>The invisible hand of the economy will solve ALL of your problems

You realize Adam Smith didn't even believe this, right? He foresaw shortcomings like education which he believed would never adequately be provided by the market and would have to be done so by the state.

You Randroids make the fucking father of Capitalism look like a socialist.

>>1131365
Rand is a meme,

I have great respect Peter Schiff and friedrech hayek though

I pretty much agree with them 100%

>>1131370
How can you agree 100% with Hayek? He was a strong advocate of the negative income tax.

>>1131361
l'm certainly gonna work my ass off regardless.
But wouldn't a flat tax incentivize people far more to work hard? Wouldn't this give the people a far bigger chance of social upward mobility if they are willing to work for that?

>>1131373
No, because in the real world almost everyone gets a job with a set wage or is their own boss making far less than the top income tax levels, and a flat tax would do nothing to help them.

Again. You can think in terms of your own head-theory, but there's no empirical evidence to support it, in fact the opposite.

>>1131377
who cares about the top income tax levels? Progressive income tax affects every wage.

>>1131372
Because he wasn't

>>1131381
And a flat tax would mean higher taxes for the lower earners.

>>1131387
as in, it would reward ambition and incentivize to work harder and smarter

>>1131391
Financial success isn't a function of hard work, anon. And again. Why are income tax levels and social mobility negatively correlated? If you can't explain that adequately, there's no point in continuing your theory. It's simply wrong.

>>1131385
You're welcome to google it if you want. Both Hayek and Friedman both supported a basic income. I'm not sure why you're choosing to ignore reality.

>>1131393
>Financial success isn't a function of hard work, anon.
Then what is a function of? Luck? lol

>>1131402
A function of about a billion and one different factors, luck would of course be part of it.

>>1131393
Hard and smart work are the biggest factors in reaching finantial success that one has control over.
With todays income tax levels even working the best paying jobs in the 100k-200k range don't really make enough money to really leave the middle class in a lifetime.

I don't see why is should be scaled to a persons income. Someone please tell me how the government is entitled to a portion of a persons income. Not only do paychecks get taxed but if you make enough in a year you "owe" them money? Then there are sales taxes, taxes on what you earned on investments and if you save your money in a retirement account and withdraw you get taxed on that too. The entire system seems like a shake down. I can't believe they managed to enact income tax without starting a civil war.

I'm going to mention that everyone in knows that we pay the same tax rate on the bracket scale right

Taxing itself is a good system to collect money for useful things a society needs, no doubt.
But once the money is spend on shit I always think twice before going to work or rather staying at home collecting them unemployed shekels.

The fact is, in my country the taxes are not high enough to make me want to become fully government neet.

Taxes is also a relative word, because in my case Germany, we have income tax (money the used from gubberment to build dem roads), then you have the health insurance (only used for health services), then you have the unemployment insurance (only used for feeding and housing the poor), and the "care" insurance (only used to help them retarded folks get wheelchairs and shit).

Practically I only use the health service from time to time and unfortunately the service has gone worse and worse the last 10 years.

So it sure does motivate me to not work so much anymore, because why should I work more than someone else and get the same as him although he doesnt do shit?

>>1131417
A person making 200k makes effectively $153933.25 after federal taxes. You can expect a sizable amount of that to return after exemptions and returns, but let's assume that that is the base.

Then you treat that person as someone who makes 150k instead of someone who makes 200k. I don't understand what the issue is. Rather than saying "this person making 200k is losing a fourth of his money", it's literally the same thing to say "this person is making and keeping 150k".

>>1131421
>Someone please tell me how the government is entitled to a portion of a persons income
The social contract. Government is entitled to do whatever we as society deem it entitled to do. We as a nation allowed the 16th amendment to pass, meaning we gave consent to the government to tax our marginal income.

You see, most people in the world believe that the government is an entity that should exist. Whether they beleive it should be big or small, they believe we would be worse off with no government than we would be with a certain amount of government. That's simply how it is. And as such, any government must be funded, and so, taxes must be implemented. If you think this is a 10000 year-old scam, that's your prerogative. But for the rest of us, we see that government is a necessary part of society, and as such so are taxes.

>>1131112

Tax rates are lower than they were for almost the entire 20th century, that didn't obliterate growth. If anything it's the current era of low taxes which coincides with rising inequality and sluggish growth in the developed world.

Just invest least 1k/month and reinvest the gains. You'll be rich before you know it (at least 10 years).

>>1131112

>crying because of taxes in USA

Please, come to Europe. As an incoming investment banking analyst I'm really worried about this. I'll have to pay more than 50% in taxes in a few years and all my money will go to corrupt politicians or "refugees".

More than 50% aren't called taxes, it's called robbery. I'm really thinking about transfering to their swiss regional office.

Taxes are lower now than when the American Dream existed.

>>1131453
>The social contract.
A fucking meme.

The social contract doesn't exist. An infant child cannot consent to anything, thus rendering the "chained at birth by "consent""-concept null and avoid.


>We as a nation allowed the 16th amendment to pass, meaning we gave consent to the government to tax our marginal income.
If we assume, naively, that "the people" actually "consent" to anything (protip: they don't, since the're being manipulated to consent to whatever the legislative elite of the country wants them to consent to), democracy is still mob rule and thus no better than absolute monarchy.
>You see, most people in the world believe that the government is an entity that should exist.
>argumentum ad populum
Most people in the world believe that women are inferior to men. Should we start stoning adulterous women as a way to lead by their example?

>Whether they beleive it should be big or small, they believe we would be worse off with no government than we would be with a certain amount of government. That's simply how it is.
Most people are fucking stupid. Again, quoting "the people" adds nothing of value to any discussion.

>But for the rest of us, we see that government is a necessary part of society, and as such so are taxes.
Government wasn't a necessary part of society in pre-agrarian times. It isn't necessary now, either, lest we feel a need to cling on to mindless consumerism.

>>1131561
>Government wasn't a necessary part of society in pre-agrarian times. It isn't necessary now, either, lest we feel a need to cling on to mindless consumerism.
I agree with all of your post but this.
Government is just a continuation (large scale version) of the tribe/clan/whatever leadership scheme. We don't use it because it's necessary, but because groups which expanded and took on a big central governing body dominated all the groups which didn't, which is why they are precariously rare these days. Also government serves a somewhat useful purpose. This purpose is to force people to contribute to the group's wellbeing. People generally don't do this willingly because it means sacrificing effort which could be directed to personal gain, which as we know people prefer to helping society.

But yes the social contract stuff is bullshit that conveniently supports the assumed conclusion that government is awesome.

Just pay your fucking taxes. You use roads and bridges. 25% of gains after substantive exclusions, exceptions, deductions, and credits... Wow... Fucking nothing.

Only thing that is shitty is the heavy medicare and social security taxes. Paying into a system everyone jumped on to suck its teat dry, not gonna be anything left when we get around to there. Supposed to be a support net, not a hammock, fucking old fucks relying on social security like it's a pension. If they weren't the voting base, if only we could cut them off and let them have to sell their $100k RV and second vacation home to make the grocer's bill.

>>1131300
>There is no law in the Constitution that actually enforces taxation

>What is the 16th amendment

>>1131637
Please give me the words,

I don't think you understand how to interpret the Constitution

>>1131112
No. Crybabies who want to use the government as an enforcer without paying for it did. In other words, cuckservatives.

>all these people shilling for taxes

Probably the most Reddit thread I have seen in quite some time. Damn 4chan, get your shit together

>>1131661
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

How fucking retarded can one person be?

>>1131665
Wat, u didn't even answer any questions?

>>1131670
Irwinn Schiff wrote an entire book on it, I advise you look into his work


It is still completely unconstitutional and it doesn't say u need to pay taxes

>>1131675
> listening to a nigger who died in jail
if his argument had any legal merit he wouldn't have been jailed you fucking mouth breather.

you're not poor because of taxes you've never even paid. you're poor because you are literally mentally retarded.

>>1131112
People also don't understand a progressive income tax. They think the top rate applies to the whole amount. Of it did, then, yes, there would be ranges where it costs to work more. But it doesn't. Every single additional dollar paid puts you at least 65 cents further ahead, 85 if you flipped paper instead of working.

>>1131417
OP you keep talking about working hard to leave the middle class, you don't seem to grasp that the middle class is filled with hard workers. The de facto class is poor, and you need to work or inherit to leave it.

> ladder CDs
> capital gains tax

> invest in stocks
> capital gains tax

> work
> tax tax tax

The only way to really make money is to stash your money in tax deferred accounts

> max roth ira contribution
> 5500 a year

Fuck

>>1131207
>Obama takes

File: 1450312423143.jpg (40KB, 550x512px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 550x512px

You're all bashing OP but he makes a solid statement, especially so in some European countries taxes are insane.
It all stems from the government wanting the state to do what private contractors should be doing.
Some things should be left to the state though (military, police, court systems, highways and roads etc.)

And you can easily support all of those with a flat tax rate of 15% or even lower on your income. That's more than enough.

File: image.jpg (283KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 1024x768px

>The difference in wealth between middle class and upper class is measured in entirely different scales
>"Saving thriftily and investing" won't put someone with even an upper middle class income close to being rich

Why do you faggots all seem to think that you're one tax cut away from being multi-millionaires?

>>1131831
Most of this shit IS done by private contractors under government supervision. Do you want to go back to the days that every fire house has to be paid so they'll put out a fire and were going out to set fires so they could get paid?

Taxes are legal robbery. There should be private accounts for your taxes, and much like you do when you pay taxes, the government should tell you exactly what it spends your money on.

>>1131854
yes

>>1131834
>Why do you faggots all seem to think that you're one tax cut away from being multi-millionaires?

Because these cucks can't get past their own stupidity. They just want to afford one more XBONE game, one more month of their Bang Bus subscription, one more 40 of Steel Reserve. They aren't going to be millionaires... ever.

>>1131675
That fucking retard? He's a Jew that got taken in a Ponzi scheme, went nuts and railed against the big, bad government that didn't protect his ass from his own stupidity.

>>1131859

It does... it's called the federal, state, and local budgets. Look them up.

>>1131875
Budgets arent that tho. I want to know what my own $x thousand got spent on in details.

>>1131902

Nearly impossible unless you want your taxes to go up to track people's individual tax dollars.

>>1131112
No, banking did. It removed the incentive for businesses to produce value, so now everything is about making money through raising the price of commodities through market speculation.

>>1131915
Considering money is abstract, that's retarded. The budgets are all readily available, what YOUR specific money went to is a nonsense question. It was effectively distributed in the same proportion that the budget itself was divided.

>Ancaps have spilled over from /pol/ to /biz/

When will we wake from this nightmare?

>>1131854
>firemen
would be treated just like military and policemen, just because I didn't mention them don't try to play smart with me

>most of this shit IS done by private contractors
medical services? educational services? pensions?
these are all part of the public sector in Europe unfortunately and in US they are a little better off but still overly regulated

>>1131966
>wanting reasonable tax rates makes you an ancap now
wew lad, I guess I shouldn't be mad for the state taking away 43% of my income, 12.5% of my capital gains and numerous other useless tariffs

>>1132074
You're the one who chose to interpret what I said to be directly targeted at you. That's not my problem. There are plenty of people ITT who have flat-out said and argued that tax is theft and it is immoral.

>>1132098
fair enough

>>1131261
But you have no ambition to crush, you sound like a dindu

>>1131299
This..it seems these cucks don't even know what offshore banking is...plebs I swear. Go "pay to the man" for your "roads". Kek, fools.

>Taxes in America are lower now than they have been in decades
>Republicans want to return to the Reagan days, not realizing taxes were far higher under Reagan and he raised taxes

People are actually this retarded.

The governemnt is an agent of legalized force. When used improperly, it always causes destruction. When it dips its fingers in money, it destroys money itself. There is no valid reason for the governemnt to be doing anything except the protection of personal and private property via the courts, police and armed forces.

>>1131300
Holy fuck I've read this book.
It's BANNED.
And it's great.

>>1131299
Nobody likes paying taxes. But most of us live in the real world. i don't like working in general. I'd rather travel the world or hike the Rocky Mountains. But I live in a world where if I want to do anything I like, I need to work to have enough money to afford it.

>>1132122
>There is no valid reason.... except for the entire body of political theory, economic theory, economic empiricism, public opinion, etc that suggests government can actually play a nuanced role in society

We need to stop equating what's "reasonable" with what "I feel like in my gut".

>>1131691
Oh wow, thanks for enlightening me with your supreme intelligence


>>1131873
Schiff literally dindu nuffin

>>1132122
U actually read it? Damn, I gotta read that shit, it sounds awesome

>>1132130
kek
you actually believe that bs, don't you. Bet you also went to econ school. That's where they teach this bs.

Mises = best.

>>1132135
Yes. It's on libgen.

>>1132121
My parents pay more than 55 cents for every fucking dollar they earn.

The government is taking more than half their fucking income you greedy socialist subhuman like

Pls kys, get your hands off of my property you peasant welfare Marxist

>>1132139
Thanks

>>1132140
Your parents' taxes were higher when Reagan was president. No amount of denial will change that fact.

>>1132145
Haha, nobody fucking paid that shit when Reagan was president.


Do you actually believe that someone should be taxed more than half their income?

I see that you don't even make six figures yet poorfag

>>1132145
>muh comparison somehow makes it irrelevant
If I chopped off your arm, I guess slicing your neck would be an understatement, wouldn't it?

>>1132150
Post details on what your parents pay now. They would have paid more under Reagan. You are either lying or ignorant.

I do make 6 figures but I don't see how that is relevant.

>>1132139
>Economists dont' know anything about the economy! This fringe guy who wrote a book does!

>>1132157
I am just saying it ain't right to take 55% for people making 10$ million +

>>1132161
>mises
>fringe guy
lmao kill yourself retard

File: Pushing to many pencils.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>1131170
>How in the hell is anyone supposed to make 500k/yr?

This right here is why I know I can't hold a decent logical conversation with your typical liberal Bernie supporter.

File: Dong Cena.gif (3MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x270px

>>1131214
Aggregate demand would not be the same as say the country with the highest consumption rate; the ideal of the profit motive is what drives a business to outperform.

>>1132162
Then blame Reagan. Taxes were high under him, plus his policies set the US economy on a downwards spiral. The US economy may never recover, because Reagan destroyed it.

>>1131274
Wow not op but holy fuck youre retarded.

>clearly the road to dissapointment
>"hey guys anyone else unmotivated to make money?"
>"kill yourself you lazy fuck finish the road first"

Lol

>>1131131
>progressive tax is an ambition killer
yes.
The people who say no are dishonest.

>>1131168
>Even with my economics degree, working overtime and everything, i'll hardly have any more net money than my low ambition carpenter brother, because the state decides to simply take more from me. Doesn't sound fair to me
It isn't fair.

>>1131303
kill yourself retard. There's no social contract.

>>1131226
>complaining about the fire he hasn't even burnt in
keke, you need to get a first degree burn first.

>>1131332
>make more money
>state takes more from you
>"I don't see the problem you're srill making a profit"
kek

>>1131421
>I don't see why is should be scaled to a persons income.
It shouldn't.
>Someone please tell me how the government is entitled to a portion of a persons income.
It isn't.

>>1131453
>Then you treat that person as someone who makes 150k instead of someone who makes 200k. I don't understand what the issue is.
You don't recognize theft? Thief.
>Rather than saying "this person making 200k is losing a fourth of his money", it's literally the same thing to say "this person is making and keeping 150k".
kek. Money is not words, nigger.
>The social contract.
There is no such thing.
>Government is entitled to do whatever we as society deem it entitled to do.
fuck no. There can be no rights that infringe upon the rights of others.
>We as a nation allowed the 16th amendment to pass, meaning we gave consent to the government to tax our marginal income.
>we
I sure as hell didn't.
>You see, most people in the world believe that the government is an entity that should exist.
most people are stupid and have no clue what the gubmint does.
>Whether they beleive it should be big or small, they believe we would be worse off with no government than we would be with a certain amount of government. That's simply how it is.
>that's simply how it is
kek
>And as such, any government must be funded, and so, taxes must be implemented.
not MANDATORY taxes.
>But for the rest of us, we see that government is a necessary part of society, and as such so are taxes
kek
>muh majority rule
>muh dumbocracy
>muh "crime is justified if a million people do it" maymay
go burn in a fire
A Republic is the only good system.

>>1131582
>implying that leadership scheme is required

>>1131634
>you use roads and bridges
>hence pay taxes
>using roads and bridges that the government aks you to pay for after it seized the entire country as its own property because a hundred people voted on it
top cuck

>>1131691
>if his argument had merit he wouldn't have been jailed
kek
Why the fuck wouldn't the gubmint jail a guy who tells people how the government is running an elaborate scam? If he was wrong, they would've left him alone.

>>1131834
>implying that is the entire argument against taxes

>>1132098
yes it fucking is

The taxation structure has little to do with the lack of class mobility. In countries with progressive or flat taxation and different rates class mobility isn't that different.

Accumulating wealth mostly has to do with luck or being born into it. Someone who saves always can end up worse off than someone who doesn't, its always been like that.


A government that issues it own currency can always fund anything it wants through monetary policy, so thinking that taxes have to do with financing government expenditure is just wrong. Very few people understand taxes are just a form of demand management that should be used for maintaining stable price levels. Governments/politicans/common people don't understand this so that's why the tax structure is so stupid. That's the whole theory behind functional finance any ways:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_finance

>>1132222
>Accumulating wealth mostly has to do with luck or being born into it.
BZZZZZZZZZ
Wrong answer.
>Someone who saves always can end up worse off than someone who doesn't, its always been like that.
fuck no.

>A government that issues it own currency can always fund anything it wants through monetary policy,
>what are rules
>what is the law
>so thinking that taxes have to do with financing government expenditure is just wrong.
kekkats
> Very few people understand taxes are just a form of demand management that should be used for maintaining stable price levels.
No, only retards think this is correct.
>Governments/politicans/common people don't understand this so that's why the tax structure is so stupid.
Fuck no, it's the other way around.
>That's the whole theory behind functional finance any ways:
kek

Free Market non-government interference minarchist capitalist or bust.

>>1132204
>>1132205

All this fuss from someone who doesn't have enough money to worry about paying taxes in the first place.

I do, tax planning is a relatively important thing from both a business and family point of view for me, and I don't object to the idea of taxes. Sure, it would be nice if they were a little lower, but I need a tax cut much less than people on lower incomes. Indeed, most of the problems in the economy stem from inequality and a diminishing middle class, and the tax system can go a long way towards rectifying that. The thing that matters to me is consistency and predictability. Paying tax isn't a problem, it's being unable to establish with certainty exactly what that tax burden will be, or having competitors who can outbid you because they're using dubious methods to eradicate theirs.

People with money don't go on extended rants about how taxation is theft. Yours is the mentality of a financial midget.

>>1132249
Wealth is accumulated primarily through financial assets today... the control of which is outside of your individual control. You can do everything "right" and still go broke. You can invest in something stupid and I can spend all my income and I may still end up ahead of you in the end.

So do you think a government can spend without taxing? Yes or no? Because it is empirically true a government who issues their own currency can print money and spend it whenever they want to without taxing.
What do you think the effect taxation has on spending? Does taxation effect demand in anyway? Think about it. If we tax apples maybe people will buy oranges instead.

>>1131493
>Tax rates are lower than they were for almost the entire 20th century,
fuck no
>that didn't obliterate growth.
kek
fuck no
> If anything it's the current era of low taxes which coincides with rising inequality
>implying inequality is harmful
>and sluggish growth in the developed world.
>implying it isn't the gubmint's fault

>>1132256
>All this fuss from someone who doesn't have enough money to worry about paying taxes in the first place.
I have more than enough money.
>Sure, it would be nice if they were a little lower,
keke what a contrarian you are.
>but I need a tax cut much less than people on lower incomes.
>implying need is a legit basis
> Indeed, most of the problems in the economy stem from inequality and a diminishing middle class,
fuck no, are you retarded?
>and the tax system can go a long way towards rectifying that.
fuck no.
>The thing that matters to me is consistency and predictability.
And a system with mandatory taxes has none of those.
> Paying tax isn't a problem, it's being unable to establish with certainty exactly what that tax burden will be,
kek, literally btfoing yourself.
> or having competitors who can outbid you because they're using dubious methods to eradicate theirs.
Now you're calling gaxes harmful.kek.
>People with money don't go on extended rants about how taxation is theft.
uh-huh.
> Yours is the mentality of a financial midget.
You sure showed me.

>>1132261
>Wealth is accumulated primarily through financial assets today... the control of which is outside of your individual control. You can do everything "right" and still go broke. You can invest in something stupid and I can spend all my income and I may still end up ahead of you in the end.
this is really vague.
>So do you think a government can spend without taxing? Yes or no?
no. But mandatory taxes are not required.
> Because it is empirically true a government who issues their own currency can print money and spend it whenever they want to without taxing.
It can, but it isn't, because there are other countries its currency competes with and the country also trades with them. Also, it's really dangerous, because it obliterates the value of money itself.
>What do you think the effect taxation has on spending? Does taxation effect demand in anyway?
Yes it does.
>Think about it. If we tax apples maybe people will buy oranges instead.
yep.

>>1132267

>Tax rates are lower than they were for almost the entire 20th century,
>fuck no

Show your workings, because they are.

>I have more than enough money

Sure you do.

I don't think you really understand that I believe in tax transparency and simplicity, but that I have no problem with taxes in principle. You're trying to make some kind of deluded moral argument that taxation is somehow fundamentally wrong. That's retarded - there are no fundamental morals, only those that man determines. You have no rights other than those society decides you have.

>>1132271
So the government CAN spend without taxing but it just isn't for some reason?

It's naive to believe that increasing the supply is going to decrease the demand and value of dollars. The US dollar is the world reserve currency putting it in a category of its own. Increasing the supply may just increase the demand for more dollars. There's no diminishing returns when it comes to money... you might get sick eating to much cake but you will never get tired of spending dollars.


You also agree with me taxation is just a form of demand management then.... who the burden of taxation falls on and what is taxed effects and controls demand and can be used to control inflation.

>>1132164
If he's anything like Hayek, I assume you ancaps have also twisted what he said into something radically different than what he believed.

The fact is, there is no such thing as a great economist who is also ancap. None exist. None of them think taxes are immoral, because that's a retarded philosophical argument, not a fucking economic one.

Moreover, you're trying to prove you're right by quoting a book written decades ago when economics at this point is focusing primarily on empirical research, not fucking theories and what "sounds right to me".

>>1132275
>show your workings
You can't be serious. It's obvious. The governemnt taxes everything you buy, the property you own, the food you eat. No way it's less. If you want proof, look at the fucking five star resorts in Iran and other "camps" by the US gubmint, the entirety of Washington DC and the large ass data center in Texas, along with the FBI, NSA and what not. Clearly higher taxes.

>I don't think you really understand that I believe in tax transparency and simplicity,
>but that I have no problem with taxes in principle.
Neither do I. I advocate for voluntary taxes.
>You're trying to make some kind of deluded moral argument that taxation is somehow fundamentally wrong.
>deluded
Yes it is, because it is theft. Clear theft.
> That's retarded - there are no fundamental morals, only those that man determines.
Wrong.
>You have no rights other than those society decides you have.
wrong.

>>1132280
>So the government CAN spend without taxing but it just isn't for some reason?
yes, because there are other currencies and other countries to trade with, and they keep a check. If the government suddenly prints a trillion dollars and the others countries don't, they WILL devalue the country by a trillion dollars and manage the US dollar accordingly, because they don't want to tank their currency when trading with the US.
>It's naive to believe that increasing the supply is going to decrease the demand and value of dollars.
No, it isn't. That's basic math applied to trade.
>The US dollar is the world reserve currency putting it in a category of its own.
It is NOT the reserve currency because it is the strongest. There is no definite reserve curency. >Increasing the supply may just increase the demand for more dollars.
>may
definite no. That causes deflation.
>There's no diminishing returns when it comes to money... you might get sick eating to much cake but you will never get tired of spending dollars.
no.
>You also agree with me taxation is just a form of demand management then....
No, I think it's turned into demand management, because when a LEGALIZED agent of force (ie, government) starts interfering with the trade of the country it governs, everyone will want a share of the pie according to their own agenda. I think mandatory taxation is not required at all, because it is not the government's job to interfere with proper trade (ie, no scams and frauds, etc). Taxes are first and foremost used to fund the government, whose sole job is to protect private and property rights.
>who the burden of taxation falls on and what is taxed effects and controls demand and can be used to control inflation.
yes, and that is what leads to a totalitarian state, where individual rights are non-existent.

>>1132286
I'm not an ancap, btw. I'm a free market, non-government interference minarchist capitalist.
>If he's anything like Hayek, I assume you ancaps have also twisted what he said into something radically different than what he believed.
He's nothing like Hayek, and I haven't twisted anything he says.
>The fact is, there is no such thing as a great economist who is also ancap. None exist.
agree.
>None of them think taxes are immoral, because that's a retarded philosophical argument, not a fucking economic one.
No, taxes are immoral because they are leaglized theft. Plain and simple.
Note that I'm talking about MANDATORY taxes here and not Voluntary taxes. I'm not against taxation per se, but only mandatory taxation.
>Moreover, you're trying to prove you're right by quoting a book written decades ago when economics at this point is focusing primarily on empirical research,
>emperical research
Are you implying there's an alternative? There's not.
> not fucking theories
>muh theories
kek
>and what "sounds right to me".
fuck no.
>implying this makes it wrong
>implying you've read it

>>1132296

>It's obvious

Tippity-toppest of keks.

>voluntary taxes

This is a joke, surely?

>wrong

You are an animal. Meat and bone. There is no absolute authority that grants you rights. Rights and morals are not a fact of science, they are a matter of opinion. Your rights are those that the rest of society grants you, or those that you can take by force. Whatever 'rights' you might believe that you have are irrelevant as far as taxation is concerned.

File: 45e.jpg (33KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 400x300px

>>1131112

>>1132312
>Tippity-toppest of keks.
>he didn't read the whole paragraph
top cuck
>This is a joke, surely?
nope.jpeg
>You are an animal. Meat and bone. There is no absolute authority that grants you rights.
okay.
>Rights and morals are not a fact of science, they are a matter of opinion.
no. Morals are absolute.
>Your rights are those that the rest of society grants you, or those that you can take by force.
okay, but doesn't mean they are correct.
>Whatever 'rights' you might believe that you have are irrelevant as far as taxation is concerned.
fuck no.
>establish rights
>do some deluded faggotry with the economy
>"guize your rights don't matter since I fucked up"

>>1132298
People have to accumulate their own countries currency to pay off their tax obligations. This is all that gives a governments fiat currency its value. There's noting confusing about that.

The amount of commerce going on, what you can buy with it and such determines the value of your currency more than simply its supply.

Printing a trillion dollars may or may not be a disaster depending on the context. If there's mass unemployement and labour for sale then why would buying this labour and putting it to work on public projects devalue the currency when your increasing GDP? If you print it simply to pay off debt obligations and don't employee or increase productivity then you might just get asset inflation.
How you spend the money would determine the effect it would have on values.

>>1132323
>People have to accumulate their own countries currency to pay off their tax obligations. This is all that gives a governments fiat currency its value. There's noting confusing about that.
>The amount of commerce going on, what you can buy with it and such determines the value of your currency more than simply its supply.
no. The supply is more powerful when compared with trade when it is controlled by the same agency that establishes the laws.
>Printing a trillion dollars may or may not be a disaster depending on the context.
okay, but it is non-disastrous only in remote unlikely-to-ever-happen scenarios.
>If there's mass unemployement and labour for sale then why would buying this labour and putting it to work on public projects devalue the currency when your increasing GDP?
It won't in the short term, but that is not what printing money is.
>If you print it simply to pay off debt obligations and don't employee or increase productivity then you might just get asset inflation.
Yes. The printed money has to come with the real value of the money or else it'll result in chaos.
>How you spend the money would determine the effect it would have on values.
that's the first point you made. But this doesn't mean the other countries would not alter their trades wih you, or value your currency less in comparison to their own, because YOU cheated, and they didn't.

>>1132320

>he didn't read the whole paragraph

I read the whole paragraph. A load of 'muh feels' tier gibberish.

>Morals are absolute

No they're not, and that should be pretty apparent to anyone with half a brain and even the most cursory knowledge of history. It's pretty evident that you don't fit either category.

>>1132346
>I read the whole paragraph. A load of 'muh feels' tier gibberish.
The obvious expansion of the governemnt agencies and the vast cash flow outside the country for the "military operations" is "muh feels?" really? Dishonest, desu.

>No they're not,
yes they are.
>and that should be pretty apparent to anyone with half a brain
ad hominem
>and even the most cursory knowledge of history.
>implying history determines shit
>implying popular opinion determines shit
>It's pretty evident that you don't fit either category.
ad hominem

Boy, you sure gave a pretty convincing argument!

>>1132342
I don't care what the supply of a currency is... all I care about is what I can actually buy with it. This is what really gives the currency its practical value for its user. A growing economy naturally implies an expanding supply of money to facilitate commerce. Increasing the supply of a currency but in no way effecting its actual purchasing power would cause it to devaue. Printing money and spending on production or printing money and spending on paying off old debts would have different effects.
International trade is very complicated and involves geopolitics... certain countries can get away with things others can't. America can do things India can't for example.

>>1132363
>I only care about the micro perspective, the macro perspective can go fuck itself! It won't apply to me if I don't consider it!
This is you.

>>1132305
>Voluntary taxes
Who the hell pays those and how would we get enough to run a government?

>>1132356

Let me be absolutely clear.

Morals are a product of man. They are not absolute. There is no argument you can employ to demonstrate that they are short of 'because I said so'. If anything, the fact that I am disagreeing with you, or that other people in this thread disagree with you, proves that they are not absolute but just a matter of opinion.

You're using your own definition of what is 'moral' as a crutch for your weak argument, which essentially boils down to 'I don't want to pay taxes because I'm selfish'. That's fine, wanting more of the money that you earn in your pocket is a perfectly legitimate point of view, but don't try to elevate it in to some kind of high-minded crusade.

>>1132552
This senpai. If the majority of a people don't agree with your morals, how can those morals possibly be absolutes?

>>1131373
>>1131381
>>1131387
Holy shit....I've been reading you comments for a while now and I am convinced that you are 14 years old and just learned about taxes from your mom.
Do you even understand the idea behind taxes or economics in that sense?
Before I am going to read the rest of all the comments on this board I would like to say a few words.
Taxes are very natural in a developed society. A much needed government (be it with limited power) is vital for a nation to develop. Who else is going to provide infrastructure and other basic needs? In many of the basic need products there is a high incentive to monopolize and charge high prices. Something that will do the consumer no good. If you think flat taxes are going to "motivate" a poor person to suddenly become rich and smart and all that, then you forget that 90% of everyone is chronically retarded. No but seriously, flat taxes make no sense from an economic point of view since it will do the larger low/mid income no good and will only benefit high income making the income gap even bigger. It's not just the taxes that make a person belong to the poor or mid income section, there are a lot more factors involved.
Progressive takes make a lot of sense, however taxes can also do more damage than good. I once saw an inverted U curve of tax hight vs GDP growth. So the optimal situation would be at the top of the cruve, right. Well what I saw is that a lot of Western nations are at the far right, meaning they lower growth with these high taxes. So the problem is never the idea behind taxes, the problem lies in the way Western goverments are implementing it. Because they are money sucking communist black holes with way too much power, k im out.

File: z7hzGEx.png (369KB, 1824x486px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 1824x486px

I enjoy socialism. My living standard is higher as a neet than as an average wagecuck most definitely.

Althought im slightly worried the socialist/marxist ride will come to the end in 5 years in europe. The whole continent is total bust, 60% youth unemployment =D

>>1132356
Mate, you've essentially just said "no" for the whole argument. At this point it doesn't matter if you're presented with anything of value. I would advise you change your approach or stop humiliating yourself.

>>1132140
I doubt that. Maybe you could get a marginal rate that high but not effective rate.

>>1131387
And that's a bad thing? Everybody should have some skin in the game.

>>1132646
Too long, didn't read.

>>1132814
The relative portion of income a poor family spends on essential spending is far larger than for a middle class or wealthy family. If you can't understand that, I dont' know what to tell you, m8. It's expensive as fuck to be poor.

>>1131112
What's wrong with earning an solid, safe 70k a year and not worrying about amassing a fortune?

>>1131361
>>1131365
>>1131372
>>1131377
>>1131387
Dis nigga literally slapping these free market cucks left and right.

If only I could opt out of paying for govt welfare programs and other such bs. I'm fine paying taxes for fire, police, roads, etc.

I'm tired of paying for Sheniqua and her 5 kids though. Especially when her drug dealer boyfriend rolls up in his escalade and it's packed with a months worth of ribs, chicken, and steaks bought on EBT.

I see this shit everyday and also have to fix shit in their fucked up apartments (which are disgusting). Incidentally, they stay in the apartment for free too on a govt program.

It's depressing, it's infuriating, and it's sad how these people have no fucking ambition - because the taxpayers literally pay for them to be lazy baby-makers.

>>1132068
>medical services
>in US they are a little better off

Nigga are you serious?

Have you ever gotten the bill for any medical service in the US?

>>1132111
Snap

>>1132832
I currently owe about 30k in medical fees.

Still pissed that I'll be fined if I don't have healthcare.

Another tax that our president lied about. I guess he thought it was magic money that grew on trees.
Nah, he knew he would make us pay for it.

>>1132821
And the total amount of taxes they will pay will be still far less than a middle class or wealthy family. So, again, whats wrong with making everyone pay for this country's services?

>>1132841
Do you seriously not understand that 20% taxes on a family that spends 35% of their income on food is significantly worse than 20% taxes on a family that pays spends 20% of their income on food?

Countering an argue of relative well-being with nominal figures is silly.

>>1132845
So why shouldn't everyone have to pay in?

>>1132866
Because whereas your argument is one of incentives, this is a clear-cut case of taxes hurting a group of peoples' livelihoods, and we as a society don't think that's right.

But hey, if you want to advocate flat tax, be my guest. You wont' find an economist who does, but at least you have Herman Cain.

>>1132874
Okay then, so in lieu of taxes, should non-tax payers be required to provide community services like soup kitchen serving or adopt-a-highway style road cleanup or whatever else that will help better society?

Or do they just get a free pass from helping to better society?

>>1131207
So dems want to use someone elses money to pay your way through school and you'd be ok with that?

>>1132890
>Or do they just get a free pass from helping to better society?
Why do you have to constantly inject morals into this argument? Taxation isn't about morals. It's about what works best for the efficient running of the country. The simple fact that they make less means they cannot, by definition, contribute to the government as people at higher strata can. All imposing taxes on them does is keep them from becoming wealthy enough to contribute to the government, and therefore it is inefficient in teh long-run. It's not a matter of "everyone needs to do their part!" It's "the US population expects the US government to provide X services, and so the US government must fund those services in teh way that minimizes cost to society". And that's literally it.

Keep your emotions out of my economic policy.

>>1131261
So, you're complaining that the taxes you've never paid, on an income you've never earned, is going to crush ambition that you don't have? Damn, that's the dumbest shit I've read all day, and I just spent an hour over in /x/.

Let's put it to you THIS way. Say you've made some decent choices and have a very upper-middle class wage of $300k a year. Not uber rich, but not middle class or poor. You'll pay a marginal rate of 33%, or $79,655 to Uncle Sam, leaving $220k (not counting state and locals.)

On the other side, say you continue to be a bitch and end up a shift super at McDicks, making $25k a year. You're a poorfag, and will pay a marginal rate of 15%, or $1,748, leaving $23k and some change.

Are you saying that because of TAXES, you'd give up the former for the latter? What the epic fuck is wrong with you? Sounds like you're a lazy bastard who's just looking for a reason to not try hard.

>>1132898
>the US population expects the US government to provide X services
If everyone actually had to pay for those services, would they still want them? Just saying...

>>1131112
Start paying off politicians to write trade and tax laws to benefit yourself. Until then, you're fucked.

>>1132898
You want the rich to pay for everyone. I get it, thats your MO, thats fine. Feel the Bern amiright?

>>1132944
Oh, okay. So now that you've run out of legitimate responses, you're just going to strawman me? Poor form, kid.

>>1132934
Some of those services are more efficiently distributed in a non-profit setting, and most of those services like public goods and policies that deal with negative externalities wouldn't be provided for by teh market anyway by definition.

>>1132955
Yes. You want the rich to pay for everything and nothing I can possibly say will change your mind.

>>1132961
Kek. You sure figured me out. Because I don't think progressive tax is bad for society, I must be a socialist. You realize that makes the vast majority of the US and every Republican currently running for president socialist, right?

File: 1447894242618.jpg (96KB, 960x819px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 960x819px

Before I even opened up this thread, I knew that it would be filled to the brim with edgy Libertarians, Ancaps, and assorted other people who fap to Ayn Rand. I don't even know why I bother with 4chan anymore. At 25 it has stopped being fun to engage stupid.

File: 1457054250016.jpg (365KB, 475x1203px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 475x1203px

>>1132967
And yet you're still here.

>>1132916
What wrong with him is that he doesn't understand how taxes work and thinks that a rate of say 80% would apply to the ENTIRE salary of 300k.

>>1132967
>Before I even opened up this thread, I knew that it would be filled to the brim with edgy socialists, welfare subhumans, and assorted other people who fap to Karl Marx. I don't even know why I bother with 4chan anymore. At 25 it has stopped being fun to engage stupid.
FTFY

Anyone hitting the higher income brackets are doing so because of investments that count as ordinary income (usually). The idea that someone turns down $100,000 due to it being taxed at 39.9% is largely a myth. Same with the idea that a job paying $300k a year is significantly harder than a one that pays $350k.

>>1133181
But if someone has acquired that wealth and taxes are increased, the CEO could just put his money in the Cayman Islands and fire all of his workers.

Will seems like a very likely outcome.

>>1133190
Sure, if the taxes increase significantly. But just thinking about the typical person that has like $100k to invest. Is he really going to give a shit when his $10k return is reduced to $6k due to taxes when he put nearly 0 effort into that return?

>>1133140
>Everyone who isn't on my extreme edge of hte spectrum is an extremist on the opposite end!

>>1133209
it's all a matter of perspective

>>1133199
yea, tru

>>1133213
No it isn't. Socialism is a defined, if nebulously, term. You may not be able to pinpoint it, but you can't point to anything that's not ultra libertarian and shout SOCIALISM!

>>1133093
Yeah, I realized that after having posted. Seriously, how fucking hard is it to understand a progressive tax structure?

Then again, looking at how the hard-right have butchered education, I really shouldn't be surprised.

>>1132552
Morals are absolute. The End.

>what is objectivism

>>1133497

See, I could just point out that slavery and colonialism were once considered moral, or that homosexuality was considered immoral (and still is by some people), or that some people consider bigamy and capital punishment moral while others see them as immoral. There are countless examples which comprehensively, utterly, and unarguably prove you wrong. The only counterargument you have is that you, or 'god', or some other arbitrary power has set down morality in stone, and I think that we can all agree that that's the purest form of stinking bullshit. Sorry, you have no counterargument. You lose.

>objectivism

Did you just try to cite Rand? As if that gives your nonsense any weight?

>>1132206
>>implying that leadership scheme is required
Please point me a group sans leadership which can fend off a sovereign nation.
It's not that we need government because it's good, or we couldn't manage things without it, we need it because otherwise a group that -does- have a government, and thus an army, would just take the land and kick you off.
I don't see how anyone could be blind to this, but if you need the evidence look at the Americas and how easily they were won from the natives because of their primitive organisation. Do you want to wind up like the amerindians?

>>1133535
>nonsense
kek, the irony

>>1133537
lrn 2 read, faggot.
I said
>that leadership scheme
not
>that a leadership scheme.
I'm not saying classes are not required, I'm saying the current ones are faulty and need to be changed.

>>1133581
I see.

Well, every system's faulty so that doesn't justify changing this one. What are your arguments?

>>1133625
>every system's faulty
no.

Could you elaborate your question?

>>1133626
What are your arguments that justify changing what you want to change?

>>1131149
And how many americans has saved a year's worth of salary?

>>1133629
I'm not an anarchist. A government is required.

The problem I see with the government is that currently it is used to justify social causes and the "fact" that "everyone needs to contribute". I don't think this is a legitimate function. This takes individuality out of the system, and institutes a closed system clamped by force, which may or may not be justified.

Since people (who believe in "muh brother's keeper" maymay) can not make other, unwilling people come out and serve others, they ask them to "give" away their money "voluntarily" for the "greater good". Money is a tool of trade. It arises in a social context, and stays pure only in situations where it is dealt with honestly. Any action that attempts to accumulate money by force, or dishonesty, ultimately erodes the money's value. Since the government is an agent of legalized force, it is very dangerous. It ideally exists to keep its citizens safe. This is only possible when it protects their individual and property laws. People elected to government positions now change the government's functions to fit their own agendas, and in many cases, for worse. The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance. When an agent of force starts controlling the primary medium of monetary trade, it opens doors for many dangerous possibilites, and the chances of it being legitimately used are zero.

>>1133741
People in the government will try to accumulate money, because they see it's easy, and to their own benefit. How do they accumulate this? Through taxes. First they were voluntary, then mandatory for some, and now mandatory for all. The government, in essence, now becomes something else - a group of thugs, who operate under the guise of the law because they control the primary means of a man's worth in this world - money. They might make laws that prohibit him from keeping the money he has earned, or "give" his money away to others for a "noble cause", a cause that serves as a front for their own coercion over society. Money provides opportunities and makes life easier to live by progressing the time frame of innovations - you can study nuclear physics and you don't have to worry about growing food. You can sell a painting a year and work the rest - it increases the quality of a man's life, and makes his existence more enjoyable, more productive.

>>1133745
Mandatory taxes bind a man to a group - either the state, or the people around him (or both), and tell him that his success is a mortgage over the success of others - that becuase he is better than them, he must serve those lesser than him, even if it harms him. I don't think this is proper. This destroys the value of money, kills ambition, and lowers society to a group of pull peddlers and money - shifters (not wealth creators) who refuse to think, to produce, because they see the best mode of trade up for easy grabs. Every lesser group then tries to pull special favors from the government, not because they are extraordinary, but because they are not. Mandatory taxation punishes the ablest producers the most, while giving their hard-earned money away to the worthless. This stifles a country's production and its economic growth initially, and gradually, as this "fact" of the government being a mommy to its citizens is cemented in the ideas of a new generation, a generation that has never heard any refutation of the current system, it leads to a steep decline in the country's economic, and resultantly, social well-being.

>>1133746
The only way to rectify the current issue is be to get rid of government controls over money, and get rid of social security and welfare schemes along with mandatory taxes gradually.

The Ideal system is laissez-faire capitalism, ie, capitalism free from government interference. Note that this does not mean you could get away with anything, only that the government would not fund any industries, or stifle growth for someone else's sake. A government is required to protect individual and private property rights through the courts, armed forces, and the police. This government is limited not in its size, but in its functions. Cases of fraud, theft, etc are taken to the courts and judged accordingly. Taxes would be voluntary. Every citizen can pay if he wishes to, or ignore it. If a paying citizen gets a court case, he will not be required to pay, while a non-paying citizen will have to pay a fee first. You could pay selectively, or in bulk. And the question of why people would ever pay if they are not obligated to, is because the existence of a government is in their own self-interest. It exists to protect them from robbers and thieves, and people who wish to have their cake and eat it, too. There is no public property. Another point to consider is that people have considerably more money in a fully capitalist society than in the current mixed economy. People are more generous, as they have extra money.

>>1133741
>>1133745
>>1133746
>>1133747
hello autismo

Scandinavians complain their taxes are 50%.
American complain their taxes are 30%.
Franklin complained his taxes were 10%. He called them "crushing".

Don't ask me, I don't have a solution.

>>1131112
>Because of our tax rates it's basically impossible to ever move to the upper class, unless you're born into it.

The majority of billionaires, and a good portion of millionaires (possibly a majority, but unsure) are self-made.

http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/magazine/summer-2013/billionaires-self-made

>>1133226
Lol, you're wrong.

>>1133747
>People are more generous, as they have extra money.
How can you believe a system, pure capitalism, a system that is predicated entirely on the idea that people are motivated by self-interest, will also yield the most generous people?

>>1134181
So Ronald Reagan was a socialist?

>>1134222
>So Ronald Reagan was a socialist?
imo, yes

>>1134155
But the majority of them didn't start out in the lower class.

>>1135182
Forgot link:

http://inequality.org/selfmade-myth-hallucinating-rich/

>>1133756
>memes

If you didn't read it, then don't reply.

>>1135188
>implying they don't have to work
>impkying that their "privelege" somehoe discredits their own hard work and property
hello, thief

>>1135004
Toppest fucking kek.

What positions do you consider "moderate", exactly? Does such a position even exist, or do you just say "If you're not with me, you're socialist"?

>>1135410
How did he imply either of that? He simply pointed out that they started ahead of the "rags to riches" narrative we pretend exists.

>>1132967
Why do state loving cucks like you exist?

Why do you want the state here? Go back to b you bernie tard

>>1135648
Why are you convinced that government is an absolute evil? And why do you insist on strawmanning everyone who doesn't think so?

You libertardians act like it's self-evident that more government is ALWAYS worse. That it simply cannot do anything but take away freedoms. I feel like this has predicated on a misunderstanding of economic theory, because even fucking Adam Smith thought the government had a role to play in places where the market failed.

A few years ago I said to my teacher, that everyone should pay the exact same tax (I know it wouldn't work because there would not be enough money taken) and she said I was stupid, but tax is literally taking money of people for working harder and leaving the people who work shitty jobs get less tax taken.

>>1135676
Except both the poor person and the rich person are taxed the same for the same amount. A rich person is taxed the same % for their first 20 grand as a person who only makes 20 grand is.

And tell me it's still unfair when you examine where each paycheck goes in different strata of society and see how much larger a percentage of a poor person's income is devoted to food, clothing, utilities, and other essentials, and how little is left over to devote to investments and savings than a comparable wealthy person.

I don't think it's unfair from a nominal standpoint given the first point, and it actually seems extremely fair given the relativistic standpoint.

>>1135676

Tax is primarily about raising sufficient money for the government to do the things it's elected to do, while causing the minimum amount of harm to the economy. Fairness doesn't really enter into it.

File: Screen Shot 2016-02-25 at 9.58.42 PM.png (215KB, 522x347px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 522x347px

>>1135676
Your teacher is right for the wrong reasons. You are wrong for the right reasons.

Remember,Rich use the poor to frighten the middle class into voting for policies that benefit the rich.

Yes.