Thread: Clinton-Trump debate today

Originally Posted by MutantJohn

Time to start the revolution?

Pretty much, need a new system of government. So screwed up right now and no real hope to change it. Too much incentive for politicians to be crooked, and massive holes in tax code that allow large companies/1%ers to avoid paying taxes, screwing everyone else. Flat tax anyone?

Edit: would also be cool with sliding scale, but my point is that the myriad of tax exclusions / holes / deductions is total BS and a waste of everyone's time.

Originally Posted by Epy

Flat tax anyone?

I'm still a believer that social justice must dominate fiscal policies. So absolutely not. We already have flat policies in the indirect taxes (only way for those, I agree) and they are one of the biggest factors of the widening of the social gap. A poor family that consumes a cartoon of milk per day pays the exact same tax than a rich family that consumes the same cartoon of milk per day.

But I do agree that it is exactly the principle of social justice that has been behind the biggest abuses of fiscal policies being perpetrated by our governments and, just like you say, the increase in fiscal complexity that makes it more difficult for governments to charge those taxes and identify non payers or people abusing the system.

...

But we don't solve any of this without first solving the problem of the people in charge. And we won't solve the problem of the people in charge because it is going on a uncontrollable downward spiral. And certainly not with a revolution. History has repeatedly been telling us that revolutionaries can be even worse. The risk is too high.

Instead we must accept that the 21st century is establishing what was starting to become evident in the last decade of the 20th century; that the financial power rose above the economy and that we are living already under a plutocracy which is forming the basis for a corporatocracy in the best tradition of any good dystopian sci-fi novel. The Social Contract at the basis of any democratic Government was nice and lived for a few decades after the first world war. But is over now. Finished and its not coming back. That social contract in fact required leaders of great skill because of the fact governments had to address their populations directly. And that's why we had great (good or evil) leaders for a good part of the 20th century. And that is precisely why we don't have them anymore. Great leaders are not required in a corporatocracy. On the contrary.

Not all is bad about this. Dystopian societies based on corporate power are only bad for the (largest) percentage of the population that live under its non-benefits. For everyone else is utopia. And unhindered by a... ermm more flexible morality, these societies can grow much faster technologically and economically.

There may be some revolutions in the mean time and I predict the first half of this century will be marked by important social upheaval. But a 100 years of training in society control will doom those movements to failure. The best you can do is make sure your sons and grandsons aren't placed at the bottom of the human pool and do your best to ensure they will be among the 20% of the population that will take some manner of benefit from a ruling government that no longer wants to represent their societies, but the financial interests of a world that cannot feed or support everyone.

Originally Posted by Epy

Only reason a person with a larger income should have to pay a larger tax % is if they screwed a ton of people in the process, which many are now. But take away their methods of screwing, and their tax % should be the same.

I think you can still balance it without a flat tax. I'm strongly opposed to the idea that the rich should pay more. But that idea needs to be tempered. "Pay more" is an abstract concept that needs to be equated carefully because we are talking about percentages, not absolute values. A 20% income tax on a person that makes 12,000 an year has a greater impact on that person capacity to face daily expenses than on a person that makes 120,000 an year. The poor end up paying more. So how do you propose to solve that with a flat tax and maintain your government fiscal revenue high enough for it to provide its services? You would have to lower the flat tax for everyone to reduce its impact on the poorer people. But this would also reduce your government capacity.

Instead, I believe that you can make the rich pay a higher relative value that will still maintain the much needed class stratification of our societies, but at the same times permits the government to collect a higher amount. And that is precisely what our governments have been doing. I agree entirely this has been at the basis of the complexity of the tax machine and the source of all manners of abuse. But its the only way if you want a government capable of maintaining a defense budget, a science budget, an education budget, an health budget, i.e. a social budget...

Not necessarily MutantJohn. The top 1% are economic agents too. And important ones. They are behind much of the job demand on a country. And when they are not so directly, they excel as consumers which is also a factor of economic growth. Whether one likes it or not.

It should be the task of any government to make people richer, not devise schemes to make people poorer. That's precisely the failure of the left thinking, which is among other things contrary to a society in which people want to improve their financial situation. While realizing that goal isn't fully achievable, we should walk towards it and turn that 1% into 2%, 3%, 10%.

Concerning tax policies, social justice isn't about social equality. Social justice is about respecting and promoting class stratification, while permitting the rich to become richer, and giving room for the poor to leave their poverty. We must understand our societies as a living system that obeys, like everything else in the universe, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. There must exist class stratification for an economy to grow and sustain its population. The goal is not to create an imbalance between rich and poor by making everyone rich or everyone poor. It is about realizing there will always be the poor and rich, maintaining a model that allows for upward and downward movements based on natural effects and growing the economy so that the poor sector of the society is rich enough to survive it.

The distribution of wealth is pure social injustice. It has the strong potential to promote a devil-may-care attitude towards Work (that great engine of the economy) and towards Education (the great engine of social evolution). Why do I need to try and improve my work conditions or my education if wealth distribution will ensure that I will get my share of the country's GDP? Like it or not, this is precisely how the great majority of the population answers to redistribution of wealth through social services, as we have been witnessing for decades in Europe with its social-democratic policies. People benefit directly from the state and many of them are content and scheme ways to grab more from social services while contributing nothing or almost nothing to the country.

On the other hand distribution of wealth is social injustice in the sense that it arbitrarily and forcibly takes away from those that earned it, some amount of wealth for the simple reason that others need it. It would be called stealing if it wasn't being presently made by decree. Generosity and Solidarity should ideally be personal choices, not governmental impositions. We know it's an utopia to think of a society that voluntarily promotes solidarity. But freedom is about removing the shackles of government intrusion in our personal choices.

So What does this lead us? The thought to keep in mind is that in Economics it is the road you take that defines the policy, not the goal. Goals in macro-economics are always unachievable. They define the policy only in the sense that they define the general direction to take. So what should be the direction you want to take? A road in which you wish to solve poverty by weakening class stratification and making everyone equal? We've seen that path taken elsewhere in the world. And it has shown every time the human misery and the complete failure of the economic system it brought down on its populations. Exactly because it is both unsustainable and goes against human nature to stop us from trying to elevate ourselves among our peers. Or instead you wish to maintain a clear demarcation of the borders between the classes, while making sure the low end has enough to survive and climb the social ladder if they try hard for it?

So, I say no to re-distribution of wealth as a general policy. But that doesn't mean I'm a radical about it. I understand the need for some manner of it to occur because we are still on the process of discovery of economic solutions. We are still on the road. But the road should lead us further and further away from the Social State and more and more into a society that is just plainly and simply rich enough that its low end lives in comfort.

As the late great Ronald Reagan said: “We don’t have a [20] trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a [20] trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much.”

There is literally no reason why US military forces need to be deployed in every corner of the world, or engage in proxy wars with Russia. There is absolutely no benefit for US citizens, when billions of dollars are sent to foreign countries, just to support their wars with their neighbors. The US government is literally paying for the slaughter of Palestinians, and everybody still thinks supporting Israel is such a noble thing.

Makes me sick.

Originally Posted by MutantJohn

Mario brings up a good point. A flat tax really only disadvantages the poor. I think we need to take a look at what constitutes a "fair" distribution of wealth within a society. Capitalism thrives on the flow of money and the 1% are the pinnacle of a capitalist failure, stagnant wealth that poisons the country.

No, the "1%," as you call them, are the result of the government choosing winners and losers. Take away the government's money, and most of the "1%" go bankrupt. Hillary Clinton is funded by wall street and the middle east.

The only fair distribution of wealth is when people who work for their money get to keep it.

I'm surprised they don't also call you antisemitic, which is the usual response over there to anyone criticizing Israel.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

I'm surprised they don't also call you antisemitic, which is the usual response over there to anyone criticizing Israel.

Technically, the Arabic peoples, including Palestinians, are Semitic as well. The term comes from the story in the old testament where Shem, son of Noah, was the common ancestor of the Hebrew and other middle-eastern peoples. They were known as Shemites, and later shortened to Semites. Most people don't know or care to look that deeply into it though.

Originally Posted by Mario F.

I'm surprised they don't also call you antisemitic, which is the usual response over there to anyone criticizing Israel.

Haven't exactly broadcasted this viewpoint due to the implications of that.

Edit: Related: I was glad to hear when Joan Rivers died because of what she said about the recent Gaza conflict.