| Home | RSS Feeds |
| Funny Pictures | Funny Videos |
| Funny GIFs | YouTube Videos |
| Text/Links | Comic Editor |
| User Rankings | Channels |
| Copyright Removal Request | |
| |
#22560
-
qertvbnpop (01/31/2013) [-] 
Why don't we treat the economy the way we treated the congress?
History rant:
Way back in the 1780's there was a question of how to create congress. Big populous states wanted the Virginia plan, where each state got representatives that was a percentage of the population. But small states thought they were getting shafted because they would get hardly any say because of how lopsided it was. They said each state was equal and should get a set amount. But the problem with this was they had more power per person, and were over represented in congress. A state of 4 people would be 50% congressmen.
And in the end they obviously enacted both plans. House and Senate.
Actual part:
So why don't we do this? Capitalist people = Virgina plan, where it's based on a single universal rate. Socialism would be Senate, where everybody should get the same amount. So everybody get's taxed, idk, 10% and that goes to government. Then an extra, lets say 5% goes to a fund where it gets equally redivided among the working class. No tax brackets or anything. Just a socialism tax. So people who earn the average amount basically just pay 10% tax to government, because the socialism tax would get returned to them.
History rant:
Way back in the 1780's there was a question of how to create congress. Big populous states wanted the Virginia plan, where each state got representatives that was a percentage of the population. But small states thought they were getting shafted because they would get hardly any say because of how lopsided it was. They said each state was equal and should get a set amount. But the problem with this was they had more power per person, and were over represented in congress. A state of 4 people would be 50% congressmen.
And in the end they obviously enacted both plans. House and Senate.
Actual part:
So why don't we do this? Capitalist people = Virgina plan, where it's based on a single universal rate. Socialism would be Senate, where everybody should get the same amount. So everybody get's taxed, idk, 10% and that goes to government. Then an extra, lets say 5% goes to a fund where it gets equally redivided among the working class. No tax brackets or anything. Just a socialism tax. So people who earn the average amount basically just pay 10% tax to government, because the socialism tax would get returned to them.
#22566 to #22560
-
pebar (01/31/2013) [-] IDK... free money kinda decreases people's incentive to work.
The states were split up back then in a way that each state was more like a separate country and there was a strong alliance (federal gov) which set up trade routes and stuff along with setting up a very basic set of guidelines (constitution) which the states had to follow.
Nowadays, the federal government is way too involved in state affairs. Extremely large democracies would inevitably lead to the tyranny of the majority. Like the whole gun thing right now, California already has it's own "assault weapons" ban and I couldn't care less because I don't live there. But now they're trying to force that same belief (Obama from Illinois BTW) on the rest of the nation. That's why some states want to secede and that was the whole cause of the civil war, the federal gov getting more power than it was meant to have.
Anyway, if a state wants to set up it's own 10% communist plan, fine. But the it shouldn't be the federal government because there are many states who are happy being conservative and would rage if they had to pay for states who can't help themselves. Tyranny of the majority is bound to cause civil war.
The states were split up back then in a way that each state was more like a separate country and there was a strong alliance (federal gov) which set up trade routes and stuff along with setting up a very basic set of guidelines (constitution) which the states had to follow.
Nowadays, the federal government is way too involved in state affairs. Extremely large democracies would inevitably lead to the tyranny of the majority. Like the whole gun thing right now, California already has it's own "assault weapons" ban and I couldn't care less because I don't live there. But now they're trying to force that same belief (Obama from Illinois BTW) on the rest of the nation. That's why some states want to secede and that was the whole cause of the civil war, the federal gov getting more power than it was meant to have.
Anyway, if a state wants to set up it's own 10% communist plan, fine. But the it shouldn't be the federal government because there are many states who are happy being conservative and would rage if they had to pay for states who can't help themselves. Tyranny of the majority is bound to cause civil war.
#22567 to #22566
-
qertvbnpop (01/31/2013) [-] Seriously what the fuck are you talking about?
-The federal government has to do this, not the states. Because the federal government is getting the money. They already do this. And it's not even changing it.
-The people are getting that extra tax right back, just a better way than with arbitrary tax brackets.
-It only gets redistributed among active workers. Theres no welfare at all in it. No "free money"
-don't know where communist came from at all
-i appreciate the random gun rant given that this is |politics| regardless of relevance...
-The federal government has to do this, not the states. Because the federal government is getting the money. They already do this. And it's not even changing it.
-The people are getting that extra tax right back, just a better way than with arbitrary tax brackets.
-It only gets redistributed among active workers. Theres no welfare at all in it. No "free money"
-don't know where communist came from at all
-i appreciate the random gun rant given that this is |politics| regardless of relevance...
#22571 to #22567
-
pebar (01/31/2013) [-] -I said "10% communism" because it's redistribution of wealth; looks like his post was 5% though so I guess I should've said that
-Why must it be the federal gov? It would be much more efficient to have individual states do it (if they want to) because the gov would have to keep track of who's employed and who isn't.
-Only the people in the bottom 50% would benefit from this; it's just taking from the rich and giving to the poor (I hated Robin Hood BTW, it wasn't just the evil aristocracy he was robbing from; it was wealthy travelers too)
-If all you have to do is be employed to take part, than yes it is "free money"
-The gun rant was more about states' rights; I was just using it as an example
-Why must it be the federal gov? It would be much more efficient to have individual states do it (if they want to) because the gov would have to keep track of who's employed and who isn't.
-Only the people in the bottom 50% would benefit from this; it's just taking from the rich and giving to the poor (I hated Robin Hood BTW, it wasn't just the evil aristocracy he was robbing from; it was wealthy travelers too)
-If all you have to do is be employed to take part, than yes it is "free money"
-The gun rant was more about states' rights; I was just using it as an example
#22575 to #22571
-
qertvbnpop (02/01/2013) [-] Well it isn't communism. That's not an interchangeable term with socialism.
I'm not sure how it'd work with state, just because the whole thing wouldn't work on a small scale. I just imagined it as federal.
And it's not the bottom 50%. It's the bottom 99% who are benefiting. Because of how insane the pay gap is now.
And only full time workers, which internet says is 411 hours in a year.
And it'd help encourage work because if the socialism tax refund was like $1,500 then minimum wage workers would increase their income by like 50%. That only increases the incentive to work.
And the people with better jobs still would be making far more money. Seriously nobody would think "oh i'd prefer a shit job that way i can get less money; but get slightly more refund which doesn't make up for it"
Just using a linear rate of tax is disproportionate though because the rich make exponentially more. I'm not saying we rob the rich. But 10% to them isn't the same as 10% to a poor person.
I'm not sure how it'd work with state, just because the whole thing wouldn't work on a small scale. I just imagined it as federal.
And it's not the bottom 50%. It's the bottom 99% who are benefiting. Because of how insane the pay gap is now.
And only full time workers, which internet says is 411 hours in a year.
And it'd help encourage work because if the socialism tax refund was like $1,500 then minimum wage workers would increase their income by like 50%. That only increases the incentive to work.
And the people with better jobs still would be making far more money. Seriously nobody would think "oh i'd prefer a shit job that way i can get less money; but get slightly more refund which doesn't make up for it"
Just using a linear rate of tax is disproportionate though because the rich make exponentially more. I'm not saying we rob the rich. But 10% to them isn't the same as 10% to a poor person.
#22578 to #22575
-
pebar (02/01/2013) [-] When I said the bottom 50%, I meant the people who earn less than the average income, not the people who aren't the top 1%. There are many people who make a shit ton of money, but there are 100x that many that the tax would be spread out to; it would be stretched so thin. I should've been more clear; that was my bad.
full time is 8 hours/day, 5 days/week = 80 hours/week = ~2000 hours per year, bit less with vacation time.... IDK where you got your info
a 10% income tax is exactly the same for them... it's things like sales tax that don't affect the rich much. Unless you get to the bottom of the spectrum where it's like "I need my next paycheck or I'll starve to death," 10% is no different for a person who makes 40k/yr or someone who makes 40m/yr because even though they earn more money, they also pay more tax. A flat tax would be the fairest, assuming did there'd something to excuse only the dirt poor.
full time is 8 hours/day, 5 days/week = 80 hours/week = ~2000 hours per year, bit less with vacation time.... IDK where you got your info
a 10% income tax is exactly the same for them... it's things like sales tax that don't affect the rich much. Unless you get to the bottom of the spectrum where it's like "I need my next paycheck or I'll starve to death," 10% is no different for a person who makes 40k/yr or someone who makes 40m/yr because even though they earn more money, they also pay more tax. A flat tax would be the fairest, assuming did there'd something to excuse only the dirt poor.
