Winfield/Jbrase for Atlasia........WINFIELD CONCESSION

[Cincinnatus]

TPP - Outside Voter Sanctity, what priorities do you have if you are elected President? 

[Cincinnatus]

I commend you on this code.  Though you're platform is far off from my views in certain areas, you certainly have a sense of morality and character that is required in a President.

[Cincinnatus]

Yay!  You dropped the Flat tax.  Also, your sentiments regarding the Occupy Wall Street movement are exactly correct.  Corporate [among other] interests sway far to much influence over our politicians.  The current plutocracy we find ourselves in is destructive, and abusive to the majority of our citizens.  While we should encourage business and economic growth, and entrepreneurship/profits, we must simultaneously discourage abuse and corruption that burdens the market.  I feel your speech echos this opinion, and I commend you on your courage to defy the Rep-norm

[Cincinnatus]

Tax policy = Dislike.

It's an improvement from the Flat tax.

[Cincinnatus]

Tax policy = Dislike.

It's an improvement from the Flat tax.

How in the name of all things beautiful and sexy can you possibly say that?

Besides the extremely problematic fact that no expert can seem to agree on the necessary percentage (22-33%?), underground economy, how does this affect consumption?.  There's lots of unanswered problems that exist with such a system.  Not to mention, the entire system burdens the lower-middle classes over the wealthy.

[Cincinnatus]

Tax policy = Dislike.

It's an improvement from the Flat tax.

How in the name of all things beautiful and sexy can you possibly say that?

Besides the extremely problematic fact that no expert can seem to agree on the necessary percentage (22-33%?), underground economy, how does this affect consumption?.  There's lots of unanswered problems that exist with such a system.  Not to mention, the entire system burdens the lower-middle classes over the wealthy.

So basically because someone worked harder to earn their money means they deserve to pay more. Bill Gates did not become a multi-billionaire because he was lazy, he worked hard to build Microsoft. So for all that work, you're suggesting that he pay more money to the Government? That the Government is somehow more deserving of his money than he is? That Government spending on useless programs is going to somehow stimulate the economy better than citizen spending in small and large businesses alike? The simplest concept of Capitalism is trust in the consumer rather than the Government.

So you're saying we should shift the burden from those that [certainly] can afford it, to those who [really] can't?  You won't hear me argue about government waste, and the fact that entitlement reform is necessary.  Taxes need to be reduced on small businesses, and manufacturing.  This is where unemployment will be reduced.  It's just basic fiscal policy.  Also, while I'd prefer my taxes cut, anyone can argue that Government spending is more effective then a tax cut.  Considering tax cuts involve Saving, and direct spending is well, direct..  

Capitalism in its purest form is a flawed system.  The best system IMO, but flawed.  Obviously oversight is needed, roads and infrastructure need to be built (among other things), thus revenue is required.  So, the great debate is how to obtain revenue..  Do we tax the poor who can barely live off no federal income tax now..  Do we further expand the wealth inequality in this country by laying the burden on the Middle class?  No, we create a progressive tax system, that can provide revenue for necessities in government, while simultaneously encouraging profit.  If I'm making 20mill+ a year, and I'm being taxed say 50%, am I really inclined to stop trying to make profit?  No, I still want to expand, I still want to increase my profit.  There's a difference between punishing reward (England had 90% tax on upper wealth at one point if I'm correct?  Anyone more familiar let me know..)  and obtaining revenue from the same people that have so greatly benefited through the system.  Of course, as I mentioned earlier, entitlements is an entirely different debate.  There's no doubt in my mind we have a spending problem.  As well as there's no doubt in my mind the Government is often terrible ineffective.  

However, and I hope this sums up my point;  One flat tax will lose the government revenue.  Loss of revenue during an economic recession is very bad, combined with the current spending, even worse.  The uncertainty and in my opinion the "unfairness" of the Fair Tax, make it an undesirable policy [at least to myself].

[Cincinnatus]

I admit to finding the Flat Tax insanity.

However, I find the idea of taxing anybody half or more of their income to be equally insane.

So where do I stand?

50% was just a random sample, but yeah, you're standing high on the pedestal where you belong Mecha

[Cincinnatus]

So how about everyone pay less taxes all together? Why does the flat tax have to be 20-30%? Why can't it be say...5%? That way, if someone makes, say $10,000 a year, they only pay $500 in taxes, but if someone makes $250,000 a year, they're paying $12,500 in taxes. Ultimately, the flat tax benefits the poor more, because they pay very little in taxes, whereas the rich pay more. It's x% of your income. The less money you make, the less taxes you pay. But instead, a progressive system wants people making $10k to pay 5% in taxes ($500 a year) and people making $250k to pay 40% in taxes ($100,000 a year), leaving the people who make $10k with $9.5k and the people with $250k with $150k. That's a big difference. If that person making $250k spends a lot of money, that'll stimulate the economy better because the money goes through the stores they spend it at, meaning the stores have more money. Stores with more money = stores with more job opportunities. Those stores can now hire the people making $10k and bring their income up to $35k. Why not let the free market run it's course and allow the poor to get richer so everyone has more money? Government intervention (which include tax increases) have always proven ineffective and wasteful. Of course Capitalism is flawed, all economic philosophies are, but you're correct in saying that it's the best one, the least flawed. Yes, roads and infrastructure need to be built, but that money will come to the Government as people get richer. Instead of criminalizing the rich because they are rich, why not let them pay 5% of the income and let them use the other 95% as they please?

You seem to forget much of that 95% won't find its way back into the marketplace, whereas the money the lower-class has to consume will.  Those who are rich will still consumer what they need (Necessities), and what they desire (wants).  This is the beauty of progressive taxing, it slides along the scale with income.  Those with higher wealth will still have plenty of disposable income, which they will use to A) Consume, B) Invest, and C)Save.  5% is nowhere near realistic, as the majority agrees on either 22%, or 33% as far as I'm aware.  Also, your assumption that lower classes won't be taxed as much is a fallacy.  These lower-classes I'm talking about generally don't pay Federal income tax now, which wouldn't exist.  So, the requirement of paying 33% on sales would cost them more.  Of course, if we have a rebate system, this will cost the Government more for these lower classes

It's clear though that we won't agree on this point, so I'm going to stop bumping my opponents campaign thread