| The world’s richest 1% have more than twice the wealth of the rest of humanity combined, according to Oxfam, which called on governments to adopt “inequality-busting policies.” In a report published ahead of the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos, the U.K.-based charity said governments are “massively under-taxing” rich individuals and corporations, and under-funding public services. “Our broken economies are lining the pockets of billionaires and big business at the expense of ordinary men and women,” said Oxfam India Chief Executive Officer Amitabh Behar. “No wonder people are starting to question whether billionaires should even exist.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-20/2-153-billionaires-are-richer-than-60-of-the-world-says-oxfam #YangGang2020 #ValueAddedTax lol too bad he will not win also past news says this The World's Top 26 Billionaires Now Own as Much as the Poorest 3.8 Billion, Says Oxfam https://time.com/5508393/global-wealth-inequality-widens-oxfam/ so the economic inequality is widening |
| And yet, the countries with all these billionaires continue to call themselves "First World Countries" despite half the population (more like all of the population) being poor. Just think of how much the world could improve without greedy billionaires or huge corporations. |
| "Well, she's flatter than a pancake" -Mimi Alpacas "Woof" -Tobiichi Origami "Are you trying to turn the dormitory into a strip club!?! -Atena Saotome |
Tropisch said: And yet, the countries with all these billionaires continue to call themselves "First World Countries" despite half the population (more like all of the population) being poor. Just think of how much the world could improve without greedy billionaires or huge corporations. tax the rich lol #YangGang2020 and yep this trillion dollars corporations are like megacorporations on cyberpunk dystopia movies lol |
| I feel like we're told this 'news' every other month. |
 |
Scud said: I feel like we're told this 'news' every other month. every year actually because its a yearly report of Oxfam organization |
| Inequality is the dumbest discussion ever. Would you rather be in a room where one person has $10,000 and the other $300, or in a room where two people have $200? One has inequality and the other doesn't. |
duhu1148 said: Inequality is the dumbest discussion ever. Would you rather be in a room where one person has $10,000 and the other $300, or in a room where two people have $200? One has inequality and the other doesn't. nah this is what they said the problem with economic inequality is "governments are “massively under-taxing” rich individuals and corporations, and under-funding public services." |
| Hmm that's a difficult topic, I can understand both sides. On the one hand a few people being way richer than all the rest seems like a problem, on the other hand it depends if the poorer people also have more money available to them and thus lead a better life. Though wouldn't that also mean that products get more expensive and the poorer people get into even worse situations? I don't know, I only know that big companies should pay their taxes. |
duhu1148 said: Inequality is the dumbest discussion ever. Would you rather be in a room where one person has $10,000 and the other $300, or in a room where two people have $200? One has inequality and the other doesn't. That was the most convincing thing I've read on MAL forums. I guess we should lift all restrictions and stop giving a fuck about insignificant things such as inequality or the rising gap between the rich and the poor. Who even cares about those things... #liberty #USA #Capitalism You are right though. Equality doesn't mean much if the overall standard of living is shit. However, addressing certain issues is better than creating the perfect environment for civil unrest and even crappier ideologies to thrive in. @deg It's hard to pay for public services when you also have to pay hundreds of billions interest to investors due to enormous national debt. And how do you pay it? By borrowing more money. I'm not the expert of course but it doesn't seem like a very good plan to me. |
149597871Jan 20, 2020 7:00 AM
149597871 said: @deg It's hard to pay for public services when you also have to pay hundreds of billions interest to investors due to enormous national debt. And how do you pay it? By borrowing more money. I'm not the expert of course but it doesn't seem like a very good plan to me. im not expert too but economics is saying that as long as the economy grows faster than the debt then it will be fine and one way to increase economic growth is increasing and strengthening the middle class which can be done by doing more better public services |
| In other news water is wet and fire is hot. |
 |
Heimur said: In other news water is wet and fire is hot. nah you can vote for change |
deg said: They are already taxed significantly more than everyone else. They aren't "undertaxed." Even if the rates were the same (hint: they aren't) they'd still be paying a hell of a lot more.duhu1148 said: Inequality is the dumbest discussion ever. Would you rather be in a room where one person has $10,000 and the other $300, or in a room where two people have $200? One has inequality and the other doesn't. nah this is what they said the problem with economic inequality is "governments are “massively under-taxing” rich individuals and corporations, and under-funding public services." The problem is the poor are overtaxed. This is why I have a hard time putting any faith in the far left platform that somehow this problem is going to go away by taxing everyone more. And no, you don't solve the tax burden on the poor by taxing the rich more. You solve it by cutting their (the poor) taxes. Experience has taught me that the government wastes too many tax dollars. Unfortunately, neither the Democrats or Republicans are interest in cutting the poor's tax burden. |
BStrifeSword114Jan 20, 2020 8:30 AM
duhu1148 said: deg said: They are already taxed significantly more than everyone else. They aren't "undertaxed." Even if the rates were the same (hint: they aren't) they'd still be paying a hell of a lot more.nah this is what they said the problem with economic inequality is "governments are “massively under-taxing” rich individuals and corporations, and under-funding public services." The problem is the poor are overtaxed. This is why I have a hard time putting any faith in the far left platform that somehow this problem is going to go away by taxing everyone more. And no, you don't solve the tax burden on the poor by taxing the rich more. You solve it by cutting their (the poor) taxes. Experience has taught me that the government wastes too many tax dollars. no one significant on the left is saying to tax everyone though they just want to tax more the rich to help fund more public services to uplift the poor |
deg said: duhu1148 said: They are already taxed significantly more than everyone else. They aren't "undertaxed." Even if the rates were the same (hint: they aren't) they'd still be paying a hell of a lot more. The problem is the poor are overtaxed. This is why I have a hard time putting any faith in the far left platform that somehow this problem is going to go away by taxing everyone more. And no, you don't solve the tax burden on the poor by taxing the rich more. You solve it by cutting their (the poor) taxes. Experience has taught me that the government wastes too many tax dollars. no one significant on the left is saying to tax everyone though they just want to tax more the rich to help fund more public services to uplift the poor My problem is these public services rarely perform well in uplifting the poor. By all rights I am considered poor in my state. Every month, I pay around $600 in taxes on my check. And this isn't even including sales taxes, gas taxes, property taxes, sin taxes, inner city income taxes, licensing fees, title fees, phone fees, etc etc that are paid. There's a fucking tax for everything and it pisses me off. But do I get $600 in benefits per month? I sure as hell don't feel like I do: - I don't get free healthcare, despite being classified as "poor." - I don't get welfare or unemployment or disability because I work. - I don't qualify for food stamps despite being "poor." I think Trump cut this back during his term, but I never even qualified for it during Obama's presidency. So what the fuck am I getting for $600 a month? - Use of roads...oh wait, that's what gas taxes supposedly pay for. - Use of police and fire department...which I have never used yet, but sure, I may have to some day. - Social Security & Medicare in about 35 years...assuming I don't die early, otherwise this was more money wasted. - Paying the checks of incompetent government employees - The military...yes, we need to protect our country from foreign invaders, but do we really need to spend 10x more than everyone else in the world? And despite not getting my money's worth and the rich being taxed a lot more already, we are still trillions in debt! As for the rich, they always invest their money so they can make more money. But those investments are used to advance technology, facilities, equipment, factories, etc. All of which provide jobs for other people. All of which provide goods and services to many consumers. Imagine a world with no Facebook or twitter or Amazon or Walmart or Microsoft or Google or Apple. They have provided millions of jobs and make life easier and more convenient for all of us. Take away half their money and you're essentially cutting down on half of their growth potential- including job potential and goods/services for consumers. I'm fine with them paying more, as they already do by a wide margin. But even more is hardly going to solve anything. The government just wastes it. EDIT: Also, Bernie has definitely said he wants to increase everyone's taxes. I think Warren has too. Of course they claim you will get even more benefits for the money you're paying. But I am not getting my money's worth even now. I am not interested in making that problem worse. |
BStrifeSword114Jan 20, 2020 9:07 AM
| Yet people still shit on socialism lmao. |
 |
duhu1148 said: deg said: no one significant on the left is saying to tax everyone though they just want to tax more the rich to help fund more public services to uplift the poor My problem is these public services rarely perform well in uplifting the poor. By all rights I am considered poor in my state. Every month, I pay around $600 in taxes on my check. And this isn't even including sales taxes, gas taxes, property taxes, sin taxes, inner city income taxes, licensing fees, title fees, phone fees, etc etc that are paid. There's a fucking tax for everything and it pisses me off. But do I get $600 in benefits per month? I sure as hell don't feel like I do: - I don't get free healthcare, despite being classified as "poor." - I don't get welfare or unemployment or disability because I work. - I don't qualify for food stamps despite being "poor." I think Trump cut this back during his term, but I never even qualified for it during Obama's presidency. So what the fuck am I getting for $600 a month? - Use of roads...oh wait, that's what gas taxes supposedly pay for. - Use of police and fire department...which I have never used yet, but sure, I may have to some day. - Social Security & Medicare in about 35 years...assuming I don't die early, otherwise this was more money wasted. - Paying the checks of incompetent government employees - The military...yes, we need to protect our country from foreign invaders, but do we really need to spend 10x more than everyone else in the world? And despite not getting my money's worth and the rich being taxed a lot more already, we are still trillions in debt! As for the rich, they always invest their money so they can make more money. But those investments are used to advance technology, facilities, equipment, factories, etc. All of which provide jobs for other people. All of which provide goods and services to many consumers. Imagine a world with no Facebook or twitter or Amazon or Walmart or Microsoft or Google or Apple. They have provided millions of jobs and make life easier and more convenient for all of us. Take away half their money and you're essentially cutting down on half of their growth potential- including job potential and goods/services for consumers. I'm fine with them paying more, as they already do by a wide margin. But even more is hardly going to solve anything. The government just wastes it. EDIT: Also, Bernie has definitely said he wants to increase everyone's taxes. I think Warren has too. Of course they claim you will get even more benefits for the money you're paying. But I am not getting my money's worth even now. I am not interested in making that problem worse. government wasting money is nothing new thats why democracy or election/voting is there for the people to correct things the left wing politicians there for example wants to cut back on your military spending more right? while Trump for example or the republicans overall want more military spending tax cuts is not always good, just look at how the tax cuts of Trump only benefited the rich more while poor people like you do not even feel the those tax cuts and worse you got 1 trillion dollar budget deficit that will add to your national debt just last year alone because of that tax cuts by Trump so aside from reallocating the government spending or budget from taxes then better government transparency can lessen more of that government wastes on your countrys budget bottom line democrats today are more pro poor and anti military while republicans are more pro businesses/rich and pro military aside from Walmart all those technology companies you mention do not have a large number of workforce especially Amazon that uses automation a lot on their warehouses and soon stores like with their Amazon Go we are in the age of advanced automation due to computers and artificial intelligence so new jobs today and tomorrow focuses on automation more and automation means less human jobs overall especially low skill work like those truck and taxi drivers due to self-driving cars and heck even some middle class jobs like lawyers and accountants will be done by automation in the near future Andrew Yang is the only candidate of yours there that knows this stuff about automation and how this technology companies will be the new oil and Andrew Yang proposes universal basic income so your $600 a month taxes will change to $1000 freedom dividend |
| How much you have doesn't make you more or less "equal" than someone who earns differently. Or do you all think you deserve less rights if you don't earn enough? Yang can do math, and he can read a room, but that's about it. He has zero grasp of the economy and is literally trying to buy votes. We are not in an age where robots have entirely replaced humans. Machines currently expedite the economy, which leaves room for further innovation and improvement by human hands. And you're not finding machines replacing $8/hr burger flippers. You're finding machines replacing $15/hr burger flippers. You're seeing that kind of shit in the holier than thou cities like Los Angeles who think their people, regardless of how skilled, should earn more than the entire rest of the country, which is in fact screwing up the economy. The machines in that case serve to balance it out. You'd think the people out of work that can't compete against a machine would try moving, but they just end up sleeping on the street because they're filled with the brainwashed idea that places like LA are better than everywhere else even if they're surrounded by garbage and needles and without a roof. And maybe if you think there's not enough low skilled jobs, then stop trying to tax the shit out of low skill employers. Maybe make it so they get a huge tax break if they hire as many people as they can, or something, other than just trying to give that money to someone who's going to spend it on booze. |
duhu1148 said: The second room, by far. In the first room I could easily be denied access to common resources, have my freedoms/rights trampled on, be killed by private security, etc. Inequality is the dumbest discussion ever. Would you rather be in a room where one person has $10,000 and the other $300, or in a room where two people have $200? One has inequality and the other doesn't. Obviously that's a caricature and my point isn't that we should pursue perfect equality (it's a mirage, as I'm sure you would agree), but it's undeniable that inequality can have significant negative consequences. Thrashinuva said: Lol, come on. You know that's total semantic bullshit, right? In the context of economic inequality, the words 'equal' and 'equality' refer to the amount of money individuals or groups have at their disposal (as measured by income, wealth, GDP, etc), relative to others. Generically, the word 'equal' just means 'the same' and can be used in countless different contexts. In no way does its use necessarily imply anything about social value / social equality. How much you have doesn't make you more or less "equal" than someone who earns differently. Or do you all think you deserve less rights if you don't earn enough? |
JoshJan 20, 2020 4:46 PM
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
| This is controlled opposition rhetoric. Capitalists can easily counter data like this by making the argument that their wealth is not liquid and that this data represents machines in warehouses and properties etc that give people tons of jobs. Once you come to that realization you realize the rich people are still rich but nowhere near the amount you think. It is meant to deradicalize you. BUT. The reality is that the rich have far more wealth than the (((media))) will tell you. https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/07/23/super-rich-hide-21-trillion-offshore-study-says/#3d9d56336ba6 Take this for example. This was 8 years ago and the rich keep getting richer, faster and faster. All of this wealth is ALL LIQUID because its offshore bank accounts to evade taxation and to hide their real net worth. This is the cayman islands alone, this isnt even accounting for Switzerland offshore accounts etc. There are quite literally trillionaires that exist yet the media can only talk about Jeff Bezos ( who yes is a scumbag ). The reality is that the media knows that people will no matter what be angry about gross wealthy inequality, this is why they are spear heading this talk about billionaires, THEY ARE CONTROLLING THE CONVERSATION. While communists bitch about Amazon being worth 200 billion or whatever, the capitalists easily counter this by stating that the assets are proving tons of jobs to people around the world thus making the communist look stupid and juvenile since he has no counter to this if he goes by the media mandated narrative. STOP LETTING THEM CONTROL THE CONVERSATION |
Josh said: In no way does its use necessarily imply anything about social value / social equality. You really think so? I mean I agree that economic disparity doesn't relate to equality or inequality, but do you really think everyone here thinks that? |
duhu1148 said: deg said: They are already taxed significantly more than everyone else. They aren't "undertaxed." Even if the rates were the same (hint: they aren't) they'd still be paying a hell of a lot more.nah this is what they said the problem with economic inequality is "governments are “massively under-taxing” rich individuals and corporations, and under-funding public services." The problem is the poor are overtaxed. This is why I have a hard time putting any faith in the far left platform that somehow this problem is going to go away by taxing everyone more. And no, you don't solve the tax burden on the poor by taxing the rich more. You solve it by cutting their (the poor) taxes. Experience has taught me that the government wastes too many tax dollars. Unfortunately, neither the Democrats or Republicans are interest in cutting the poor's tax burden. The left are controlled opposition and useless. They just bitch about people in mansions while doing nothing about the people that can buy literal countries. Then they will cry about climate change and instead of doing something about consumerism or companies, they will tax the poor more. The left many many years ago cared about the working class, but now they are all controlled opposition too busy talking about identity politics. |
deg said: Yes, I've already said the Republicans don't do squat about it. But no, I don't think the Democratic party is more pro poor. Don't care about their talking points. If they cared they'd work harder at cutting their taxes, but they have no interest in that.government wasting money is nothing new thats why democracy or election/voting is there for the people to correct things the left wing politicians there for example wants to cut back on your military spending more right? while Trump for example or the republicans overall want more military spending tax cuts is not always good, just look at how the tax cuts of Trump only benefited the rich more while poor people like you do not even feel the those tax cuts and worse you got 1 trillion dollar budget deficit that will add to your national debt just last year alone because of that tax cuts by Trump so aside from reallocating the government spending or budget from taxes then better government transparency can lessen more of that government wastes on your countrys budget bottom line democrats today are more pro poor and anti military while republicans are more pro businesses/rich and pro military aside from Walmart all those technology companies you mention do not have a large number of workforce especially Amazon that uses automation a lot on their warehouses and soon stores like with their Amazon Go we are in the age of advanced automation due to computers and artificial intelligence so new jobs today and tomorrow focuses on automation more and automation means less human jobs overall especially low skill work like those truck and taxi drivers due to self-driving cars and heck even some middle class jobs like lawyers and accountants will be done by automation in the near future Andrew Yang is the only candidate of yours there that knows this stuff about automation and how this technology companies will be the new oil and Andrew Yang proposes universal basic income so your $600 a month taxes will change to $1000 freedom dividend You are also highly exaggerating the automation/jobs aspect (at least at this stage). High minimum wage laws are partially what are leading to that- it's cheaper to have a machine do it than someone else. Besides which, this is to the benefit of the consumer. I'd rather buy things faster/cheaper. And the Yang thing is stupid. "Universal basic income" by giving everyone $1000? $1000 is not worth $1000 if you give it to everyone. That's not how economics works. |
BStrifeSword114Jan 20, 2020 5:13 PM
| The issue of economic inequality is not simply the commoner desiring more money. Yes, billionaires do hoard resources that could be used to save the lives of dying people, and this money was created by stealing people's labor value, but I know most don't care about that so I'll leave that. Another issue is that so much power heavily concentrated in the hands of a few people is dangerous for everyone else. It inevitably creates disadvantages conditions for them (environmentally related, for example) in which they can become helpless to regulate. Everyone becomes pawns of propaganda and indoctrination, unable to see the reality that is able to concealed through such power. It is power that can only exist through the protection of the state that has nothing to do with any sort of freedom. |
 I can see you |
duhu1148 said: deg said: Yes, I've already said the Republicans don't do squat about it. But no, I don't think the Democratic party is more pro poor. Don't care about their talking points. If they cared they'd work harder at cutting their taxes, but they have no interest in that.government wasting money is nothing new thats why democracy or election/voting is there for the people to correct things the left wing politicians there for example wants to cut back on your military spending more right? while Trump for example or the republicans overall want more military spending tax cuts is not always good, just look at how the tax cuts of Trump only benefited the rich more while poor people like you do not even feel the those tax cuts and worse you got 1 trillion dollar budget deficit that will add to your national debt just last year alone because of that tax cuts by Trump so aside from reallocating the government spending or budget from taxes then better government transparency can lessen more of that government wastes on your countrys budget bottom line democrats today are more pro poor and anti military while republicans are more pro businesses/rich and pro military aside from Walmart all those technology companies you mention do not have a large number of workforce especially Amazon that uses automation a lot on their warehouses and soon stores like with their Amazon Go we are in the age of advanced automation due to computers and artificial intelligence so new jobs today and tomorrow focuses on automation more and automation means less human jobs overall especially low skill work like those truck and taxi drivers due to self-driving cars and heck even some middle class jobs like lawyers and accountants will be done by automation in the near future Andrew Yang is the only candidate of yours there that knows this stuff about automation and how this technology companies will be the new oil and Andrew Yang proposes universal basic income so your $600 a month taxes will change to $1000 freedom dividend You are also highly exaggerating the automation/jobs aspect (at least at this stage). High minimum wage laws are partially what are leading to that- it's cheaper to have a machine do it than someone else. Besides which, this is to the benefit of the consumer. I'd rather buy things faster/cheaper. And the Yang thing is stupid. "Universal basic income" by giving everyone $1000? $1000 is not worth $1000 if you give it to everyone. That's not how economics works. im not exaggerating manufacturing jobs for example that Trump wants to bring back will not comeback anymore due to most factories like car factories are already highly automated and like i said look at the trillion dollar corporations today they do not require lots of workforce due to automation like computers and artificial intelligence im talking about what you said like facebook, google, amazon, etc and yes automation means cheaper goods and services too but since capitalism is about maximizing profit while minimizing cost like wages then real wages (wages adjusted to inflation) barely increase or real wages are stagnant for decades now, you can google that if you want confirmation, so the old minimum wages of the boomers that can be considered living wages are not like that anymore today plus automation also means the Gig Economy is rising that means there are more temporary jobs today that have no workers benefits and nah Andrew Yang already explained that the universal basic income he proposes will not result to hyperinflation or huge increase in inflation at least, but i forgot the details of that explanation Andrew Yang is an economist btw universal basic income also means drastically reducing bureaucracy and it can remove all other welfare services besides maybe social pensions in old age so with less bureaucracy means less government waste that you want too |
Thrashinuva said: I don’t think anyone here is arguing for reducing economic inequality on the grounds that it will make people’s inherent worths more equal. It sounded like you were saying, “but we don’t need to reduce inequality, because we’re all equal at heart!”Josh said: In no way does its use necessarily imply anything about social value / social equality. You really think so? I mean I agree that economic disparity doesn't relate to equality or inequality, but do you really think everyone here thinks that? |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
| @Dhaarok lol "controlled opposition" i do not fully agree but ye there is some truth to that considering Obama and Clinton are neoliberals too that care more about profit over people they say but to me the democrats are not totally anti-poor like the republicans are today heck they got candidates like Bernie Sanders, Andrew Yang and even Elizabeth Warren |
Josh said: Thrashinuva said: I don’t think anyone here is arguing for reducing economic inequality on the grounds that it will make people’s inherent worths more equal. It sounded like you were saying, “but we don’t need to reduce inequality, because we’re all equal at heart!”You really think so? I mean I agree that economic disparity doesn't relate to equality or inequality, but do you really think everyone here thinks that? So are you telling me that you don't think anyone on this forum has the idea that one person having wealth is unjustifiably wrong because they ruin the balance of human equality merely by being rich? |
Thrashinuva said: I don't know what ideas people have in the minds, but I don't see anyone making a philosophical argument against inequality, no. I see people talking about the consequences of inequality in reality. Josh said: So are you telling me that you don't think anyone on this forum has the idea that one person having wealth is unjustifiably wrong because they ruin the balance of human equality merely by being rich? I don’t think anyone here is arguing for reducing economic inequality on the grounds that it will make people’s inherent worths more equal. It sounded like you were saying, “but we don’t need to reduce inequality, because we’re all equal at heart!” |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
Josh said: So if you're not seeing it in this very moment, it's basically the same as if it's not ever happening?Thrashinuva said: I don't know what ideas people have in the minds, but I don't see anyone making a philosophical argument against inequality, no. I see people talking about the consequences of inequality in reality. So are you telling me that you don't think anyone on this forum has the idea that one person having wealth is unjustifiably wrong because they ruin the balance of human equality merely by being rich? |
| Good for them. Take that commies #CapitalismFTW |
 |
deg said: The world’s richest 1% have more than twice the wealth of the rest of humanity combined, according to Oxfam, which called on governments to adopt “inequality-busting policies.” In a report published ahead of the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos, the U.K.-based charity said governments are “massively under-taxing” rich individuals and corporations, and under-funding public services. “Our broken economies are lining the pockets of billionaires and big business at the expense of ordinary men and women,” said Oxfam India Chief Executive Officer Amitabh Behar. “No wonder people are starting to question whether billionaires should even exist.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-20/2-153-billionaires-are-richer-than-60-of-the-world-says-oxfam #YangGang2020 #ValueAddedTax lol too bad he will not win also past news says this The World's Top 26 Billionaires Now Own as Much as the Poorest 3.8 Billion, Says Oxfam https://time.com/5508393/global-wealth-inequality-widens-oxfam/ so the economic inequality is widening #ValueAddedTax ? Tell me if I'm mistaken, I haven't seen the hastag before, but are you promoting an increased sales tax? You do know that screws over the middle class right? Punishing people for having spare money to spend on luxury goods is a very backwards way to address the problem of inequality. We should be raising people up so everyone has that spare money, not raising the bar for how money one needs to be able to afford luxury goods so high that even less people can afford to actually enjoy their lives. The thing with taxing the rich is they just take their business elsewhere. The problem is globalism. A person can make a company within one country, make that company super successful, then if the tax situation in unfavourable, just move the business to another country, or move the assets overseas, or any number of tricks that allows them abuse which country will give him the best deal. We need to stop this situation where every country in a competition to attract overseas businesses. |
| “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” -Friedrich Nietzsche Aggregate scoring is bad for the anime fandom |
| @YossaRedMage "while everyday items, such as groceries, would be exempt from VAT or taxed at a lower rate." more explanation here How would Andrew Yang give Americans $1,000 per month? With this tax https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-would-andrew-yang-give-americans-1000-per-month-with-this-tax |
deg said: @YossaRedMage "while everyday items, such as groceries, would be exempt from VAT or taxed at a lower rate." more explanation here How would Andrew Yang give Americans $1,000 per month? With this tax https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-would-andrew-yang-give-americans-1000-per-month-with-this-tax You didn't get what I was trying to say. VAT only hurts the middle class. Billionaires don't care about VAT. By pricing the middle class out of luxury goods you are creating more poor people. The goal should be to create a world where everyone can afford luxury goods. I'm not talking about everyday items. Being able to afford everyday items should be standard, and ONLY being able to afford everyday items is barely living. VAT pulls more of the middle class down to the level of those who can't afford luxury goods. I'm all for Yang Freedom Dividend or whatever he's calling it now. But VAT is a seriously backwards way of paying for it. Ok, now poor people have more money, but the nice stuff they could buy with that money is now 10-20% more expensive. Nice. |
| “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” -Friedrich Nietzsche Aggregate scoring is bad for the anime fandom |
YossaRedMage said: deg said: @YossaRedMage "while everyday items, such as groceries, would be exempt from VAT or taxed at a lower rate." more explanation here How would Andrew Yang give Americans $1,000 per month? With this tax https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-would-andrew-yang-give-americans-1000-per-month-with-this-tax You didn't get what I was trying to say. VAT only hurts the middle class. Billionaires don't care about VAT. By pricing the middle class out of luxury goods you are creating more poor people. The goal should be to create a world where everyone can afford luxury goods. I'm not talking about everyday items. Being able to afford everyday items should be standard, and ONLY being able to afford everyday items is barely living. VAT pulls more of the middle class down to the level of those who can't afford luxury goods. I'm all for Yang Freedom Dividend or whatever he's calling it now. But VAT is a seriously backwards way of paying for it. Ok, now poor people have more money, but the nice stuff they could buy with that money is now 10-20% more expensive. Nice. That's the way it should be though. Your survival essentials (food, water, housing) should be covered while the "nice stuff" should be what people actually have to work hard to have. The main problem to fix here is survival being commodified. |
| You are not your body, you are your brain, the "self" that emerges from within it. |
YossaRedMage said: deg said: @YossaRedMage "while everyday items, such as groceries, would be exempt from VAT or taxed at a lower rate." more explanation here How would Andrew Yang give Americans $1,000 per month? With this tax https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-would-andrew-yang-give-americans-1000-per-month-with-this-tax You didn't get what I was trying to say. VAT only hurts the middle class. Billionaires don't care about VAT. By pricing the middle class out of luxury goods you are creating more poor people. The goal should be to create a world where everyone can afford luxury goods. I'm not talking about everyday items. Being able to afford everyday items should be standard, and ONLY being able to afford everyday items is barely living. VAT pulls more of the middle class down to the level of those who can't afford luxury goods. I'm all for Yang Freedom Dividend or whatever he's calling it now. But VAT is a seriously backwards way of paying for it. Ok, now poor people have more money, but the nice stuff they could buy with that money is now 10-20% more expensive. Nice. VAT is the most effective tax they say like it cannot be evaded or there is less tax evasion for it Yang already said that the hyperinflation or huge inflation will not become a reality once this kicks in, he explained it on various youtube videos but i do not remember the full details right now VAT is also implemented on most rich countries already except for USA |
HyperL said: YossaRedMage said: You didn't get what I was trying to say. VAT only hurts the middle class. Billionaires don't care about VAT. By pricing the middle class out of luxury goods you are creating more poor people. The goal should be to create a world where everyone can afford luxury goods. I'm not talking about everyday items. Being able to afford everyday items should be standard, and ONLY being able to afford everyday items is barely living. VAT pulls more of the middle class down to the level of those who can't afford luxury goods. I'm all for Yang Freedom Dividend or whatever he's calling it now. But VAT is a seriously backwards way of paying for it. Ok, now poor people have more money, but the nice stuff they could buy with that money is now 10-20% more expensive. Nice. That's the way it should be though. Your survival essentials (food, water, housing) should be covered while the "nice stuff" should be what people actually have to work hard to have. The main problem to fix here is survival being commodified. I see your point, but even framing it like that, I think there's better ways to go about it. There are a lot more middle class people and those are the ones that will be paying the most with VAT, due to their number. It's less, "take from the rich" and more "take from the middle". Either way, I think you're right about survival being commodified. I think instead of 1000 a month, just paying for basic food and shelter for those that need it would be better. Though I guess just a lump sum removes the problem where governents tend make for bad, inefficient businesses. Can't fuck up just handing over money. deg said: VAT is also implemented on most rich countries already except for USA And yet the USA has one of the worlds strongest economies and one of the richest middle class. I'm not biased here. I live the in the UK and benefit greatly from our VAT. It's how we can afford the NHS and that service has done a hell of a lot for me. If I were being selfish I would always be in favour of VAT. But I think objectively it's a very backwards way to fix the problem of inequality because it only makes it worse by raising the bar for poverty (how much money one needs to begin the afford "luxury" goods). |
| “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” -Friedrich Nietzsche Aggregate scoring is bad for the anime fandom |
| @YossaRedMage Why the middle class is shrinking Fewer millennials in 2019 are middle class compared to baby boomers when they were in their 20s https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-the-middle-class-is-shrinking-2019-04-12 At just over 50%, the US middle-incomeclass is much smaller than in most OECD countries https://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/Middle-class-2019-United-States.pdf so nah the reason populist candidates like Trump and Bernie is so popular right now in USA is because they say they are pro-poor |
| In other words. Grass is green and the sky is blue. Which one of u geniuses didn't know this? |
Read Toriko! |
phantom346 said: In other words. Grass is green and the sky is blue. Which one of u geniuses didn't know this? its a problem since its one of the main reason for slow economic growth worldwide  |
degJan 22, 2020 2:07 PM
deg said: The world’s richest 1% have more than twice the wealth of the rest of humanity combined, according to Oxfam, which called on governments to adopt “inequality-busting policies.” Eh, this doesn't tell much. Me just by living in Germany already belong to that 1%. But if you look at prices here, especially property, you won't feel rich at all. |
RandomFriday said: deg said: The world’s richest 1% have more than twice the wealth of the rest of humanity combined, according to Oxfam, which called on governments to adopt “inequality-busting policies.” Eh, this doesn't tell much. Me just by living in Germany already belong to that 1%. But if you look at prices here, especially property, you won't feel rich at all. relative poverty is different to absolute poverty anyway just because of difference in cost of living for each country |
deg said: @YossaRedMage Why the middle class is shrinking Fewer millennials in 2019 are middle class compared to baby boomers when they were in their 20s https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-the-middle-class-is-shrinking-2019-04-12 At just over 50%, the US middle-incomeclass is much smaller than in most OECD countries https://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/Middle-class-2019-United-States.pdf so nah the reason populist candidates like Trump and Bernie is so popular right now in USA is because they say they are pro-poor Middle class is shrinking in a lot of developed nations, not just the US. https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/countries-where-the-middle-class-is-dying-or-thriving.html/ Some have high VAT / sales tax, some don't. I don't think there's a connection. Your original argument was that the US should have a VAT because other countries do. Just because lots of people do something doesn't mean it's a good thing to do. I really don't think a lack of VAT is keeping the US middle class small. It will only get smaller if you raise the income required to buy anything more than the basics to live. Also I don't understand your point about politicians appealing to the working class, that's not really relevant. |
| “In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.” -Friedrich Nietzsche Aggregate scoring is bad for the anime fandom |
YossaRedMage said: deg said: @YossaRedMage Why the middle class is shrinking Fewer millennials in 2019 are middle class compared to baby boomers when they were in their 20s https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-the-middle-class-is-shrinking-2019-04-12 At just over 50%, the US middle-incomeclass is much smaller than in most OECD countries https://www.oecd.org/unitedstates/Middle-class-2019-United-States.pdf so nah the reason populist candidates like Trump and Bernie is so popular right now in USA is because they say they are pro-poor Middle class is shrinking in a lot of developed nations, not just the US. https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/countries-where-the-middle-class-is-dying-or-thriving.html/ Some have high VAT / sales tax, some don't. I don't think there's a connection. Your original argument was that the US should have a VAT because other countries do. Just because lots of people do something doesn't mean it's a good thing to do. I really don't think a lack of VAT is keeping the US middle class small. It will only get smaller if you raise the income required to buy anything more than the basics to live. Also I don't understand your point about politicians appealing to the working class, that's not really relevant. VAT will be use to generate budget for Universal Basic Income of Yang A Value-Added Tax (VAT) is currently used by 160 out of 193 countries, including every developed nation except the US, because it is a more efficient way of generating revenue with no loopholes. https://www.yang2020.com/policies/value-added-tax/ the working class is affected by the progress of automation that the wages gets more cheaper or jobs becomes obsolete entirely so thats why politicians like Trump promise to bring back manufacturing jobs that did not happen btw or that Bernie Sanders and Andrew Yang propose more social safety nets like this you said it yourself the VAT in your country is good for you too so i do not get why are you saying its bad for the USA |
| Imagine being so successful the government says "Hold on there! You're making too much money! So let us take some of it from you." So then you're like.. okay, I have enough anyway. What are you using the money for? And the government says "we need more tanks!" |
| I'm not against a progressive tax rate. I'm against a WILDLY progressive tax rate, by which I pay 35% and someone else (also working full-time) pays less than 15%. I think there should be a more balanced progression with fewer write-offs for the rich. If I can afford a freaking yacht, I shouldn’t be getting a write-off for purchasing it too. At the same time, I shouldn't be paying literally more than double the ratio of taxes because I worked a lot harder. I don't just mean taxes. I don't think our tax money should be used to foot the bill for consistently unmotivated, unambitious, and useless people. I mean adding a time limit by which people can receive unemployment money or be on welfare. |
''Enemies' gifts are no gifts and do no good.'' |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |