[ninurta]

Look at africa, they saw that just giving them stuff wasn't helping, so they are working on building infrastructure and it is now making a difference little by little. what i mean by infrastructure, I mean a means to sustain themselves without charity.

like the saying goes:

"If you give a man a fish, then you feed him for a day; Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

[PBVBROOK]

But again...capitalism has and is bringing the masses out of poverty.

Yea. Its doing a bang-up job in the US.

The US Census declared that in 2007 12.5% of all people, including
- 10.5% white people
- 25.5% black people
- 21.5% all Hispanic people of any race, lived in poverty.

And way up this year. WAY UP.

Working like a charm. Right Dandaman?

[ninurta]

[]But again...capitalism has and is bringing the masses out of poverty.[]

Yea. Its doing a bang-up job in the US.

Yeah, especially since we've become increasingly non-capitalist.

[]The US Census declared that in 2007 12.5% of all people, including
- 10.5% white people
- 25.5% black people
- 21.5% all Hispanic people of any race, lived in poverty.[]

And way up this year. WAY UP.

Working like a charm. Right Dandaman?

Yeah, all because we spend money we dont have, maybe we should spend even more? our enemies will bail us out.

[Kman]

While taxation appears to directly violate individual freedom, one must also consider the opportunities created for individuals by the public allocation of those resources.

Yeah the opportunity to sit on your ass because you took the money some other guy earned.

Libertarians equate morality with freedom, however if freedom entails condemning individuals to a life of insecurity, competition, and alienation, is freedom even moral or desirable?

Insecurity and competition is not necessarily a bad thing, it motivates people to improve themselves in order to reach the safer parts of society, the american system punishes lazy people and rewards hard working and intelligent people, if you want weakness and complacency then the european system is great.

[PBVBROOK]

Yeah, especially since we've become increasingly non-capitalist.

Sure. Evidence?

I thought not.

Liberals are not against capitalists or capitalism. We are against those capitalists running the government, oppressing people and leading us into the disasterous recession we are in now. And please don't think there is anyone here with the intelligence of moss who will buy that tired old bullshit about loans to minorities. That won't sell to anyone with beyond high school education. Which is why, I guess, that Hannity and Limbaugh are buying it.

[Lightman]

No.

20% of a person making forty thousand dollars a year's income is worth more to them than 20% of someone making a million dollars a year.

[Nandi]

All true. But again...capitalism has and is bringing the masses out of poverty. They are building a foundation of consumerism that will eventually lead to a middle class that never existed there before!

I agree with you on that. Deng's reforms have given China an incredible growth rate the last 30 years and have lifted millions out of poverty. But the positives stop there.

Once a country has been lifted out of extreme poverty and a certain stage of economic production been attained, other goals must present themselves. Deregulated capatlism can achieve so much in a short time but it would be naive to keep following it through into the next era of development.
A regulated and fair capitalism rid of it's excesses must be doctored out. Welfare, equal oppurtunities and stability to the people should be a priority in such a system and that's an ideal worth losing some economic efficiency for. For a developed economy that's a small price to pay.
As PBVBROOK suggested I believe the US has never fully made this step and it's capitalism has too many deregulatory tendencies fit for a developing economy that do it's people and recently the world no good at all.

[DanDaMan]

But again...capitalism has and is bringing the masses out of poverty.

Yea. Its doing a bang-up job in the US.

Those fit and able bodied in poverty are typically there because they want to be. Barring the ones there because of this recession. Maybe if you got the Democrats to deport all the illegals they could get a job!

Yeah, especially since we've become increasingly non-capitalist.

Sure. Evidence?

General Motors is now Government motors. The government now owns half the homes in the USA. The government now runs the financial industry.

[RonPaulalways]

Once a country has been lifted out of extreme poverty and a certain stage of economic production been attained, other goals must present themselves. Deregulated capatlism can achieve so much in a short time but it would be naive to keep following it through into the next era of development.
A regulated and fair capitalism rid of it's excesses must be doctored out. Welfare, equal oppurtunities and stability to the people should be a priority in such a system and that's an ideal worth losing some economic efficiency for. For a developed economy that's a small price to pay.
As PBVBROOK suggested I believe the US has never fully made this step and it's capitalism has too many deregulatory tendencies fit for a developing economy that do it's people and recently the world no good at all..

Wrong, America has not maintained a market-oriented, deregulated economic policy.

[PBVBROOK]

Those fit and able bodied in poverty are typically there because they want to be. Barring the ones there because of this recession. Maybe if you got the Democrats to deport all the illegals they could get a job!

Nobody is going to deport illegals. They are not even going to try very hard to stem the flow of new ones. The reason is that big business wants to keep their slave laborers. Why would you dislike this? I thought you were a free-trader. I thought you did not want to regulate business. What are employer sanctions? They are nothing more than more of that government regulation you guys hate. And, by the way, the only effective way to deal with illegals.

I am an old time liberal. A union guy. I don't like illegal immigration and favor strong employer sanctions including air-tight verification before employment for all potential employees. If we do that,illegals will go home on thier own. You watch Obama though. Amnesty is right around the corner. Unless he gets his ass whipped on health care and he has to regroup it is a done deal.

At least he is harder on illegals than McCain would have been.

[Nandi]

Wrong, America has not maintained a market-oriented, deregulated economic policy.

Ofcourse federal regulation has grown over the years but not to the level I expect a developed nation to do. Here I'm mostly talking about a growth in governmental social services. But that all just depends on our ideology I guess.

[Stormsmith]

I don't think I could support a flat tax unless minimum wage was raised so that a 40hr/wk worker earned more than the level of poverty and that all the capital gains, dividends etc that are currently tax favoured were taxed at the flat tax rate.

All governments require income. Those who argue that government is ripping off their paycheques should ask themselves how would one pay for a military, for schools, for infrastructure if there wasn't a tax system. Also ask what percentage of their fellow citizens should be allowed to work below the level of poverty.

[DanDaMan]

I don't think I could support a flat tax unless minimum wage was raised so that a 40hr/wk worker earned more than the level of poverty and that all the capital gains, dividends etc that are currently tax favoured were taxed at the flat tax rate.

Raise the minimum wage as high as you like. History has proven it has changed nothing for the "poor" over time. There is a simple law of physics that states something to the effect that everything seeks balance. That said... the poor will never be richer by raising the minimum wage.

[Gelmax]

A flat tax isn't moral for the simple reason that it's a regressive tax - taxing everyone the same means that the working poor probably can't afford to eat, the middle class gets hit really hard, and the rich pay less taxes. Taxing everyone 25% (most reasonable estimates I've seen thrown around say 20% would be the minimum) SOUNDS fair because you're taxing everyone the same...but think of the actual effects. Someone who makes $100,000,000 a year would pay $25,000,000 per year in taxes, while someone who makes $20,000 a year would pay $5,000 a year in taxes - but the first person would be left with a perfectly livable $75,000,000 which could be invested to increase profits, while the second person would have to cut back on meals to live on their measly $15,000 a year. In other words, that 20% of income is a LOT more important to the poor person than to the rich person. Most proponents say that'd be fixed with a deduction, but that just opens the door to another major issue.

Despite claims to the contrary, a flat tax wouldn't really simplify the tax code in the long run, because although a flat tax sounds simple, it wouldn't STAY simple. The current tax code isn't complicated just because it's a tax code, it's complicated because almost everyone wants their taxes lower and everyone else's taxes higher, which leads to politicians constantly fiddling with the tax codes for the sake of populists and big business lobbies on a regular basis, which eventually resulted in the current mess. Going to a simple flat tax would only simplify things for a couple of months - most flat tax proposals ALREADY have all sorts of deductions and rebates built in, to the point where I hate to read most of the popular ones because they're already pretty complex just from the single act of making the leap from a fantasy tax to a realistic one which could actually be implemented. Besides, the financial industry as a whole is just too complex to cover with a simple tax.

Raise the minimum wage as high as you like. History has proven it has changed nothing for the "poor" over time. There is a simple law of physics that states something to the effect that everything seeks balance. That said... the poor will never be richer by raising the minimum wage.

Laws of physics simply don't apply to economics. One must note that CEO salaries have apparently skyrocketed in America over the past century relative to everyone else's, as CEOs in America today are paid much, MUCH more relative to everyone else than CEOs in other first-world countries. And I think the financial crisis and auto industry near-bankruptcies demonstrated quite clearly that the higher pay doesn't correlate to better performance.

[Zerogouki]

I feel like noting that if the USA were to switch to a flat tax, and if we wished to achieve a balanced budget without making any cuts in spending, it would be something like 30-40 percent. Try imposing that on someone making 11k per year.

Yeah, no.

[Watchful_Eye]

If you got a millionaire on the one hand and a poor working class guy who can hardly pay his bills on the other, the same relative amount of taxes is usually more "painful" for the poor guy even though he pays even less money "absolutely".

[Hot Choco]

As far as I am concerned, a flat rate of tax is a fair tax. If tax is 10% and I earn 10000 of whatever your local currency happens to be, I pay 1000 of whatever your local currency happens to be. If you earn 100000 of whatever your local currency happens to be, you pay 10000 of whatever your local currency happens to be.

Do you think there should be a personal allowance? I think there should be, that way you have the best of both worlds; a fair tax with an element of progressivity. Let's say, 10% of all money earned over $20,000 a year.

[hannigaholic]

the poor will never be richer by raising the minimum wage.

Those who find work will undoubtedly be richer. The problem is that fewer people will be employed, because higher labour prices means businesses will buy less labour.

[ninurta]

[]the poor will never be richer by raising the minimum wage.[]

Those who find work will undoubtedly be richer. The problem is that fewer people will be employed, because higher labour prices means businesses will buy less labour.

Which is exactly why it's not a good thing. It's one of the big reasons for unemployment, especially of new workers who are inexperienced. If they could pay you less to start out, they would be more willing to take the risk of hiring you. Besides, most states minimum wage isnt enough to live on. And most people across the board earn more than their states minimum wage. So to say that we'll all be in big trouble is nonsense, all you would have to do is work a little longer and harder to get to 10.00 an hour. Get back on the gold standard and there would be lower prices and combined with no minimum wage, more employment.

[hannigaholic]

Which is exactly why it's not a good thing

I agree. I just wanted to challenge DanDaMan's notion that the poor don't get any richer due to minimum wage. Many do - but it's not worth the tradeoff of many more failing to find work at all.