Stop, Obama time.

[M16]

So, let me get this straight. Your rich man is STILL paying taxes either way yet paying a slight bit more is baaaad?

Kind of defeats any paying a few bucks tax is slavery thing considering you're forced to pay tax regardless.

I'm not sure how you still haven't gotten this yet, but the point I've been making is that I disagree with the idea behind choosing between taxation or imprisonment. I don't believe that taxation is morally sound.

I also don't understand your second sentence at all. Can you pose it a bit more intelligibly?

[Alpha]

There's a big tax review in my country at the moment. Looks like we are going to change our tax rates to be more similar to Australia. Obviously because we are so COMMUNIST!!11 at the moment.

The top personal tax rate will be reduced from 38% to 33%. To make this move fiscally neutral, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) - which is levied on every consumer item - will rise from 12.5% to 15%.

The result? A person on an income of $100,000 a year earns $1923.08 per week, before tax. On an MTR of 38%, they earn $1192.31 per week. On an MTR of 33%, they will earn $1288.46. Congratulations to be them, they now get an extra $96.15 per week, or $5000 per year. (EDIT: US$3,482.84, for the guy below me.)

When you're earning $62,000 after tax, and then earn $67,000, what difference are you going to notice?

GST is a regressive tax. You can't not consume, and the less income you earn, the higher proportion of your earnings go to pay GST.

The result of all this? The rich get a couple of thousand more per year - perhaps a new television set - while the poor will have to buy less milk, and more and more kids will go to school without breakfast.

[M16]

There's a big tax review in my country at the moment. Looks like we are going to change our tax rates to be more similar to Australia. Obviously because we are so COMMUNIST!!11 at the moment.

Again, I never said that Australia and Canada are Communist. GG.

The top personal tax rate will be reduced from 38% to 33%. To make this move fiscally neutral, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) - which is levied on every consumer item - will rise from 12.5% to 15%.

The result? A person on an income of $100,000 a year earns $1923.08 per week, before tax. On an MTR of 38%, they earn $1192.31 per week. On an MTR of 33%, they will earn $1288.46. Congratulations to be them, they now get an extra $96.15 per week, or $5000 per year.

When you're earning $62,000 after tax, and then earn $67,000, what difference are you going to notice?

Again, the point is not whether or not the person will notice an extra $5000 dollars. The point is that if they worked to earn it, it should have been theirs to begin with.

Though I find it awfully hard to believe that anyone wouldn't notice an extra $5000 in their bank account. That can be at least a semester tuition at some colleges.

The result of all this? The rich get a couple of thousand more per year - perhaps a new television set

Like it or not, what people do with their money is their own business

- while the poor will have to buy less milk, and fewer and fewer kids will go to school without breakfast.

The lesson to learn? Perhaps people that do not make as much money should live within their means so that their children can afford to eat breakfast in the morning. There is always going to be an income disparity. However, this would be much more bearable for the people who do not earn as much if they would live within their means. A family that does not bring in enough money per year has no business bringing children in to the world. While it is their right to bear as many children as they want, it is incredibly irresponsible if they can not afford it.

[Alpha]

So your solution is just to say, "Well, you had too many children. These rich people earned their money, these kids don't deserve any of it, despite not ever choosing to be born, and should starve due to their parents' misfortune/irresponsibility."

Great. What a great society.

Also, when it's hard to "live within your means" with GST at 12.%, and it will be raised to 15%, the only option is to consume less. For families who buy mostly necessities and very few luxuries (of which there are many - I do work at a supermarket), the outcome will be fewer necessities, like food.

Lower GST, keep MTRs.

EDIT: I also found this comment on a political blog I follow:

10% [of the population of NZ] may be paying 73% of tax but they also control and/or own 90% of the capital so it seems to me they have just been paying their fair share…

I'm pretty sure 73% is higher than the actual figure, but the principle is interesting enough.

[M16]

So your solution is just to say, "Well, you had too many children. These rich people earned their money, these kids don't deserve any of it, despite not ever choosing to be born, and should starve due to their parents' misfortune/irresponsibility."

Great. What a great society.

And your solution is instead to say, "These parents were irresponsible and had children they could not afford, so let us instead take the money from those who weren't irresponsible."? What you're doing there is punishing the responsible for being responsible and telling the irresponsible that it's OK to be irresponsible because there's bound to be SOMEONE out there who can pay for their child's every need. Call me a sociopath, I don't care. I find that contemptible.

[Alpha]

It's not punishing responsibility. If that were the case, then they would be taxed most of their income, so that one would receive more money in benefits than they would in income.

It's ensuring that every person has a minimal standard of welfare. I've never lived on a benefit, but I hear it is very difficult. It does not reward irresponsibility, as it's a condition of receiving the unemployment benefit that one is actively looking for work. Any job - any job at all - will pay more than an unemployment benefit, and that is important to ensure that people are actually contributing to the economy.

It's not OK to be "irresponsible", but it's also not acceptable to have people who can barely afford to live in the world's most affluent countries. Benefits make sure of this.

[Furore]

I also don't understand your second sentence at all. Can you pose it a bit more intelligibly?

Ok, without a tax based scheme Mr. M16 is paying tax. With a tax based scheme Mr. M16 is paying tax. If paying tax makes Mr. M16 a slave, isn't Mr. M16 a slave either way?

Taxation will happen either way.

[Andromeda]

Actually Alpha there is a variance on unemployment. There is a cap on it, but the amount you get is based on the the last 4 quarters of your pay and then determined how much you get paid every two weeks. If you made very little then you'll receive very little, but if you made a lot you'll probably hit the cap. The cap is actually about equal to 11 dollars an hour which is significantly higher than minimum wage in the US currently and more than you'll probably make in any retail, fast food and low end job. Which means that people who used to make a fair amount in their last job before being unemployed are actually making more than someone working 40 hours at a McDonalds. So that actually makes you wonder if some people are not so interested in finding work when in reality any job won't be better than unemployment checks.

Now this is all how unemployment works in Illinois and more than likely very similar to the rest of the US. Out of the states though is no clue.

[Alpha]

Wow, even I think that is silly. As I said, ensure people are looking for work, hold it at a liveable rate, but still below minimum wage, and this would incentivise people back into work, while still ensuring everyone can afford the bare necessities.

[Andromeda]

Generally though I suspect that the minimum wage is set as the lowest payment one can receive and still manage some sort of a living. Below that is going to be difficult, but you also have to understand that unemployment in general is going to be less than what you're making. If you made minimum wage and now have unemployment, you're not getting minimum wage. Most people on unemployment will never receive anything equal to their old job, it'll nearly always be less.

Because as you said it is meant to get them out on the streets and looking for a job. But it is also intended to allow you to continue you current lifestyle with some cutbacks. So you don't lose your house because you no longer can pay your mortgage or you're kicked out of your apartment because you can't pay rent or your creditors come after you because you can't make loan or debt payments. The ones that'll get hit the hardest would be anyone that makes about 35,000+ a year because that's things hit the ceiling. You won't get 35k in unemployment it'll probably be like 20k. Which actually puts you into the poverty zone if the yearly income for the government labeling whose the poor is still the same. But if you made 60k you'd still only get 20k a year.

Though overtime really throws the system out of whack. Because it is based on total income, not your normal income. So it you worked a lot of overtime it can really throw off your unemployment you could end up with something very close to your original pay if you're still inside the cap. It's not generally a problem though since most places don't have high rates of overtime.

[M16]

Actually, Alpha, it is rewarding irresponsibility. You're giving them federal aid as compensation for doing something stupid that they could not afford. Even if they received a dollar a week, it would still be a reward since they wouldn't otherwise earn it on their own.

[Alpha]

Is it "doing something stupid" to lose one's job?

[M16]

You're serious with that question? Yes, it could very well be doing something stupid to lose one's job. But that's also not what I was talking about earlier. If you want to bring up people losing their jobs, then change the subject to that. Don't try to tie it in with talking about irresponsible parents bringing children into the world when they can't afford to.

While I can sympathize with a person losing their job, I do not feel that it should be the responsibility of another person to pay for them. Unfortunately, it has become the responsibility of the fortunate to care and supply for the less fortunate.

[Sasquatch]

Yeah, see I don't recall the last time I paid for anything more than an ambulance fee. And that includes non emergency medical stuff. Don't need to pray I'm covered by some sort of charity/program neither.

Americans don't need to "pray" that they're covered -- even if they're not responsible enough to take care of themselves, there are plenty of people who feel sorry for them enough to give money, and plenty of government programs that already steal money from the populace and use it to pay medical bills for those without insurance.

Australia. And you're totally right. Over there it's like a terribly high 3% more between brackets, right? Lol

Depends on the brackets, but neither of us mentioned brackets. I pointed out that the higher earners in the United States pay much, much more of their income than the lower earners -- and since the bottom rate is 10% and the top rate is 35%, that would be a difference of 25%. See how that works?

Australia. And I don't have the right to keep all of my stupidly high income nor should I be allowed to.

First, it doesn't matter how much money you pretend to make on the internet, it doesn't give you any more credit. Second, you don't have the right to keep your own money because you have allowed your government to take away that right.

Since when has a man not had the right to enjoy the spoils of his own work?

No-one needs that kind of money and even if taxes were optional i'd still pay them after seeing the positive consequences of doing so.

Why don't you just give money to charity, like many Americans do? Hell, there are charity programs that exist to do the exact same thing that some government programs exist to do -- the difference is that if I don't want to give to the charity, I don't have to, whereas the government will steal my money from me no matter what.

And those would be?

Countries in which socialist policies haven't worked? Well, let's see -- Canada is failing miserably, for one. The United States is going down the toilet, thanks to income redistribution. Ever heard of the USSR? Or China? North Korea? Vietnam? Cuba? All shining examples of prosperity, ain't they?

How about the brain drain that occurs whenever a European country -- or any country, for that matter -- refuses to let people who are the best in their respective fields keep the money they earn? Do you think it's just pure coincidence that America attracts some of the brightest and most successful people in the world?

I apologise for any errors, I typed this on my stupidly expensive iPhone which is one of many things I can afford even after taxes, especially as I never need to worry about medical bills or anything.

I typed this on my home-built computer, which I could afford the parts for because I actually worked and made money, instead of sitting on my ass and relying on mommy and daddy government to take care of me.

And if we're getting onto slavery, whose country was it with the big history of slavery? Oh wait...

Umm ... most of the countries in the world? America had about eighty years of slavery. Every country has things in their past that they're not proud of ... just like Australia starting out as a penal colony and their mistreatment of the Aborigines.

It comes down to this: Those on that higher tax bracket have a good deal more than they need even after being heavily taxed.

Says who? You say they have "more than they need", but who's to say what somebody "needs" and "doesn't need", and what right do we have to take something away from somebody just because they don't "need" it?

As I stated before, very little research on my part uncovered the proposed tax brackets are just like those when Clinton was in power. Was it really so bad back then?

Not for a lot of countries around the world, like India, Mexico, Pakistan, the Phillipines ... They had corporations by the dozen moving into their countries and out of the United States because of the burden that Clinton's taxes placed on them.

The top personal tax rate will be reduced from 38% to 33%. To make this move fiscally neutral, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) - which is levied on every consumer item - will rise from 12.5% to 15%.

That sounds good. It's proportionate -- the people who use more pay more, but not in a disproportionate amount.

GST is a regressive tax. You can't not consume, and the less income you earn, the higher proportion of your earnings go to pay GST.

So poor people and rich people will both buy the same things?

The only way the poor would have a higher proportion of their earnings go to a sales tax is if they spent the same amount on things that are taxed. And if they're buying Lexus's and lobster, they shouldn't be bitching about not being able to make ends meet because they finally pay closer to their share of the taxes.

It's not punishing responsibility. If that were the case, then they would be taxed most of their income, so that one would receive more money in benefits than they would in income.

You're telling me that there's nobody who receives more money from the government than they make themselves? You sure about that? Because I know that's not true in the United States.

Hell, HALF of our population receives more money from federal taxes than they pay.

What's the point of going to college (and paying for it), getting training, working hard, working overtime, etc. if all the extra money you make from your good decisions gets forcibly taken from you and redistributed to those who haven't made good decisions?

It's ensuring that every person has a minimal standard of welfare.

Whether they deserve it or not. And if they deserved it ... they would be providing it for themselves.

Is it "doing something stupid" to lose one's job?

Possibly. But is it "doing something stupid" to have no money saved up to live on until you find a new job, or to be too incompetent to find another? Probably. Why should I be forced to pay for people who specialized in dying industries and can't hack it in today's market?

[Furore]

Depends on the brackets, but neither of us mentioned brackets. I pointed out that the higher earners in the United States pay much, much more of their income than the lower earners -- and since the bottom rate is 10% and the top rate is 35%, that would be a difference of 25%. See how that works?

Yeah, the exact way Australia has brackets. I don't do my taxes myself as a lot of the stuff on the forms go over my head, but some taxation agents are very good at explaining things in layman's terms such as how I'll be paying more tax because of my decent sized annual income. Fact of the matter is, people who make more money can afford to pay more tax and they STILL have more money at the end of things.

First, it doesn't matter how much money you pretend to make on the internet, it doesn't give you any more credit.

Would you like me to take pictures of all the gear in my bedroom alone? Would that net me more credit Sassy?

Second, you don't have the right to keep your own money because you have allowed your government to take away that right.

And the US can keep their money because they don't pay taxes? Oh wait, that's right you guys *DO* pay taxes and at times in the past some have paid a *similar amount* to what's being proposed.

Since when has a man not had the right to enjoy the spoils of his own work?

The advent of taxes? I'm no historian so I have no clue when that was, but my guess is quite some time ago.

Why don't you just give money to charity, like many Americans do? Hell, there are charity programs that exist to do the exact same thing that some government programs exist to do -- the difference is that if I don't want to give to the charity, I don't have to, whereas the government will steal my money from me no matter what.

I do give money to charity regularly. On top of paying my taxes (and I don't claim charity back on my tax return as I feel that defeats the purpose of being charitable). Ain't I a nice guy? roflmfao.

Countries in which socialist policies haven't worked? Well, let's see -- Canada is failing miserably, for one. The United States is going down the toilet, thanks to income redistribution. Ever heard of the USSR? Or China? North Korea? Vietnam? Cuba? All shining examples of prosperity, ain't they?

The same Canada with a higher quality of life then the US? I notice most of the places you''ve listed are less developed and when you look at all the developed countries who've adopted 'socialist policies' they've ended up coming out ahead.

How about the brain drain that occurs whenever a European country -- or any country, for that matter -- refuses to let people who are the best in their respective fields keep the money they earn? Do you think it's just pure coincidence that America attracts some of the brightest and most successful people in the world?

lol, Arrogant much. There are many brilliant minds outside the US. Hell, Australia itself has some great minds/facilities that are top notch.

I typed this on my home-built computer, which I could afford the parts for because I actually worked and made money, instead of sitting on my ass and relying on mommy and daddy government to take care of me.

I'm typing this on my laptop which is more or less disposable to me at this point in time. My lovely little job paid for both it and my iPhone. You know what I notice about those recieving government money here though? Most are online through absolute shitboxes as payouts alone aren't much to live off. $200-$400 a fortnight I believe. See we're encouraged to work here by the fact that if we do try to subsist on government money we get bugger all and are expected to provide evidence of job hunting as well as doing several activities and having to deal with centrelink on a weekly basis. Perhaps if the US did something similar it'd encourage people to actually look for work?

Umm ... most of the countries in the world? America had about eighty years of slavery. Every country has things in their past that they're not proud of ... just like Australia starting out as a penal colony and their mistreatment of the Aborigines.

I wasn't the one who first brought slavery into this, no it was an American.

Says who? You say they have "more than they need", but who's to say what somebody "needs" and "doesn't need", and what right do we have to take something away from somebody just because they don't "need" it?

The Australian Government? Our system works and if it weren't for the current party trying to turn Australia into a nanny nation I'd think the place more or less perfect. You people pay taxes too so it's not like I'm doing any more than people there are.

Not for a lot of countries around the world, like India, Mexico, Pakistan, the Phillipines ... They had corporations by the dozen moving into their countries and out of the United States because of the burden that Clinton's taxes placed on them.

That kind of thing happens all the time anyway. Often it's cheaper to do things like that offshore.

[M16]

Silver, your inability to understand what Sasquatch and I are arguing is frankly baffling. I'm not sure how we can pose the ideas to you any more clearly. A man has a right to his earnings. Those who did not work for this man's earnings do not have the right to take his earnings away from him.

Since when has a man not had the right to enjoy the spoils of his own work?

The advent of taxes? I'm no historian so I have no clue when that was, but my guess is quite some time ago.

I honestly couldn't tell if this was a joke or if you honestly believe that the advent of taxes was a universal consensus that man no longer has a right to everything he works for.

Says who? You say they have "more than they need", but who's to say what somebody "needs" and "doesn't need", and what right do we have to take something away from somebody just because they don't "need" it?

The Australian Government? Our system works and if it weren't for the current party trying to turn Australia into a nanny nation I'd think the place more or less perfect. You people pay taxes too so it's not like I'm doing any more than people there are.

And so you're actually willing to surrender all of your rights to the government, just so they can tell you what to do and for how long and for what sort of compensation?

[Alpha]

And so you're actually willing to surrender all of your rights to the government, just so they can tell you what to do and for how long and for what sort of compensation?

Er, no. That's why he just complained about the "nanny state" of Rudd's government. Which is one area where Silver and I depart in terms of opinions, by the way.

Paying taxes is not thought control. No, paying taxes is neccessary. Paying taxes is useful. Paying taxes is sensible. It's got nothing to do with the erosion of civil liberties. We vote for the government. WE DECIDE WHAT THEY DO WITH TAX MONEY. Tax money remains "ours" (the voters'), as we control it with our votes. If the government decides to, idk, build a big statue of Hitler in the capital city, the voters will be pissed. If it still went ahead, that party would be saying goodbye in the next election.

Ya see, it doesn't matter which tax bracket one is in, if one works more, they will be compensated for it. IF the government taxed us 100% of our income beyond a certain amount, THEN they would be stifling incentive and taking away the spoils of an individual's labour. If one earns $60,000 ordinarily, but decides to do overtime so they can earn an additional $10,000, that $10,000 may indeed have a higher tax rate placed on it, but the majority of that money will be going to the person who worked for it. Thus, by working more, one enjoys the compensation. It's not as if that entire $10,000 is redistributed.

[M16]

The fact that it's redistributed at all is what I disagree with. Whether it's 1% taxation or 90% taxation, I don't agree with it. No matter how much the government may take, it is not the right of the government, or anyone else for that matter, to come and seize my property. If I put in the hours, then I have earned every penny that I would otherwise be coming home with.

How is the government taxing you any different from your neighbor walking in to your house, taking money from your wallet, and telling you it's OK because he doesn't make as much money as you?

[Alpha]

How is the government taxing you any different from your neighbor walking in to your house, taking money from your wallet, and telling you it's OK because he doesn't make as much money as you?

Taxation is neccessary. How's the road outside your house? Good condition?

It's different because you still retain a form of control over it. If you disagree with government policy, alternative parties exist, which you can vote for. I'd be very surprised if a non-tax party ever eventuated, however, so you're out of luck. Also, the government spends tax revenue in ways which you can benefit. In my own city, the government owns the trains. They keep fares very low, and insure that staff are treated well. They build roads, hospitals, run festivals, etc etc. No one's complaining about "slavery" when we get treated like this.

[Furore]

The fact that it's redistributed at all is what I disagree with. Whether it's 1% taxation or 90% taxation, I don't agree with it. No matter how much the government may take, it is not the right of the government, or anyone else for that matter, to come and seize my property. If I put in the hours, then I have earned every penny that I would otherwise be coming home with.

But they do collect taxes. Whether or not you like it and whether or not you're paying certain specific taxes, you are paying taxes. My whole point is that the healthcare scheme we were discussing might increase your taxes a little, but it's not like it's a rate any higher than you've paid as a nation in the past. When you weigh in the advantages of public healthcare, coupled with not paying much for it individually, I find it hard to understand why any would oppose it.

How is the government taxing you any different from your neighbor walking in to your house, taking money from your wallet, and telling you it's OK because he doesn't make as much money as you?

The government doesn't take my money automatically to do it's own thing with. It asks for my money which I can then choose to pay/not pay (incurring consequences if I don't pay) and it uses the money to pay for things I use and to look after the people who at times through no fault of their own aren't making a high enough income. I imagine that's not too disimilar in the United States.

[M16]

@ Alpha: The roads outside of my house are paid for by state taxes, which are entirely separate from federal taxes. State taxes go to pay for roads, local police, local fire stations, local schools, etc. State taxes I don't mind paying because I actually use everything I pay for in state taxes. The only thing I fully support that is included in federal taxes is national defense.

[Sasquatch]

In my own city, the government owns the trains. They keep fares very low, and insure that staff are treated well.

Do you know how they lower ticket prices for the people that use the trains? By raising taxes for the people that don't use the trains.

So what's more fair, right, and reasonable: making the people that use the service pay for it, or making everybody pay for it?

Hell, I'd like the price of gas in Wisconsin to go down, but I'm not going to demand that the price of gas everywhere outside Wisconsin goes up to make up for it. Nor am I going to support a tax increase of ten dollars per year so that I can save five dollars a year on gasoline.

They build roads, hospitals, run festivals, etc etc. No one's complaining about "slavery" when we get treated like this.

So you're content in your servitude.

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
-Samuel Adams

When you weigh in the advantages of public healthcare, coupled with not paying much for it individually, I find it hard to understand why any would oppose it.

Because we would rather have a choice in where our money goes. You know, competition. If I don't like the health insurance I have now, I can give my money to another health insurance company. If I don't like paying for socialized medicine, what am I gonna do?

Especially when the programs that most closely resemble the system that Democrats want for America are those of Canada and England. And Canada and England have abysmally shitty healthcare. Which is why thousands upon thousands of Canadians come to the United States for their healthcare.

The government doesn't take my money automatically to do it's own thing with.

Yes it does. It just hopes that enough people support "its own thing" -- and all too often, they do. It's hard to argue that the government is responsible with tax money when you look at how much government itself costs to run, how much is wasted, and how much is "lost".

... And especially when you look at Obama's stimulus package and how much money went to Congressional Districts that don't exist.

It asks for my money which I can then choose to pay/not pay (incurring consequences if I don't pay) ...

Okay ... If you "incur consequences", it's not a choice. The government collects taxes through force or threat of force. If you do not pay your taxes, men with guns come to your home and put you in prison -- then they sell everything you have and use that to pay your taxes.

I mean, c'mon. That's like saying (since slavery is apparently a common theme here) that slaves chose to be slaves, because they could choose to not work or to run away and just "incur consequences".

... and it uses the money to pay for things I use ...

Sometimes things that you use, sometimes things that you don't. Why don't you just pay for the things you use, and I pay for the things I use?

... and to look after the people who at times through no fault of their own aren't making a high enough income. I imagine that's not too disimilar in the United States.

The "through no fault of their own" line is very, very rare. The vast majority of times, it's directly through fault of their own -- drugs, alcohol, general incompetence or irresponsibility, etc. And when we teach people that they can be irresponsible and incompetent and still get by with enough money for cable TV and internet and cell phones, how does that not foster irresponsibility and incompetence?

[Alpha]

Do you know how they lower ticket prices for the people that use the trains? By raising taxes for the people that don't use the trains.

So what's more fair, right, and reasonable: making the people that use the service pay for it, or making everybody pay for it?

Hell, I'd like the price of gas in Wisconsin to go down, but I'm not going to demand that the price of gas everywhere outside Wisconsin goes up to make up for it. Nor am I going to support a tax increase of ten dollars per year so that I can save five dollars a year on gasoline.

So you're content in your servitude.

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
-Samuel Adams

Fairness, for once, when we're not discussing redistribution of income (so apparently, in your context, state taxes), isn't the question. It's reasonableness. It's far more reasonable for everybody to contribute to the operation of the train service, because, if the price was higher, fewer people would use it. If fewer people used the train, it wouldn't change the fact that people would need to commute. So they would drive. The motorway is already congested during peak hours, because people use giant five-seater monsters, to sit only the driver. A trip that should take 20 minutes becomes one hour, and the drivers all pay more for petrol than they would if the train fare was lower (as more people would use it). It's more efficient for the train to be subsidised by the taxpayer - or, better yet, owned by the taxpayer.

Of course, there's also the question of the environment. Do we want our cities choked by sulphur? Or would we rather people use electric trains, powered by hydro-electricity? Sure, some people will indirectly pay for the trains through their taxes, but they still receive benefit in a faster commute, lower petrol prices (reduced demand), a reliable train service if they ever need it, etc. It's about encouragement. Encouraging people out of their SUVs and into the environmentally-friendly train is a good move.

Oh, and I ain't no slave. I have all the freedom I ever want, and the people here are far from being the servants of capitalism. I vote for government. I don't vote for corporations.

[Zargabaath]

Alpha and Silver, more so Silver, take joy in causing me to mandatorily respond to your lack abstract congnitive understanding - Silver. There has been so much poo flung that I grudgingly take the time to put things back on the train. I may repeat myself in some of my responses because I don't want to make this in perfect format due to my reluctance and the unproductiveness of time spent responding to you and overall. And no, my cheeks are dry and my wrists are safe.

@ Zargs: No-one's forcing me to become a slave.

Remember when you said, "I don't have the right to keep all of my stupidly high income nor should I be allowed to." . That is you giving your freedom to your government, to any group that comes calling for it, to any mob, or to any individual who demands your help. "No-one's" forcing you because you have willingly given your freedom up. Pitiful. In that statement you say that you don't have the right to the product of your effort, of your time, and of your mind - all those aspects have no value to you - the ulitmate value, a person's life, means nothing to you.

There's a system in place here and I strongly agree with it after seeing the positive outcomes it produces. If I didn't agree with it, I could quite easily not pay tax and when the government's hounds came I could take a stand to the death if need be. There's ALWAYS a choice even if some people are too weak to realise it. And if we're getting onto slavery, whose country was it with the big history of slavery? Oh wait...

Time after time I see that you get off the context and try to evade the subject - it gets tiring cleaning up after you. Where, oh where to begin. Yes, there is always a choice - death if need be - however, that does not give the government to tax for whatever they wish; there are certain reasons why a government taxes and the money they tax goes towards specific functions (that I'll get more into later).

As Sasquatch said, Australia does not have a sexy history either, nor does: England, France, Spain, the Dutch, Africa tribes, Egypt, Italy, Germany, Japan, China, etc all dealing with slavery/oppression of native people. Of course that statement about America's history you made has nothing to do with the type of slavery I'm talking about nor is it relevant - good job staying on subject. There are many errors you make by saying that:

1) that the crimes of the ancestors past down generation to generation. This is blatantly not true - the person who comitted the crime is responsible not their descendants as well. So while their are families in the U.S. that have ancestors that were slave owners, it does not make the current generation slaveowners as well.

2) you also forget that the U.S. is a nation of immigrants, forgetting that perhaps the person you are talking to is descendant from Italian and German immigrants whom: a) came after slavery was abolished, b) never owned slaves, & c) were treated badly when they came over (xenophobia).

America had a history of slavery - as many other nations have - does that mean its citizens cannot comment on slavery when they never owned slaves and don't support slavery? Or as you find it, since their country's ancestors were slaveowners their crimes past on to us - that is steeped in irrationality.

So, let me get this straight. Your rich man is STILL paying taxes either way yet paying a slight bit more is baaaad?

Kind of defeats any paying a few bucks tax is slavery thing considering you're forced to pay tax regardless.

What you fail to understand is why he is getting taxed, for what will the taxed money serve - that is integral. This next point will counter a lot of what Alpha and you say later on which I'll probably repeat at each instance or summarize: paying taxes does not equate to being enslaved. A government's job is to ensure and protect the rights of its citizens, that not a single citizen's rights are violated. This limits what the government can do
since it is their job to protect the rights of all citizens at all times and therefore if something the government did violated a single person's rights that action would be illegal of the government and the government would be overstepping its proper function.

Here is an analogy to explain how governments are: I (the consumer) contract a company (the government) to provide a service for me (to protect the rights of all its citizens including me) and I pay for such service - as is the proper thing to do (pay for services rendered). Eventually the company decides it wants to do more than what was on the contract, though I don't want such extra services and plus the new services would be breaking the original contract. Yet the company cares not for breaking contract, performs the new services against my consent and forces me to pay for the new services. That is how governments are operating.

So your solution is just to say, "Well, you had too many children. These rich people earned their money, these kids don't deserve any of it, despite not ever choosing to be born, and should starve due to their parents' misfortune/irresponsibility."

Great. What a great society.

Nobody can stop a couple from having children, but if they decide to pursue having children it is their (the parents) responsibility to care for their child(ren). If they cannot afford to raise children then it would be wise to not have children instead of creating an expense that they know they can't afford - that is called stupidity. That behavior of living above "your" means was a part of the reason of the recent recession, people got into deals that they could not afford, and they should have checked themselves to make sure they could or could not afford it (a.k.a responsible behavior), and eventually it caught up on them and the rest is history. Though they may want children, the want does not create the funds to support child(ren). It is not the responsibility of others to take care of others' expenses and to cover for irresponsible choices.

How do the kids deserve any of the money? They did not earn the money. The did not put the time and effort towards working for the money so how can they have any reasonable legitimate claim to work that they did not earn? Nobody has claim to another's work, a person has the right to only what they earned. The kids may not have chosen to be born but at the same time the "rich" didn't chose to help either yet forcefully taking from them -stealing- is right? The parents may have come across misfortune or were irresponsible however their expenses are not anybody elses responsibility. How is it somebody's responsibility to pay for expenses that they did not procure?

A great society?? People are not chattel - to your dismay - to be slaughtered by those who demand it. They are humans and are to be treated as such - not tools to be used and their rights violated.

It's not punishing responsibility. If that were the case, then they would be taxed most of their income, so that one would receive more money in benefits than they would in income.

It is punishing responsibility. There is no moral justification to force other people to pay for any expenses that is not their own.

It's not OK to be "irresponsible", but it's also not acceptable to have people who can barely afford to live in the world's most affluent countries. Benefits make sure of this.

It is not, "not acceptable". It is what it is. There is no guarrantee in life; in order to survive people must produce through using their mind - nobody can leech or mooch on another. Though a person may put effort into surviving that does not equate to a guarrantee of survival. Nor is it somebody's responsibility to help those who cannot survive; people may willingly choose to help but it is not morally necessary or their moral responsibility.

Ok, without a tax based scheme Mr. M16 is paying tax. With a tax based scheme Mr. M16 is paying tax. If paying tax makes Mr. M16 a slave, isn't Mr. M16 a slave either way?

Taxation will happen either way.

As I said earlier paying taxes does not automatically make somebody a slave - it is what they are paying for that is important. It is a government's job to protect the rights of all its citizens and that at no time are they violated by anyone or anything. A person should be willing to pay taxes to support the very organization that ensures their freedoms: to pay for police, national defense, the courts, fire department (which ambulance is incorporated into). Paying for the government to be able to operate to do its proper job is not slavery, the government would be there just to protect the citizens' rights not anything else. Therefore people would be free to do what they wanted, as long as they didn't violate anybody's rights - which is when the government would do its proper function.

I typed this on my home-built computer, which I could afford the parts for because I actually worked and made money, instead of sitting on my ass and relying on mommy and daddy government to take care of me.

I'm typing this on my laptop which is more or less disposable to me at this point in time. My lovely little job paid for both it and my iPhone. You know what I notice about those recieving government money here though? Most are online through absolute shitboxes as payouts alone aren't much to live off. $200-$400 a fortnight I believe. See we're encouraged to work here by the fact that if we do try to subsist on government money we get bugger all and are expected to provide evidence of job hunting as well as doing several activities and having to deal with centrelink on a weekly basis. Perhaps if the US did something similar it'd encourage people to actually look for work?

Dudes, get with the times. I'm using hammer and chisel. My stone tablets digitize the carvings. Ultimate technology? Yes.

Yeah, the exact way Australia has brackets. I don't do my taxes myself as a lot of the stuff on the forms go over my head, but some taxation agents are very good at explaining things in layman's terms such as how I'll be paying more tax because of my decent sized annual income. Fact of the matter is, people who make more money can afford to pay more tax and they STILL have more money at the end of things.

They may be able to afford to pay more taxes but that does not give the right of the government to tax them more. A person has the right to the product of the work and only them. They may do with it as they please, the poor have no claim to it.

And the US can keep their money because they don't pay taxes? Oh wait, that's right you guys *DO* pay taxes and at times in the past some have paid a *similar amount* to what's being proposed.

Once again, just to reiterate - paying taxes for the proper functions of government is not slavery. A person needs the government to ensure that their rights are not violated domestically or foreign and if so the courts are there to find the truth of the matter and to precide over a dispute.

The advent of taxes? I'm no historian so I have no clue when that was, but my guess is quite some time ago.

The taxes to support the proper function of government does not equal to a person not being able to enjoy the product of their work. The further taxation to pay for improper programs by the government is stealing from those affected. A government does not help of hinder an individual or group - no single person or group is above the others that the get prefferential treatment or are oppressed.

I do give money to charity regularly. On top of paying my taxes (and I don't claim charity back on my tax return as I feel that defeats the purpose of being charitable). Ain't I a nice guy? roflmfao.

What you do with your own money is your prerogative; what isn't "nice" of you is you saying that other people must help others, that they have no choice in the matter. To come off as if you can dictate what another must do with their money. That your word has any weight in the matter - that is arrogance and downright evil. The only decision that matters is the individual - not another person.

The same Canada with a higher quality of life then the US? I notice most of the places you''ve listed are less developed and when you look at all the developed countries who've adopted 'socialist policies' they've ended up coming out ahead.

EDIT: "The end(s) never justify the mean(s) (I caught this whilst reading Alpha's response. Though as you can see the following sentence is contradictory to what I initially wrote "means never justify the ends" - my apologies for the error). The violation of rights does not justify the outcome in the "countries who've adopted 'socialist policies'". When can a person's rights be violated? The answer: Never! If you said anything other than "Never" you support the slavery.

I wasn't the one who first brought slavery into this, no it was an American.

And you sure didn't understand or you evaded in your initial response to that. Try to learn to think abstractly.

The Australian Government? Our system works and if it weren't for the current party trying to turn Australia into a nanny nation I'd think the place more or less perfect. You people pay taxes too so it's not like I'm doing any more than people there are.

Just because it works doesn't make it right. The violation of rights is still the violation of rights even if whatever the violation help create works.

Paying taxes is not thought control. No, paying taxes is neccessary. Paying taxes is useful. Paying taxes is sensible. It's got nothing to do with the erosion of civil liberties. We vote for the government. WE DECIDE WHAT THEY DO WITH TAX MONEY. Tax money remains "ours" (the voters'), as we control it with our votes. If the government decides to, idk, build a big statue of Hitler in the capital city, the voters will be pissed. If it still went ahead, that party would be saying goodbye in the next election.

Paying taxes is neccessary for the government to perform its proper function - to protect the rights of all its citizens, nothing else. By "we" you mean majority and a majority does not automatically mean it's right. The majority may decided what to do with that tax money but what they decide may be wrong. Might [in numbers too] does not make right. A violation of a person's or people's rights is still wrong even if a majority voted for it.

Taxation is neccessary. How's the road outside your house? Good condition?

As M16 said that is a State tax which there is nothing wrong with that. Roads allow the police, ambulance, fire trucks to have easy access to what is vital towards a person. Plus they benefit everyone, with good roads comes a better economy - not so much now but back in Roman times, they helped a lot.

It's different because you still retain a form of control over it. If you disagree with government policy, alternative parties exist, which you can vote for. I'd be very surprised if a non-tax party ever eventuated, however, so you're out of luck. Also, the government spends tax revenue in ways which you can benefit. In my own city, the government owns the trains. They keep fares very low, and insure that staff are treated well. They build roads, hospitals, run festivals, etc etc. No one's complaining about "slavery" when we get treated like this.

And in my country the government owns AmTrak which is doing horribly. The federal post office - horrible. Medicare and Medicaid - going bankrupt. The problem with a government is it can never effectively reduce costs and become more efficient/productive; it has the whole citizenry to tax if it needs more money. There is never a dire need to cut costs because it can always get more revenue. It is a business that has no fear of not having money therefore it cares not.

But they do collect taxes. Whether or not you like it and whether or not you're paying certain specific taxes, you are paying taxes. My whole point is that the healthcare scheme we were discussing might increase your taxes a little, but it's not like it's a rate any higher than you've paid as a nation in the past. When you weigh in the advantages of public healthcare, coupled with not paying much for it individually, I find it hard to understand why any would oppose it.

Because every person has the right to the product of their work. Having people pay for an expense that they did not procure is the servitude of those who pay - people are not mere things to be disposed of in any way.

The government doesn't take my money automatically to do it's own thing with. It asks for my money which I can then choose to pay/not pay (incurring consequences if I don't pay) and it uses the money to pay for things I use and to look after the people who at times through no fault of their own aren't making a high enough income. I imagine that's not too disimilar in the United States.

Keep lying to yourself. It takes your money do with it whatever it pleases. Having a gun to a person's head is not really giving them options - it is an illusion that you and other buy into.

So you're content in your servitude.

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
-Samuel Adams

Exactly.

Oh, and I ain't no slave. I have all the freedom I ever want, and the people here are far from being the servants of capitalism. I vote for government. I don't vote for corporations.

How sweet. Of course you are wrong in quite a few things. There are no slaves in Capitalism - every person has the right to do business with whomever, to pursue their own goals, etc. Of course you mistake Corporatism as Capitalism - they are two totally different things. In a capitalist system the government does not give out special hand-outs, privileges, subsidies, etc to corporations. What you and every other country has is a mixed economy so whenever somebody blames "capitalism" they are fools and shown to be ignorant. But keep believe in the lies and that your government is not the biggest corporation of them all.

[Furore]

Sorry Zags I'm more a realist than someone dealing in what's thereotical. See if something works in theory and doesn't in reality it's pretty useless to me. And as such my tone will remain the same. It's good to hear that you weren't crying or cutting your wrists though, that kind of thing is terrible to hear about. *Applauds*

Freedom means more to me than life. I'd personally rather be shot down than imprisoned. For people who're calling me a slave it's pretty ironic that I see freedom as more valuable than you seem to. And I do have the right to what I earn, after tax, just like you, and just like in the US my tax pays for things I might use. Like roads, heathcare, public utilities, parks... The list goes on.

Public healthcare benefits everyone here just as police, fire and ambulance services do. Want a choice? You got it, choosing private healthcare even includes a few perks here from what I understand, though I've personally stuck with what I get anyway, it works. Can society work without public healthcare? Yes. The same way a society can work without police, fire or ambulance services. It'll work, but things as a whole won't work as well as places that incorporate all of the above.

[M16]

See if something works in theory and doesn't in reality it's pretty useless to me.

Wait, you mean something like socialism or universalized programs?

Freedom means more to me than life. I'd personally rather be shot down than imprisoned. For people who're calling me a slave it's pretty ironic that I see freedom as more valuable than you seem to.

It sure doesn't seem that way with what you've been arguing for. You've just been preaching that the government has these inalienable rights to dip into our wallets.

And I do have the right to what I earn, after tax, just like you, and just like in the US my tax pays for things I might use. Like roads, heathcare, public utilities, parks... The list goes on.

Just after you got finished telling us that, once again, the government has the right to dip into our wallets?

The thing about freedom is that the government does not have more of it than the individual. Nobody has more of it than anyone else. And yet we still find ourselves working for strangers that apparently need our money more than we do.

Public healthcare benefits everyone here just as police, fire and ambulance services do.

Except for the people who can afford private healthcare and don't need a public option, right?

Want a choice? You got it, choosing private healthcare even includes a few perks here from what I understand, though I've personally stuck with what I get anyway, it works. Can society work without public healthcare? Yes. The same way a society can work without police, fire or ambulance services. It'll work, but things as a whole won't work as well as places that incorporate all of the above.

But we don't have a choice. Whether or not we want to buy our own private healthcare, we still have to pitch in to the public option. So basically, I'm paying for doctor's appointments I'm going to and I'm paying for doctor's appointments I'm not going to. Eventually people will lose incentive to buy private healthcare, which means that thousands of doctors will be out of a job. And considering public doctors do not make as much money as private doctors (since they do not have the right to set their own prices), many people will eventually lose incentive to become doctors. Then all we'll have left is a bunch of second-raters who the government picked up because they needed someone to fill in the position.

[Furore]

Wait, you mean something like socialism or universalized programs?

You mean like the public healthcare we have? Definetely.

It sure doesn't seem that way with what you've been arguing for. You've just been preaching that the government has these inalienable rights to dip into our wallets.

Moreso that they dip into our pockets either way. At least I'm getting a few things back.

Just after you got finished telling us that, once again, the government has the right to dip into our wallets?

See above.

The thing about freedom is that the government does not have more of it than the individual. Nobody has more of it than anyone else. And yet we still find ourselves working for strangers that apparently need our money more than we do.

Because everyone totally utilizes other examples of things paid for by tax such as police/fire/ambulance equally? I'm seeing a bit of a double standard there for some reason.

Except for the people who can afford private healthcare and don't need a public option, right?

That's their totally free choice to make. Like I said, there are perks offered for those who go with private. But the public system is good enough that I certainly wouldn't be choosing another option. My free choice.

But we don't have a choice. Whether or not we want to buy our own private healthcare, we still have to pitch in to the public option. So basically, I'm paying for doctor's appointments I'm going to and I'm paying for doctor's appointments I'm not going to. Eventually people will lose incentive to buy private healthcare, which means that thousands of doctors will be out of a job. And considering public doctors do not make as much money as private doctors (since they do not have the right to set their own prices), many people will eventually lose incentive to become doctors. Then all we'll have left is a bunch of second-raters who the government picked up because they needed someone to fill in the position.

And you have a choice with the other things you're taxed on? Do you get to choose who the police aid, who the ambulances pick up, what meals your country's prisoners eat... I could keep going. Australia has a good many great doctors. Some people do still go private over public for whatever reason (preferred practitioner, shorter waiting times etc) and we've benefitted from it as has any developed country with a similar scheme.

[Tiffany]

Taxes are necessary. What annoys me is when your country is running at a massive deficit, yet you have politicians taking private jets here and there, and expensing thousands of dollars.

Like the Sarah Kramer eHealth Scandal.

[M16]

You mean like the public healthcare we have? Definetely.

You realize you just said that your public healthcare works in theory but not practice, yes?

Because everyone totally utilizes other examples of things paid for by tax such as police/fire/ambulance equally? I'm seeing a bit of a double standard there for some reason.

I pay for these things preemptively, assuming that I am going to need them sometime soon. Whether or not I break the law, I rely on the police to keep my town safe. Whether or not I set fire to my house, I rely on the firemen to keep watch on the town. Whether or not I send my future children to the local public school, I rely on the teachers there to properly teach the students there so that they, too, can become important contributors to society. So yes, I do use everything that state taxes go towards on a day-to-day basis, which is why I do not mind paying those sorts of taxes.

That's their totally free choice to make. Like I said, there are perks offered for those who go with private. But the public system is good enough that I certainly wouldn't be choosing another option. My free choice.

And you're completely missing the point that in a universalized program, people aren't given that choice. They can still choose to buy into a privatized system, but even if they do that, they still MUST pay into the public option, and from here you can follow my last post.

When you mention that the government is dipping into your pockets either way so you're ok with it, and I'm putting it in caps so you can't possibly overlook it, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOU ARE COMPLETELY OK WITH THE GOVERNMENT HAVING MORE RIGHTS THAN YOU. How has this consistently gone over your head? I don't get it.

Some of your stuff I can't even argue back because it doesn't even directly pertain to anything I've been saying. As a tip, I would also refrain from using those laughing smilies because they don't add to your argument at all and end up discrediting your posts. Typically, the one laughing and smiling in a debate is the one that sees they are losing and so try to convince everyone else that they are confident because they are right.

[Furore]

You realize you just said that your public healthcare works in theory but not practice, yes?

My bad. My iPhone's screen isn't big enough to display a couple posts at the one time, but my point was that you were suggesting socialised whatever doesn't work in practice. My point is that public healthcare IS working in developed countries.

I pay for these things preemptively, assuming that I am going to need them sometime soon. Whether or not I break the law, I rely on the police to keep my town safe. Whether or not I set fire to my house, I rely on the firemen to keep watch on the town. Whether or not I send my future children to the local public school, I rely on the teachers there to properly teach the students there so that they, too, can become important contributors to society. So yes, I do use everything that state taxes go towards on a day-to-day basis, which is why I do not mind paying those sorts of taxes.

Whether or not I get sick I rely on public healthcare to keep my town healthy and well. Like I said, there's a total double standard there.

And you're completely missing the point that in a universalized program, people aren't given that choice. They can still choose to buy into a privatized system, but even if they do that, they still MUST pay into the public option, and from here you can follow my last post.

And those other systems aren't universalised? I mean really, everyone pays for them and yet a person can employ their own inhouse security/fire/medical personnel. It's just with a 'universalised program' everyone has access regardless of their place in society.

When you mention that the government is dipping into your pockets either way so you're ok with it, and I'm putting it in caps so you can't possibly overlook it, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOU ARE COMPLETELY OK WITH THE GOVERNMENT HAVING MORE RIGHTS THAN YOU. How has this consistently gone over your head? I don't get it.

Because you're also paying taxes?
People in the government here pay taxes just as they likely do there. People in the government are often better paid too so they likely pay more in tax than I do. I'm sure if the government here has more rights than I do here, the same applies to you and so whether or not you are ok with it, it'll happen either way.

Some of your stuff I can't even argue back because it doesn't even directly pertain to anything I've been saying. As a tip, I would also refrain from using those laughing smilies because they don't add to your argument at all and end up discrediting your posts. Typically, the one laughing and smiling in a debate is the one that sees they are losing and so try to convince everyone else that they are confident because they are right.

It's getting to you, eh? roflmfao