Stop, Obama time.

[Meier Link]

Alright this is it! I am going to make this thread to discuss the Obama Presidency, this thread will be here to discuss anything revolving around Obama, his presidency and anything else Obama related.

You might ask: “Meier, why are you doing this?”

The response is simple. There have been over 7 threads made in the last 5 months (averaging 1.4 threads a month) concerning something to do with Obama.

All other threads concerning Obama will be closed. Anyone that opens another one will be issued a warning.

Any trolls will be shot on site, or at least issued a trolling warning or possibly an official warning if the case is deemed fit.

You can on the other hand carry over a conversation that has started in one of the other threads with out the fear of a warning. There is a disclaimer to this though and that is if your carry over post violates TFF rules, you will get the appropriate warning.

Also try to stick to facts in here, I know there are a lot of political issues and people are pretty biased. Opinions, while appreciated, will more then likely be frowned upon by other members of TFF.

With that said: keep it clean. I don’t want to see political fights break out in this thread. Friendly debates and conversations are still (as always) permissible.

If you have any questions for as to why I did this, VM /PM me and we can discuss.

Happy posting.

( note: I will not sticky this thread, so don’t ask. )
( note II: yes the thread title is a MC Hammer pun. )

:: edit ::

Ok, I figure I should come back in here and touch on this point. I am not limiting all politics to this thread. I am fine with people opening threads for specific agendas, bills, and anything else concerning the American Economy / Government as long as they stay strictly on topic. What this thread is for is the overflow of Obama talk.

For instance (note this is an example) if someone wants to open a thread about the Health Care bill and discuss the facts of it, fine go for it. Now if that topic turns into another "Obama is screwing America" thread it will get shut down, warnings will be issued and all parties will be redirected to carry on the conversation in this thread.

[smurphy]

Has Obamas popularity dropped so low that a republican candidate who at one point in time posed in soft porn magazines wins a seat in a traditionally democratic area? Hell Gonorrhea is more popular in america at the moment. As im not an american i probably dont have a right to rip on him but as the self proclaimed " leader of the free world" he's doing a sucky job.

[Alpha]

This post is in regards to the closed thread entitled "Obama has lost" (or whatever it was), made by (wait for it) Locke4God.

First of all, I don't think that thread should have been closed, as it was about the senate seat in the state of Massachusetts. Not Obama in general.

Secondly, Obama didn't lose. Scott Brown won. And he campaigned as a moderate. You can tell this because he made a good effort to campaign using his name, not the Republican party name. There is no way a die-hard conservative (campaign or candidate) could have won that seat. It was effective, as Republican party strategists are now studying it as a model. But more than that, the voters of Massachusetts believe that the Democrats have stopped representing their interests. I believe the Democrats need to touch base with their support groups -- the workers, mainly. I wonder if America is just too inherently conservative that the current state of the Democrats is just too much too soon. I know I certainly couldn't stand living in America. I'd go crazy. Obama would've been bearable, but to me he comes across as ever so slightly centre-right.

Thirdly, and Locke, please check your facts, it wasn't the first time in 50 years that Massachusetts has elected a Republican, as the last time a Republican won that seat was in the 1972. That's 38 years.

Fourthly, this does not mean left-wing policies have 'failed', and that it is 'crazy' to believe that they could work. It means that Massachusetts voters, for any number of reasons, have voted for a surprising candidate, given the state's reputation. And that's democracy, and I'd defend it with my life (non-violently, of course).

I think Obama deserves respect, from both sides, for declaring that there should be no official vote on healthcare reform before Brown takes his seat, and that lawmakers should focus on areas of common ground between the parties, as now the debate is about to get icky.

[Josh_R]

Secondly, Obama didn't lose. Scott Brown won.

QFT

And he campaigned as a moderate. You can tell this because he made a good effort to campaign using his name, not the Republican party name.

They mentioned this on the news yesterday morning. They said he had no mention of the Republican party on his signs, or on his bus. On his bus was his name in gigantic letters. You know kinda rock star style.



I think Obama catches a lot of flak. Some of which may be deserved, but most is not deserved. I hear people criticizing him about how he has ran the country so far. Come on people it will take longer than a year or two to get us out of debt.

[Sasquatch]

Secondly, Obama didn't lose. Scott Brown won.

The Democrats lost. Obama is the leader and most prominent member of the Democratic Party. Therefore, Obama lost. Or you could take it as a sign that he is losing.

And he campaigned as a moderate. You can tell this because he made a good effort to campaign using his name, not the Republican party name.

Just like most other political candidates, you mean?

But more than that, the voters of Massachusetts believe that the Democrats have stopped representing their interests. I believe the Democrats need to touch base with their support groups -- the workers, mainly.

First -- not "the workers", you might mean "union workers". Second ... Massachusetts, a state that's sent two Democrats to the Senate for the last thirty years, the state that's been the most Democratic-supporting in the last ten Presidential elections, just elected a Republican Senator. They went away from their liberal political history and towards the more conservative candidate. Though more than 60% of Massachusetts voters selected a Democrat for President barely a year ago, it's obvious that Obama has been quick to change minds about his party.

I wonder if America is just too inherently conservative that the current state of the Democrats is just too much too soon.

Yes, all too many of us Americans love our capitalism.

Thirdly, and Locke, please check your facts, it wasn't the first time in 50 years that Massachusetts has elected a Republican, as the last time a Republican won that seat was in the 1972. That's 38 years.

Actually, y'all are both wrong -- but you're more wrong than he is. The last time a Republican occupied that seat was 1953, which would be 57 years ago now. Thus, a Republican win there ended a 57-year Democratic hold on that seat. You might be thinking of the other seat, which was last held by a Republican in '79.

Fourthly, this does not mean left-wing policies have 'failed', and that it is 'crazy' to believe that they could work.

That's not what this means, no, of course not. A lot of other things add up to mean that, but still.

What this means is that Obama's policies are reflecting upon the Democratic Party and making voters -- even voters that usually go strictly Democratic -- shy away from it.

And that's democracy, and I'd defend it with my life (non-violently, of course).

So you'll defend it with your life, as long as you don't have to defend it with your life?

I think Obama deserves respect, from both sides, for declaring that there should be no official vote on healthcare reform before Brown takes his seat, and that lawmakers should focus on areas of common ground between the parties, as now the debate is about to get icky.

Yes, he's very bipartisan when it comes to the Democratic agenda.

They mentioned this on the news yesterday morning. They said he had no mention of the Republican party on his signs, or on his bus.

You mean like Obama's, McCain's, and Bush's -- no party, just the candidate and/or slogan?

I hear people criticizing him about how he has ran the country so far. Come on people it will take longer than a year or two to get us out of debt.

Especially when he uses his first year in office to quadruple the national deficit, and his first term will see a near-double of our national debt.

It takes a lot longer to get out of debt when you just spend more money.

Regarding your earlier claim as to Mr. Obama's popularity, he currently has a 50 percent approval rating versus 43 percent disapproval. While dramatically lower than that which he began with, a majority one would enjoy having in many respects.

He did have a 74% approval rating. hell, even Bush took longer than a year to lose 24%.

[smurphy]

Granted Obama does get a lot of flak for things he cannot influence like the recession but his foreign policy is atrocious. Americas relations with britain are more strained now than at any time post WW11 which would have been unforeseen less than 18 months ago. Obama backs down at the slightest intimidation like dismantling missile defences in Poland and the czech republic when Putin threw a tantrum. He couldve supported the opposition in Iran which wouldve gave the movement some real impetus. The worst thing you can do is nothing at all and hes doing exactly that, which is giving americas enemies hope. Look at the timing of the plot to blow up a plane over Detroit. Dubya wasnt the greatest president but at least he acted when he needed to.

[Walter Sobchak]

WW11

How long have I been sleeping?

Regarding your earlier claim as to Mr. Obama's popularity, he currently has a 50 percent approval rating versus 43 percent disapproval. While dramatically lower than that which he began with, a majority one would enjoy having in many respects.

[Alpha]

Just a few things, nothing old. We sound like broken records.

Firstly, it's 38 years.

Massachusetts and New Jersey voters last elected Republicans Edward Brooke and Clifford Case respectively to the Senate back in 1972.

Also, because my evidence that Brown is a moderate wasn't enough, how's this (from the same blog):

Additionally, state Senator Brown is considered by most analysts to be a good Republican fit "for the state." That is to say, Brown is viewed as being much more liberal than most high profile Republican candidates and officeholders nationwide.

But, you know, the majority of political analysts clearly don't know what they're on about.

So you'll defend it with your life, as long as you don't have to defend it with your life?

To clarify, I wouldn't go to war over it. It would take a lot to make me go to war. But I would defend it non-violently. You know, non-violent protest. Because that's effective. Naturally, this is all hypothetical. I don't know how I'm somehow discussing what I would do if someone tried to strip away democracy. Simply, I wouldn't kill anyone, but I'd be willing to die.

Also, I read today that before Obama's inauguration, only 19% of Americans believed their country was 'on the right track'. That rose to +60% mid-way through the year, and is now at 34% (I'm going on memory, but I'm sure I'm reasonably accurate). Yes, his approval is in decline. I'm not going to refute that, and without making judgment on his policies, statistically more Americans are happy now than before Obama. That's important.

[Trodorne]

all i got to say on this is. if you guys in the United States don't want him we could take him off your hands up here in Canada. and if you wanted too, take Alaska and Sarah palin too. were not too picky.

At least you americans can vote for your party candidate to run for presidency. in canada the party candidates all vote within the party to select a new party leader. but we don't vote for the prime minister. we vote for the party representative and who ever has the most seats in the house of commons becomes the new prime minister. its lame and there are so many flaws to the voting process but i do enjoy my free health care. mind you dentistry is not covered under the canadian health act. damn dentists.....

[M16]

mind you dentistry is not covered under the canadian health act. damn dentists.....

You likely don't mind it because you're probably not a tax-paying citizen, you're probably not sick often, and you probably don't feel the strain on your wallet. It's just a guess.

[Furore]

You likely don't mind it because you're probably not a tax-paying citizen, you're probably not sick often, and you probably don't feel the strain on your wallet. It's just a guess.

Australia also has free healthcare. I'm a tax paying citizen who hasn't taken a sick day since I started my current job (around a year) and I don't feel the strain on my wallet. I do however feel relieved that should something happen to myself or someone I know, their ass is covered. It's a beautiful feeling. And just take a wonderful look at where Australia AND Canada sit on lists of countries with a higher quality of living compared to the US. I'll even link you to a wikipedia entry of the HDI data.

[M16]

Australia also has free healthcare. I'm a tax paying citizen who hasn't taken a sick day since I started my current job (around a year) and I don't feel the strain on my wallet. I do however feel relieved that should something happen to myself or someone I know, their ass is covered. It's a beautiful feeling. And just take a wonderful look at where Australia AND Canada sit on lists of countries with a higher quality of living compared to the US. I'll even link you to a wikipedia entry of the HDI data.

Very interesting. My only real argument against that is that it's a much easier burden for Canada/Australia because their populations are only 34 million/22 million respectively compared to USA's 300+ million.

[Walter Sobchak]

Very interesting. My only real argument against that is that it's a much easier burden for Canada/Australia because their populations are only 34 million/22 million respectively compared to USA's 300+ million.

I have heard that argument made countless times and I have yet to understand what it means. A bigger population theoretically means more facilities and health care workers available. I am thrown for a loop on that one.

[Sasquatch]

all i got to say on this is. if you guys in the United States don't want him we could take him off your hands up here in Canada.

Nah, we wouldn't do that to you. For the last nearly quarter of a millennium, America has been sending the worst of its people to Canada. Loyalists to England, draft dodgers, more draft dodgers, more draft dodgers, and now it's losers that think that the rest of humanity owes them something.

and if you wanted too, take Alaska and Sarah palin too. were not too picky.

We'll keep the oilfields and the Arctic Fox, thanks.

... but i do enjoy my free health care. mind you dentistry is not covered under the canadian health act. damn dentists.....

I don't know how many times I have to explain this before socialists understand it. "Paid for by somebody else" does NOT mean "free".

Australia also has free healthcare.

Translation: In Australia, the healthcare for the entire country is paid for by the people who make the most money.

I do however feel relieved that should something happen to myself or someone I know, their ass is covered. It's a beautiful feeling.

Just like in America, where nobody can be turned down for emergency medical treatment on any basis, and where there are literally thousands of programs (local, state, and federal) and charities designed specifically for healthcare costs? The difference is that if I don't want to pay somebody else's bills, I don't have to.

And just take a wonderful look at where Australia AND Canada sit on lists of countries with a higher quality of living compared to the US. I'll even link you to a wikipedia entry of the HDI data.

First -- that's human development index, not quality of living. Second -- helthcare is only a small part of that. Third -- the healthcare that does affect the HDI is also affected by availability, ease of use, and ease of payment -- something that most people think is terrible in the United States because we don't have socialised medicine.

due to canada's and a few other countries lack of military techs, training wise are better then US Troops.

I've worked with Canadian troops before. That's complete bullshit.

and you know nothing of our taxes. everything in this country is taxed. we have GST,HST,PST,BST,TST, AST, and im sure they could come up with something to add on to us. what do you guys got. a sales tax at the most.

And who knows nothing about another country's taxes? Yes, y'all have more taxes than the United States -- because your government dictates more than the United States government does, and because all too many people would rather live in dependency on their federal government than actually have the rsponsibility of making decisions for themselves. If I had to babysit somebody, I'd rather it was an 18-year-old who cooks and cleans for themself than a baby who has to rely on mommy and daddy to clean its diaper.

Yeah, the rich pay a whopping 1% more of their stupidly high income.

In what country? In the United States, there's a much larger difference between tax rates placed on the higher earners and tax rates for the lower earners. It sure as hell isn't one percent.

I fit that bracket myself and still live very, VERY comfortably.

First, you don't live in America, do you? Second, it doesn't matter if you're "comfortable" -- what matters is that you have the right to keep the money you make. If I choose to go to school and succeed, I should be able to keep the extra money that I earn. If I choose to drop out of school and flip burgers for the rest of my life, nobody else should have their money stolen (that's taken by force or threat of force) from them to support my lazy ass.

As it stands, this system has been tried in several countries and has worked.

And you must be forgetting that it has also been tried in several countries and has failed miserably.

It's not that they don't deserve it, it's just that there exists the ethical problem that so many in society have so little, while so few have so much.

That ethical problem does not exist in a Capitalist society. There are reasons that some people "have so much" and some "have so little" -- and it's not "circumstance" or "chance" or "fortune", it all depends on the person.

It's one thing to claim equality of opportunity and say that they simply need to work hard. I consider that thoroughly idealistic. It's never going to work like that.

Umm ... It DOES work like that. And it works well.

Poor people have always existed, and always will. But there's more to it than that: capitalism requires it. As capitalism is clearly the most efficient system, we cannot/should not replace it. But we must balance efficiency with moral concerns.

So wait -- we shouldn't replace Capitalism, but we should have Capitalism with income redistribution ... which isn't Capitalism at all.

If a family is struggling to pay for food, it would take a right bastard to tell them to shut up and work harder, especially when there are families who are absolutely secure in their expenditures, and could absorb an increase in taxes with no issue.

Sometimes it takes a "right bastard" to tell people the truth. I have no problem letting people know that the problems they're facing are their own fault.

And even if I didn't have the courage to let people know that they are responsible for their own lives, I sure as hell wouldn't tell other people -- people that are responsible for their own lives and have made themselves successful -- that it's their responsibility to care for those who won't care for themselves.

Then there's other concerns, such as stability of economy and society. Poor people - if they've been poor for quite some time - would probably be pretty pissed off. If for no other reason, income redistribution is important.

... So the people who have succeeded in life and earn more money should have it stolen from them and handed out to those who haven't succeeded, simply because poor people might get pissed? So angry people would demand something they don't deserve, and you would support giving it to them?

We've seen it before. The "poor" rise up against the "rich", and soon enough, there's nobody earning money for the group anymore. Ever heard of a "brain drain"?

I can't speak for Alpha, but I'd rather have overearners keeping less and poorer people having a higher quality of life than overearners controlling more and more and poorer people being left to rot.

I'd rather have everybody keep the money they earn, instead of it being forcibly taken and redistributed to others who haven't achieved as much financially.

[Furore]

Translation: In Australia, the healthcare for the entire country is paid for by the people who make the most money.

Everyone who isn't deemed so poor as to be struggling actually. Just higher income earners such as myself pay a staggering 1% more than average income earners. We get taxed on pretty much everything too and on top of that. We also pay more than countries such as the US for several things and can still live quite comfortably. Higher quality of life, bro.

Just like in America, where nobody can be turned down for emergency medical treatment on any basis, and where there are literally thousands of programs (local, state, and federal) and charities designed specifically for healthcare costs? The difference is that if I don't want to pay somebody else's bills, I don't have to.

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.

First -- that's human development index, not quality of living. Second -- helthcare is only a small part of that. Third -- the healthcare that does affect the HDI is also affected by availability, ease of use, and ease of payment -- something that most people think is terrible in the United States because we don't have socialised medicine.

The HDI is all about quality of life. Other sources have indicated similar results but I figured the HDI was one of the more reputable and least biased of sources. Considering how absolutely SHIT Australia is in terms of other things like telecommumications I'd imagine our healthcare would be a big part of why our quality of life is so great.

In what country? In the United States, there's a much larger difference between tax rates placed on the higher earners and tax rates for the lower earners. It sure as hell isn't one percent.

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

First, you don't live in America, do you? Second, it doesn't matter if you're "comfortable" -- what matters is that you have the right to keep the money you make. If I choose to go to school and succeed, I should be able to keep the extra money that I earn. If I choose to drop out of school and flip burgers for the rest of my life, nobody else should have their money stolen (that's taken by force or threat of force) from them to support my lazy ass.

Australia. And I don't have the right to keep all of my stupidly high income nor should I be allowed to. 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. Anything else is greedy and dare I say, completely wasteful.

And you must be forgetting that it has also been tried in several countries and has failed miserably.

And those would be?

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.

[Zargabaath]

Australia. And I don't have the right to keep all of my stupidly high income nor should I be allowed to. 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. Anything else is greedy and dare I say, completely wasteful.

Folks what Silver is saying that he believes that people should be slaves to others, that he thinks that slavery is morally right, and he willingly is a slave.

Humans do not have an automatic code for survival, an automatic course of action, nor a automatic set of values. The action required to sustain human life is primarily intellectual: everything a person needs has to be discovered by their mind and produced by their effort. Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival. Knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual and the choice to exercise their rational faculty or not depends on the individual, a person's survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don't.

A person's life required by their nature is not the life of a mindless brute, of a looting thug or a mooching mystic, but the life of a thinking being - not life by means of force or fraud, but life by means of achievement - not survival at any price.

As I said earlier: a person has no automatic code for survival, people do not have an instinct of self-preservation. An instinct is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give somebody the knowledge required for living.

A person must work for their survival; that with their effort, time, and mind they are able to enjoy the fruits of their labor. To take away the product of their effort is to enslave their mind - to enslave their very being. Even if a person makes more than what the "basics" require it was their effort that created their wealth, their mind; to take away any part of it through forceful means is to enslave them wholly. To say that their life is not for them to decide what to do, that their mind is not theirs but something else's. That people are robots to whoever clamors for it the most.

People are not slaves to anybody or anything. Each has the right to pursue whatever they desire so long as it does not violate the rights others (i.e., be at the expense of others). Those who say that the violation of a person's right to the product of their work is morally right, advocates slavery of the mind and of the person.

[M16]

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.

That's because it was deducted from your taxes.

And those would be?

China and Russia, for example. Both economies collapsed when the governments tried to expand control. Prime examples of why pure socialism coupled with communism doesn't work.

[Furore]

That's because it was deducted from your taxes.

Yeah, I pay a regular sliver so I'm not hit by something that'd make the average person very happy if they won it as a prize.

China and Russia, for example. Both economies collapsed when the governments tried to expand control. Prime examples of why pure socialism coupled with communism doesn't work.

And Australia, Canada and every other country it's worked for are communists?

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

It comes down to this: Those on that higher tax bracket have a good deal more than they need even after being heavily taxed. Those in the lowest bracket mightn't have enough to get by depending on their circumstances without aid. If I can pay the highest bracket of tax in a country which is already using a system and still very easily afford to grab a 32" LCD TV, the odd game console and whatever else I want every other week I definetely have a deal more money than I need. (And yes, Australia pay more for their entertainment electronic goods then elsewhere, so my point is VERY valid).

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?

[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]

Actually we're taxed on quite a bit. Our houses, our land, our inheritances, our lottery winnings to name a few. I agree, we should cut back on the military spending. But five dollars from every pay check every second week won't come close to cutting it. It would be even worse than the system currently in place. Which shows that you don't really know anything about our system, either.

[Trodorne]

The average tax rate in Canada is much higher than in the United States. In Canada total tax and non-tax revenue for every level of government equals about 38.4% of GDP, compared to the U.S. rate of 28.2%

so you can complain about taxes all you want. frankly a system where mostly the rich come into power seems un fair for a house of representative.

I cut back on this cause it was getting into almost a page an a half long. so to save you the speech either learn to work together and come up with a way to make a better health care or ill call china and tell them to collect on the money US owes them.

[Furore]

Yeah, the rich pay a whopping 1% more of their stupidly high income. I fit that bracket myself and still live very, VERY comfortably.

As it stands, this system has been tried in several countries and has worked. It hasn't been tried in the US so the best anyone can have against it is a guess, perhaps an 'educated guess', but a guess nontheless.

[M16]

It's not a matter of still being able to live comfortably or not. Of course someone paying 34% of $250k+ a year can still live comfortably. Unless you factor in two or more children, the cost of owning a house, and the cost of utilities, food, etc.

Yes, even then, there are still plenty of people who feel no pressure at all to make ends meet. But there is still the ethical problem of telling a person in that upper tax bracket that he has to live at least a third of his life for strangers he probably has no interest in helping. I personally find it immoral to force someone to pay any percent of their life for someone else. Asking is one thing, but coercing is another story entirely.

Not that this is the primary topic in this thread, but once Bush's tax cuts expire, the upper Federal Income Tax bracket will be taxed 36-38% of their income. Add on ~9% state tax. That's 45-47%. Now add on the extra 1% Obama proposes (I actually think it was higher, but I haven't done extensive research. That makes it 46-48% of the upper tax bracket's paycheck. You are now telling anyone making that much money that they don't deserve to keep about half of what they work for. How long would you expect them to keep working under those conditions?

[Alpha]

It's not that they don't deserve it, it's just that there exists the ethical problem that so many in society have so little, while so few have so much. It's one thing to claim equality of opportunity and say that they simply need to work hard. I consider that thoroughly idealistic. It's never going to work like that. Poor people have always existed, and always will. But there's more to it than that: capitalism requires it. As capitalism is clearly the most efficient system, we cannot/should not replace it. But we must balance efficiency with moral concerns. If a family is struggling to pay for food, it would take a right bastard to tell them to shut up and work harder, especially when there are families who are absolutely secure in their expenditures, and could absorb an increase in taxes with no issue.

Then there's other concerns, such as stability of economy and society. Poor people - if they've been poor for quite some time - would probably be pretty pissed off. If for no other reason, income redistribution is important.

[M16]

So you're basically saying that income redistribution is completely acceptable when defended using the context of keeping the poor content? I disagree with this statement for starters. But besides that, it's not entirely relevant to what I was saying before, unless you want to try to link it to that.

By your argument, taxing the upper tax bracket upwards of 40% is OK and completely acceptable in order to appease the poorer people?

[Furore]

I can't speak for Alpha, but I'd rather have overearners keeping less and poorer people having a higher quality of life than overearners controlling more and more and poorer people being left to rot.

Considering I've heard the current rates are around 33%-35% anyway and Clinton had created a 39.6% bracket during his term, I don't think such a system will kill the high earners. If any of my statistics are wrong, let me know, I found them in a few minutes via google and just checked to see if the info was the same on a few other sites.

[Furore]

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.

[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?

[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.