The fact that republicans didn't complain about the debt as much before Obama doesn't make their complaints about it now invalid. Besides, your analogy is invalid because stealing is always wrong, there are times when running a deficit is the necessary thing to do (i.e. we're going to war). A better analogy would be someone running up a $5,000 debt on there credit card while someone else runs up a $25,000 debt. Both are bad, but the first one is obviously more manageable while the second is the one where you know something has to fundamentally change to how you manage your finances.
Like I said, I'm studying to become a CPA, I've taken plenty of finance and economics courses, but I also get information from the news: CNN, Fox, MSNBC, Bloomberg, CNBC, Al Jazeera, and even the BBC sometimes. If the only source of education about economics you get is from your professors, then your understanding comes at the whim of those professors' biases.
This is the problem many people have when they try to understand conservative policies, they assume all other factors stay the same.
Let me ask you this: Why is the cost of college so high? Why has it increased at a rate far greater than inflation? It's definitely not because of capitalism or Wall Street. It's because of government policy. Public universities know that the government will just keep giving aid for kids to go to college. There's no pressure on them to cut costs, they can just keep raising tuition because instead of blaming the school, students blame the government for not giving them enough money to go to school. You see how that works? Capitalism would force schools to cut costs.
Also, private schools are not cheaper then public schools; public schools are just subsidized so the bill they send you ends up being smaller. You've already paid for it through the taxes you and your parents have paid. If the government didn't do that, we would be able to keep more of our money and thus have it to save for college ourselves.
What do you mean rampant nepotism? My dad helped me get a summer job. Is that what you are talking about? If so, then I don't see that as a problem, that's how the world has always worked. Are you talking about parents getting there kids out of trouble or giving them so much that they never have to work? If so, those cases are few and far between. Stop making caricatures of how our economy works based on the handful of Paris Hiltons out there in the world.
People have been helping people all the time. Do you think there were no poor people before Welfare? Of course there were, and they were being helped by individuals, churches, communities, etc. No one cried to the government to do something, they got up themselves and did it. And they continue to do it today.
Glad you admit that, far too many people are claiming that they don't (See the Occupy Movement).
A rate where everyone pays the same rate is garbage? To me, that sounds fair. In fact, that's the definition of fair. (Though not to be confused with the "fair tax").
And why do you only count disposable income? It's not the government's role to make sure your job pays you enough to live on, that's your responsibility. Besides, cost of living is driven by high taxes. The reason why our food is more expensive is because corporations have to pay income tax, payroll tax, tariffs, etc. If you cut those, then prices will drop and thus the cost of living will drop.
But let's forget that previous paragraph. You should be happy with the following solution. Make the first $20,000 of income tax free, and tax everything above that at a flat 20%. Would that work for you? Because it seems like your issue with the pure flat tax would go away.
And I say, so what? Who cares how much someone else makes. As long as those are not ill-gotten gains, why does it matter? The economy is not a zero sum game, if that were the case then it would be impossible for it to ever grow. If one person makes more, it doesn't mean someone else made less. Income inequality is one of the most overrated numbers people cite because it assumes that income equality is a goal. It's not. I worked harder than 90% of my peers in high school and college, why should I feel guilty for making much more then them?
Who wants to be taxed more? You mean those few rich liberals who go on TV asking to have their taxes raised but then refuse to pay more on their own? Those same people who still pay accountants hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars to minimize their tax liability?
Conservatives reach into their pockets and give more to the poor freely while liberals reach into other peoples pockets and give more to the poor by force (after sending the money through a horribly inefficient bureaucracy). As someone once said, you can't be charitable with other people's money.
Well, the information comes from Arthur Brooks' book "Who Really Cares."
So why did you even bring them up? No one else was talking about them.
Well maybe you're the one who is either "uninformed" or "misinformed?" If the only conservatives you can find are racist ones when about 40% of this country labels itself as conservative (Source:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-conservatives-outnumber-moderates-liberals.aspx), then you're the one who hasn't been exposed to varying viewpoints.
A flat tax rate isn't fair. That's only one portion of the taxes you pay. Plus like in my example, look at disposable income. A progressive tax rate is a balance for the sale tax (which puts more burden on the poor because they have a larger propensity to spend because they need it to survive). Also, a flat tax rate has to be balanced out by an increase in sales tax, which all the proposed flat tax plans want to use. In other words, they are proposing putting more of the tax burden on the poor.
I agree that the deficit is bad either way, it just drives me nuts that people are acting like this is a "socialist" thing or whatever. It's more like a politician thing.
My information comes from a wide variety of professors. I have 3 econ professors, a finance professor, a stats professor, and a business law professor (who has a MBA and JD) who I talk to fairly regularly about this stuff. They can usually see through the media's bias or at least get me to look at things in a different light. For example, most rich people went to college, the benefits of college are almost soley on the person graduating. So wouldn't it make sense they get taxed more to pay back some of that benefit they recieved since colleges are made affordable through taxes? stuff like that. Then I do my own research and apply what I've learned. If an article seems too opinionated, or isn't written by someone with a degree, I don't read it. Journalists aren't economists.
School does cost more, but it's also easier for non-legacy students to go to college. It's not the cost I'm worried about as much as availability. Not only that but it's likely also similar to how MLB player's salaries have increased incredibly fast. It was an untapped money maker that wasn't realized at the time.
I know that public schools don't actually cost less. However, my parents combine make less than 40,000, for 3 kids. Growing up, I didn't always have cable. sometimes, I had to shower at grandmas because the water was turned off. I was late for class because the electricity was turned off and my alarm clock was off. Yet I got good grades, I started working summer jobs at 15 and haven't stopped. Now I work 30 hours a week and go to college and get mostly As and Bs. I thank people for paying taxes to give me a chance. Without it, there is no way in hell I am in college. Maybe it's a bias perspective, but if taxes are a restriction on success, so is being born less fortunate. The goal of capitalism (the way I see it) is that the best doctors become doctors, the best businessmen become businessmen, etc. That doesn't happen with pure capitalism because some people simple can't afford to go to school.
I'm talking about nepotism like how if there wasn't tax money to afford school, and say I'm working in a factory and I'm smart, my boss isn't going to pay for my school, he's going to pay for his son's/friend's/family friend's school instead to justify promoting him. Yes, it is always how the world has worked. The vast majority of suburban kids I know are getting internships/jobs through their parents and don't work through school. Under pure capitalism, these would be the only kids in college. You'd end up not truly having the best doctors/businessmen, etc.
They help out like-people. I live in springfield, mo, this is where church is big business. They'll help you...if you're a christian. That's how it works. I really doubt, because people are naturally bias, that minorities would be helped out as much. I don't ask for the government to help me. I don't ask for a handout. I don't think there should be handouts. I consider it "opportunity". Saying "if you get accepted into a college and your parents get less than 30,000 a year and you are in good academic standing, you get 3,000/year in grant money" isn't a handout. That's an opportunity.
Back to flat tax rate. It's not a rate where everyone pays the same. You aren't looking at the big picture. Yes, it SHOULD be disposable income. People aren't paid enough here. There is too much of a discrepency between the people at the top and the people at the bottom. In Dallas, business owners are bitchin that people are 'too lazy' to work their minimum wage job they have available. the workers aren't lazy, the owners are greedy. It's basic economics because the price of labor isn't different than the price of anything else. Raise the wage and I guarantee more people work. More and more people are realizing that the fat cats at the top are paid too much and are sick of it.
With any tax, there is a deadweight loss. That is, the amount of money not made because of the artificially higher price. However, if the benefit is greater than the deadweight loss, it's worth it. It's incredibly hard to measure both, but lowering price isn't that simple.
No, my issue with a flat tax wouldn't go away because the cost of living varies even between cities 45 miles apart. Or even different areas of the same city. You'd have people cheating by claiming they live in one place. Or you'd have people moving out of one state if the other had better rates. For example, my state, Missouri, is proposing eliminating state income tax and raising sales tax 7%. however, St. Louis and Kansas City, our two biggest cities, are borders of other states that would have lower sales taxes. People would just drive 20 miles and shop in bulk and our tax revenue would go down when we already don't have enough. Cost of living is too hard to measure, so a progressive tax system is sort of a quick and dirty way to help curb and balance out all the other taxes and how they proportionately affect people.
This whole "I worked for what I have" thing is bullshit. Either your parents paid for your private school, or tax payers paid for it to be affordable. Either way, you owe it. You're a member of the lucky sperm club or societ helped you. I think our system right now is fine. The tax system is fine. You are allowed opportunity that if you work hard you can actually achieve but it's pretty hard to really free ride. I work just as hard as you but if I'm ever making 250,000/year, I'll gladly pay more than someone making less because I know there is some kid out there, a kid like I am/was (at the time) who is driven but doesn't have the financial means to accomplish what he/she wants.
Income inequality isn't as useless as you think. Rich people don't spend as much (proportionately). If there isn't spending, there isn't expansion. The economy is demand-driven. There is very little evidence for supply-side (trickle down) economics. If you have 1 million dollars, if it's spread among 20 people, more of it is going to be spent than if it's on one person. The one person will likely spend a large chunk, but the rest is saved and invested. Capital gains tax is another subject all together. Although I will say that I've read that most flat tax propositions eliminate a cap gains tax, which would encourage the rich who are already under their system getting a tax break, to save and invest more. Also, I do think they're ill-gotten gains because they're off the backs of people working a lot harder and getting paid a lot less.
the government is inefficient. My viewpoint is that our system is fine the way it is. Under normal circumstances, we are booming right now. The capital is in the system to expand and spend. We are just afraid. Europe, in a way, has hurt us more than we have hurt ourselves. A lot of institutions in europe sold bonds to us because they needed the cash. This brought down our liquidity and slowed our growth. Fear of collapse around the world has slowed our growth. Dramatically changing our system isn't going to change that.
It seems to me that you believe in the idea of "work hard and you'll achieve" more than I do. I think "work hard and someone will hire their son over you and you'll be his assistant". It's why I appreciate people paying tax money for my benefit and will gladly pay my share for someone else to benefit. It's not a perfect system and it's a clunky system but it does help.
If you're a conservative, how do you feel about gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, and abortion? Honestly, these are non-issues when discussed from a moral perspective. economically, all should be legal.
I agree a lot with Ba-Bomb on the "not more or less, but the right kind of restriction". A lot of times, regulations get passed to try to fix something, but they're forced through because the people want to see immediate results. They spend money on a bad regulation and people get mad an abandon it. so you're in a worse position than before because you accomplished nothing and spent a bunch of money.
