• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

Way too good to be true...


PeteEU said:
LOL you should stop listening to Forbes and his crew. Flat tax is a horrible idea and will only benefit the rich..who funny enough are the ones proposing such idiotic policy.
Click to expand...

Great, more socialist attempts at class warfare. In reality, economic growth benefits poor people the most.


PeteEU said:
Do the math and you will understand how flat tax hurts the low wage earners much more than it does the multi millionaires proposing such policies.
Click to expand...

Oh noes, someone may have to come a bit closer to pulling one's own economic weight instead of stealing from others, which is what Welfare in fact is... The horror! The horror! :roll:



There are many other reasons why Eastern Europe was hit badly by the recession (which was caused by government interference, BTW). Correlation does not prove causation, especially with such a small data sample.


PeteEU said:
As for completely eliminate welfare.. move to Somalia and see how that is.
Click to expand...

Better than many of its neighbors, actually, but only because their big bad government is so fragmented and dysfunctional. A corrupt and dysfunctional government can be less toxic to the economy than a functional one.


PeteEU said:
Countries without any safety net rank as some of the poorest and worst off on the planet.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure, the world's most capitalist countries -- Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, etc -- are also the poorest. Brilliant. :roll:


PeteEU said:
It is a egotists dream [...]
Click to expand...

You say it as if egoism is a bad thing, and not the driving force behind the human civilization...


PeteEU said:
[...] and all are basicly ruled by the gun and the rich. Is that how you vision your country?
Click to expand...

Rich people don't have a "divine right" to initiate aggression - only the governments do.
 
Last edited:
I'm as anti-union as one gets, but no one actually supports "banning" unions. People can unionize until they're blue in the face, unions are pointless without the government violence that backs them.
 
Alex Libman said:
I'm as anti-union as one gets, but no one actually supports "banning" unions. People can unionize until they're blue in the face, unions are pointless without the government violence that backs them.
Click to expand...

A union doesn't need the government for them to work. Strikes, boycotts, closed shop action, it all doesn't require the government.

(This is unrelated to the thread, but)

I am currently leaning against unions, but their power should just be limited to what the union can do legally. (which means a union shouldn't be allowed to stay inside of a factory to prevent other workers from entering)

>I suppose the only type of government intervention should be that a worker can't be fired from their work simply because they are in a union. I consider this simillar to laws against companies saying outright that "no colored allowed." Even though individuals should theoretically be free to fire someone for being black or being in a union, there is still limits.

But of course, if there is a strike then the company can demand that the strike stop or else they will rehire

If a union doesn't have the support of a large enough percentage of the elligible workforce, then they don't have a right to demand anything.
 
nerv14 said:
I suppose the only type of government intervention should be that a worker can't be fired from their work simply because they are in a union.
Click to expand...

Why not? I don't want the hassle of dealing with a union, so to save money I'll avoid hiring people in a union. Of course, if they all secretly join a union and spring it on me all at once, then I'm in a pretty tough position. There's no way that I'm going to fire my entire workforce. If they go on strike, that decision gets a little easier though.
 
nerv14 said:
A union doesn't need the government for them to work. Strikes, boycotts, closed shop action, it all doesn't require the government.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. Without government violence a company can just fire / kick the people it doesn't want off its property, which is their natural right as property owners, and hire people who are willing to work for a fair wage, which is objectively determined by supply and demand.

You can't boycott companies that would pay a market wage, because that's pretty much all the companies out there (with the possible exception of some idealistic mom'n'pop businesses up in Vermont somewhere, and that business philosophy just won't scale to meet the demand). The economic reality is that most people in the world just don't want to pay substantially more for their goods just to support the lucky workers who're getting above their market wage while other workers who'd be willing to offer a greater value go unemployed. That's simply unfair.
 

You are forgetting what the union can do when they have membership of most of the people in a certain industry. Then they can make demands.

What if everyone who was trained in air traffic control went on strike. Then the union could make any demands it wanted.

However, that can only happen if the air companies get their workers so mad that they all agree to a strike. So even if a suscesful strike is rare, it can still happen without government intervention.

Am I wrong?
 

Having been a business owner myself I can say with absolute certainty that if my entire workforce were to unionize, I would either fire my entire workforce or close shop. I will not be bullied by any organisation even if it cuts my own throat.
 
nerv14 said:
You are forgetting what the union can do when they have membership of most of the people in a certain industry. Then they can make demands.
Click to expand...

That's not very likely to happen. The most unionized industries tend to be the ones with the lowest barrier to entry. I've never heard of a C Programmers' union - unless you're talking about shared bits. :lol:

Companies will simply avoid hiring employees who are suspected of having union ties. Those jobs should go to the people willing to offer the best value for the company, and there are plenty of people in India and Africa who deserve a chance to lift themselves out of poverty.


nerv14 said:
What if everyone who was trained in air traffic control went on strike. Then the union could make any demands it wanted.
Click to expand...

That would be terrible, which is why unionization should be discouraged, which would have been very easy to do if it wasn't for demagogue politicians backing unions up with the guns of the state.

In a free society, going on strike is career suicide. You'd be fired immediately, blacklisted, and no one in their right mind would ever hire you again!


nerv14 said:
However, that can only happen if the air companies get their workers so mad that they all agree to a strike. So even if a suscesful strike is rare, it can still happen without government intervention.
Click to expand...

Government intervention is all over the place when it comes to hiring or firing workers, and even more so in Europe than in the USA. Without the government employment would be a lot more market-driven, and thus a lot more rational, flexible, and efficient. Your reputation is your greatest asset - trying to steal unearned benefits (which is what unions are all about) would be a big faux pas.
 

If it is unskilled labour, then by all means it should go to India or China. It will even with unions because you can't unionize all of China, or anything outside of your country anyway. I support capitalism, foreign aid and globalization, so my top priority is other countrie's poor citizens.

And with all of your talk about unions, it sounds like you want to make them illegal.

I am just stating that natural strikes exist, and they can always exist without government intervention.

If anything, the harm of unions is just because they have done all that they could, when now it should be left up to the open market. But unions have done alot of help in the past, and they therefore may have some use in the future.
We shouldn't just allow blacklists for all people who simply join a union, especially if they don't strike. We need to think about the possible future benefits of unions, and basically by definition, we won't know what that is now.
 
 

I see no problem with this system as it is not person 3's fault or responsibility to create a lifestyle for his neighbors. And he is still paying exponential amounts of tax compared to his other 2 neighbors.


Oh the less rich people won't be getting entitlements from the hard working man who earned his fortune with his own sweat. Boo hoo. It's not his responsibility to elevate the standard of living of his neighbors. And he still pays more tax overall.

Basically with the progressive tax, you are punishing a man for being financially successful. That stifles ambition and is the reason communism and socialism fail epically.
 

I never said the union was evil and I never said it relates to a union not being able to exist. You said that if the air traffic controllers went on strike they would get whatever they want. I showed you were wrong. It's that simple.
 
Beautiful isn't it?

Why take more money from the wealthy, run the dollar through the government meat grinder, and spit out a politically targeted quarter?

Isn't it better for the wealth to be handled by those that have generated it... and used to create more jobs, goods and services, and with it more opportunity and higher paying jobs?

Those that prefer to sit on the sofa and swill beer and watch TV shouldn't be profiting from those who are taking risk, and busting their asses.

.
 
Last edited:

That's nice, but finish the transform and apply the time factor.

Person 3 does not (and can not) spend his 8000 dollars all at once. He spends some and invests the remainder until he needs it, thus funding business activity that employs Persons 4, 5, and 6, who are also paid 10 and 100 dollars per year, instead of being unemployed.

Double Person 3's tax rate to 40%, reduce his disposable income to $6,000, and Person 6 and possibly Person 5 is no longer employed.

Your zeal to penalize Person 3 for his success costs Person 6 and Person 5 their jobs. Awesome compassion you have there.
 
I've said it before.

Leftists have essentially destroyed the state of California. Welfare along with runaway illegal alien migration have added insult to injury. There isn't a single politician in Sacramento that is worth spit.
 
Ca wants to be bailed out by the Feds. Hell, it's like bailing out a 3rd world country with no hopes of any return.
 
I've said it before.

Leftists have essentially destroyed the state of California. Welfare along with runaway illegal alien migration have added insult to injury. There isn't a single politician in Sacramento that is worth spit.
Click to expand...

It's pretty ridiculous to claim that a program as successful as calWORKS is responsible for this when the government has been basically hemorrhaging money in much more bureaucratic and wasteful ways, just like every other state (and the federal government, as well).

"Blame the leftists" seems to me to be more of a cop out than an actual addressing of the issue.

Ca wants to be bailed out by the Feds. Hell, it's like bailing out a 3rd world country with no hopes of any return.
Click to expand...

That's what pretty much every bailout is like. The return is in not having the entire state collapse into rioting, chaos and economic meltdown, which is what would happen if they got rid of calWORKS.
 
Last edited:
Khayembii Communique said:
That's what pretty much every bailout is like. The return is in not having the entire state collapse into rioting, chaos and economic meltdown, which is what would happen if they got rid of calWORKS.
Click to expand...

Sure, it might be like that for a while, but it would put us on the road to economic sustainability again.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
That's what pretty much every bailout is like. The return is in not having the entire state collapse into rioting, chaos and economic meltdown, which is what would happen if they got rid of calWORKS.
Click to expand...
The entire state is on public assistance?
 

Nice math but you totally miss the point as a good right winger. You are so focused on the "rich" that you fail to see the huge majority of the people are in the first 2 categories. So you are basically saying, screw the less well off as long as the super rich get their tax breaks because then they can maybe invest the money somewhere. Like it or not person 1 and 2 are what drive any economy. Person 3 can invest all his wealth but without the spending of person 1 and 2, person 3 will never achieve or expand on his or her wealth.

And I love your last comment.. may I ask where your compassion is for person 1 and 2 when they cant afford to buy food for their children or cloths for themselves? Person 3 can afford to pay that little extra in taxes, where as person 1 and 2 cant. Giving a tax break to the majority of people vs the very small minority is and always has been the best course, but listening to you only the rich matter. Great compassion there dude.
 
The entire state is on public assistance?
Click to expand...

The entire state is affected by the situation, and to remove calWORKS completely would have a profound ripple effect throughout the state and the country.
 
PeteEU said:
Person 3 can invest all his wealth but without the spending of person 1 and 2, person 3 will never achieve or expand on his or her wealth.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And if the government confiscates Person 3's wealth, nobody achieves anything and everybody gets nothing.

Tolerating Person 3's success lets everyone else work, feed themselves, and a chance at prosperity.

Demonizing Person 3's success lets everyone else go unemployed, hungry, with no chance for anything.

Private enterprise and capitalistic endeavor employ more people, feed more people, and accomplish more social good than all government programs combine. Government little more than a parasite--a problem, not a solution.
 

For the love of God, why is this so hard to grasp? I understood this concept in fourth grade, yet liberals love to wrap the "Reaganomics" tag on it and make it sound like some grand Ponzi scheme.

Either liberals are intellectually dishonest enough to argue against what they know to be true, or they are dumber than I was in fourth grade. I suspect the former, and unfortunately for them it flies in the face of their political agenda, which is to reward the lazy in exchange for the collective vote.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…