US Tax Policies

Why should the state not provide social services? Why is that not a good way to fix debt?[/quote:1gozhcq0]Social services are a tax burden and gives too much power to the government and not enough to the people. And your idea simply wouldn't raise enough money, and would discourage business competition and if you taxed all business then starting a small business would become too hard, giving larger corporations a monopoly in the market, increasing prices and decreasing wages, as well as jobs.[/quote:1gozhcq0]
No they help the people that is what they are for and why they are provided. Did you not read my earlier post, I want higher taxes on the rich and corporations but lower taxes on the lower middle classes along with small business.

there's always money in the banana stand.

@observer.
Indeed they do. But it is not the governments job. Their were, are, and could be more private groups and charities which provide social services. And no I did not read your earlier post, I apologize. Your idea sounds good, but it still would not generate enough money. Indeed, we would need that, massive cutbacks on spending, the reduction of government size, and the re-prioritization of law enforcement and the liberalization of civil liberties, as well as much much more.

No do you know how much the rich make and much of it we can get just end tax breaks? We close loopholes and raise taxes that would be enough along with cuts to things like the military there would be plenty of cash to get rid of the debt. It is the government's job to protect and help it's people, corporations can not be relied upon as they are only ever in it for themselves.

You think social services run by the government give too little power to the people, so you want them to be run by a few people on a board of directors rather than elected representatives?

We need to raise taxes on all things, mostly focusing on the poor and the extremely rich.
I'm sure the best possible way to solve unemployment would be to take MORE money from corporations.

Also, it would be foolish to try and only use increased taxes to pay off the debt. We need to cut spending a lot too. I'd go for a ballenced aproach, something between 40-60% each.

Sure, we can't pay off the Debt, but the Deficit (which I'm assuming your refering too implicidly) would be easy. No one is willing to cut the money though because we're so damn polarized.

I don't want to be forced to pay for social services. The government can run it, so long as it's financed by donations.

Yeah tax the poor! That's a great idea! I mean they have no money to begin with so why not make them go homeless?

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
Article 25.
Just throwing that out there...

The too are related. Reduction in deficit spending would result in a reduction of debt creation. Unfortunately with less debt creation comes less money creation, which means we would have less capability of restarting the circular flow of currency as it naturally settles into relatively fixed positions.

Says the guy who supports a flat tax.

If taxes were voluntary, we'd be a third world country.

9-9-9 just sounds good and tha is reason enough to support it.

Nine inches nine toppings nine dollars?

You're joking, right?

Not exactly. If your an Objectivist or Libertarian, maybe everything is better than ever. It's ridiculous to say we'd be a Third World Country though.

Who the hell would pay taxes if we didn't have to? No taxes: No roads, schools, parks, police, etc.

yes I was joking, do I need a sarcasm flag?

So what? Private corporations would create those things and police, schools, roads, etc. would be privatly bought and purchased. Charity might help the more poverty stricken. It might be immoral and such, but I doubt it would make us a Third World Country. We wont lose running water.

Where are these companies supposed to get their money from? How is the water company gonna get money? How is the government gonna get money? A country is run by taxes.