Slaves in America

[Donnie (S3 / Jagor)]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/28/beck.immigrantworkers/index.html

I found this interesting, while I don't completely agree with everything said it's interesting nonetheless.  As someone who has bailed hay, hung dry wall, roofed houses and swept up shop floors for a living I find it hard to believe that people simply won't do a job.

I am completely incensed by the notion that we should somehow discourage people from coming to the United States.  Want do know what made us a great country?  Look no further than Liberty Enlightening the World, more commonly known as the Statue of Liberty.  You know, our nation's most recognized icon which... oddly enough was given to us by another country because we were so damn cool.

The inscription says (PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE):

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

So for debate's sake, I'd like to propose that tax reform could solve the immigration issue (as well as many others).

For example, let's consider the following change:  Do away with federal income tax and collect a federal sales tax instead.

This does a LOT of things, some of the notable ones:

• Everyone, including illegal immigrants, now pay taxes whenever they buy anything legally
• Companies are IMMEDIATELY realizing savings to the tune of 15% (roughly) of every salary they pay, further savings would be realized by relaxed regulations across almost all aspects of business
• Tax payers can lower their taxes by curbing spending
• Federal taxes are obvious instead og obfuscated (How much do you really pay in taxes, do you know?  Exactly!  The government intended it that way!)
• Tax breaks, which the government seems to love, would also function as economic stumlii

So... does anyone have any downsides to this approach?

[Alex (Riptearkill)]

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me..."
I think Emma Lazerith (sp) is insane, why would anyone openly invite the dreg's of the world to them. It should say something along the lines of "Allow your best, your most productive, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free (this line is fine), Let them come if they so choose, the intelligent, tempest-tossed to me..."


i agree jagor, it's terrible to see how prevalent xenophobia and racism is in our country even in the 21st century. The only thing i disagree with you about is tax breaks as economic stimulii, if they were worth having free markets would allocate the right amount of capital to the given field
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4620

[Donnie (S3 / Jagor)]

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me..."
I think Emma Lazerith (sp) is insane, why would anyone openly invite the dreg's of the world to them. It should say something along the lines of "Allow your best, your most productive, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free (this line is fine), Let them come if they so choose, the intelligent, tempest-tossed to me..."


i agree jagor, it's terrible to see how prevalent xenophobia and racism is in our country even in the 21st century. The only thing i disagree with you about is tax breaks as economic stimulii, if they were worth having free markets would allocate the right amount of capital to the given field
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4620

Perhaps I should clarify, my use of the term "tax break" was in contrast to what the government currently considers a tax break.  Since there would be no federal income tax a "tax break" in the scenario of a sales tax would only be able to be a sincere lowering of taxes on the populous, not the current "tax break" for big corporations setup we have now.  I probably stated it poorly, does that make more sense?

[Andrew (I2ed3ye)]

To be honest, I don't see how a tax reform would solve the issue with hiring illegal immigrants for low labor costs.  It just seems to let businesses see a higher profit from it.  It's not that they have to use cheap labor to see a profit, they do it because they want to make more money.  And there really isn't much of a punishment for doing so.  Also, I'm not taxed much.  Everything I give to the government (minus social security and all that jazz) thoughout the year comes back to me in my tax return.  But with a federal sales tax, there wouldn't really be a way to track what I've sent them.  So I'd basically be living off of less and having a need to spend less as well.

[Alex (Riptearkill)]

Perhaps I should clarify, my use of the term "tax break" was in contrast to what the government currently considers a tax break.  Since there would be no federal income tax a "tax break" in the scenario of a sales tax would only be able to be a sincere lowering of taxes on the populous, not the current "tax break" for big corporations setup we have now.  I probably stated it poorly, does that make more sense?

ah gotcha

[Donnie (S3 / Jagor)]

To be honest, I don't see how a tax reform would solve the issue with hiring illegal immigrants for low labor costs.  It just seems to let businesses see a higher profit from it.  It's not that they have to use cheap labor to see a profit, they do it because they want to make more money.  And there really isn't much of a punishment for doing so.  Also, I'm not taxed much.  Everything I give to the government (minus social security and all that jazz) thoughout the year comes back to me in my tax return.  But with a federal sales tax, there wouldn't really be a way to track what I've sent them.  So I'd basically be living off of less and having a need to spend less as well.

Last time I did the math 62% of my income goes to taxes.  I think Rob did the math and came up with a number higher than that.  You said you're not taxed much, have you added up the exact amount recently?  I'd be interested to know what it was and how it differs from mine.  If you were to add it up, be sure to include fuel taxes (currently 20% of every dollar for fuel is taxes, I believe), telecom taxes, sales taxes you already pay (which benefit local and state governments, THOSE are what are paying for police / fire coverage), car registrations (highway department), television taxes, etc.  There's lots of nooks and crannies if you want to get serious about it that don't show up on your paycheck.  For the purposes of this discussion I'm only referring to the income taxes though. 

A hint if you do add it up, the FICA number, go ahead and double it because your employer is covering half of those taxes.  Self employed folks, or business owners have to cover both parts of it which is where numbers like 62% come from.  That's where the tax reform would help with low paying employers (at least in my non-economist mind).  With tax reform your position would cost your employer 15% less to maintain.  With that money they could hire a new employee for every 6 they already had, or begin to give more than 3% raises (which don't even cover inflation lately).  Of course, I'm sure most employers wouldn't take the opportunity to do so, but theoretically if you are in high demand employers could afford to pay a higher premium to attract you.

Tax reform, however, would probably not be good news for tax lawyers, CPA's or others who generally make their living off of interpreting the current tax system. 

[Seth (Khamul/Lokokoh)]

To be honest, I don't see how a tax reform would solve the issue with hiring illegal immigrants for low labor costs.  It just seems to let businesses see a higher profit from it.  It's not that they have to use cheap labor to see a profit, they do it because they want to make more money.  And there really isn't much of a punishment for doing so.  Also, I'm not taxed much.  Everything I give to the government (minus social security and all that jazz) thoughout the year comes back to me in my tax return.  But with a federal sales tax, there wouldn't really be a way to track what I've sent them.  So I'd basically be living off of less and having a need to spend less as well.

When Donnie suggested a federal sales tax, I believe he means one that has different tiers.  For example, a loaf of bread wouldn't be taxed nearly as heavily (if at all) as the new sporty luxury car you just bought.  So there you have a built in tax break for the lower income bracket.  Not many people making <20K a year will go out and buy a yacht, so they would never have to deal with the huge tax. 

Personally, I think it's a wonderful idea, but I don't think it has much of chance to happen because it is such a drastic change.  Most people don't like change, whether it's for better or worse.  While we're at it let's fix social security too, or do away with it completely.

[Khellendross]

Fair Tax Sounds like what Donnie is talking about.

[Alex (Riptearkill)]

http://mises.org/story/1814 The Fair Tax Fraud
It's difficult to say where I stand on a progressive tax in general. I've heard moral arguments that say it is immoral to "punish" the best i.e. make them pay the most for being productive and achieving. They say you should pay by your degree of consumption. Opponents say that since these people can afford to pay more they should since there reaches a point when no person can consume their income. That isn't a very strong argument since it seems analogous to the advocation of the forcible donation of blood by every healthy person able to every several months. But what if we didn't have any progressive taxes, if we followed this fair tax idea of a complete sales tax wouldn't that promote hoarding? I don't see any conceivable way to maintain our current government without a progressive tax (not that that is a bad thing!). But even if the government were scaled back to basic levels of protecting individual rights and even setting up infrastructure and maintaining defense would taxes generate enough money if they were not directly progressive?

[Donnie (S3 / Jagor)]

Fair Tax is what I'm talking about.

I don't like a progressive tax that is based on income, because that punishes someone for their success.  However, a progressive tax on spending is a different matter altogether.  Spending more money indicates that you have more disposable income, therefore I wouldn't mind the government taking a slice of... say... my sports car purchase 2 years ago.  But taking a slice of the money I intend to use for the birth of my child, now that's shady.  Those are just two examples, of course I could list many.

The government has too many programs.  Scaling back to an "acceptable" level would likely not even affect average Americans.  I'm not talking about getting rid of everything the government does that isn't on the Constitution (although that's not such a bad idea).  I'm just talking about getting rid of the things that the government does which are frivolous, unnecessary and / or targeted specifically towards a minority group.  It's these things which are a burden on the majority and it is these things which could be removed if needed.  Although, I suspect that the government would actually MAKE money with a Fair Tax approach.  Just think of how many tax dodgers would pay their taxes and think of how much the government spends now on the IRS and chasing the tax dodgers.  That ALONE is a fortune of untapped taxes that you are virtually guaranteed to recoup.

Good discussion, I'm having fun... <3 you guys for not flipping out on me for my crazy ideas. 

[Alex (Riptearkill)]

people aren't flipping out on you regardless of what your ideas are because A. you come across as someone looking for the best possible answer and not just defending them self and B. You have a pretty sound argument

[MilambrMoo]

Sorry, I don't seem to be able to read all that cuz its just not exciting enough to hold my attention.  Anyways..  How does one tax a person who is working illegally?  ATM, taxes in Ontario are 13% to buy items (PST = provincial sales tax) (GST = umm.. the rest sales tax ).  Real food doesnt get taxes at grocery stores, but junk food does.  with the exception of people who get money from the Govt (not unemployment insurance or what not, but social services and disability to name a pair) you work, your pay is taxed, you spend, you pay taxes, so our almighty buck is taxed twice most times.

Who knows where the answer lies? Greed is the almighty answer.  Owners want more money, they raise prices.  Buyers need more money to buy items, they want a raise.  Raises cause higher prices, higher prices cause higher wage needs.  It thus gets to the point that greed wants to get rid of the paying out high wages, but to keep the high prices.  They hire Juan from across the border cuz he dont need to pay 15$ an hour when $5 will do for the same job.  Now, I have seen people at work, and for the most part, they dont respect themselves or their jobs or get the respect they think they deserve (wether its the right amount, or over the top), and tend to slack off.  From word of whatever on the other hand, these poor people who are being hired for chump change, work their asses off for the little they have cuz they are really happy to get it, and have seen worse.  So you tell me. How does one negate greed?

It might sound stupid, but in all honesty, after I started to watch Star Trek TNG, they had the right idea.  Dump monetary value, and work as a species.  That aint happening yet till we have a major upset in our thinking process. (something to threat the planet might cause most to work together for a single goal).  I know, its easy to think life would be nice if like that.  We dont have the tech to live like they did, but it sure would be nice to have everyone wanting, and getting proper schooling.  blah blah...  I will stop talking now.

Lyle

[Bane]

That <star trek> only happened with the invention of a nearly endless energy supply and a machine that could make food from energy. That's how it came to be.
limitless energy and food would solve a lot of problems. Just have to eradicate religion to have total peace   
 
I'm such a nerd 

[Khellendross]

That <star trek> only happened with the invention of a nearly endless energy supply and a machine that could make food from energy. That's how it came to be.
limitless energy and food would solve a lot of problems. Just have to eradicate religion to have total peace   
 
I'm such a nerd 

Lets create a mini black hole in some form of containment field and utilize the energy from that >.>

[Alex (Riptearkill)]

Lets create a mini black hole in some form of containment field and utilize the energy from that >.>

Large Hadron Collider imo
@Lyle, i take it you're a communist. While the rest of the thread has not held you're attention please read this about money I would really like to hear input from someone who thinks as you do. http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1826
Less than a 5 minute read please do it

[Khellendross]

Lets create a mini black hole in some form of containment field and utilize the energy from that >.>

Large Hadron Collider imo

It could possibly create them, however they would be so tiny (we're talking on a subatomic scale with the mass of maybe a few grams) that they would dissappate via hawkings radiation prior to them being able to even "float" anywhere to begin engorging themselves. There is talk however of mini black holes being trapped within saturn and jupiter, which would answer some questions about the wierd storms at the north/south poles of Saturn and the wierd heat on both planets (much warmer than they should be from just the sun keeping them warm)

[Alex (Riptearkill)]

if this was the case then wouldn't they be able to be directly detected by their enormous  gravitational pull relative to the planet, or are they so small they would fall below detection? It seems fantastical that something dense enough to collapse in on itself could have a planet formed around it?

[Khellendross]

Primordial Black Holes (remnants left over from the Big Bang) have rougly the mass of Mount Everest to the size of the moon, they're marble to softball sized. and travel pretty freely through the universe, it is possible that they could have been on a path through Jupiter or Saturn (large, high gravity planets) and gotten trapped, they would've bounced back and forth until settling at the center. as they absorb material they would release enormous amounts of energy, which could be the cause of the heat/storms.

[Alex (Riptearkill)]

I guess I dont understand them as well as i thought. How can you contain one, i thought everything that came near enough was slowly pulled toward it until it reached the event horizon and then was absorbed into the mass If there were a repulsive force say dark energy completely surrounding it you could possibly trap one, but I don't see how a ball of gas could trap it. I also wasn't aware they emitted anything, I thought black holes were detected from the gamma and other radiation emitted from quasars or similar things floating around them.

hehe digression from immigration to black holes

[Khellendross]

The event horizon for a hole that small would be between 1-20 meters (3-60ft) dependant upon the mass of it. like i said, if an object of greater mass has one pass through it, it is possible for the gravitational pull of the greater mass object to capture it over time. leaving it stationary at the center of the object.

Its not that the hole emits anything, but as things fall into it they emit high energy X-rays and other forms of radiation.

[MilambrMoo]

Alex... I got as far as "money is the root of all evil" and stopped.  Why? I will ask you this. How stupid must a person be to believe that an item is the root of anything? greed starts and ends with us.  Own your emotions, and how you act and react with them.

Now... I didnt get a chance to read on after Alex's msg, but it started to look like my comment wasn't taken as I wished it to me.  I commented on ST:TNG cuz of how they live in the sense of no poverty, how everyone works together for a common goal that benefits mankind instead of their own pockets.

Now that I have scanned the rest, talking about black holes and the like... Don't ya think the topic got off topic?

[Donnie (S3 / Jagor)]

What... immigration and taxation turned to quantum physics and interplanetary geology.  I see the relevance!    That's why I love these boards, we're all such unapologetic nerds! 

[Khellendross]

But kinda back on topic, i think the fair tax would be the only real way to Tax people w/o the loopholes and other crap ye get today (not to mention illegals would pay taxes (better) than they do now)

Doing away with Fed/State Income Taxes and charging a tax on goods would ensure that you still pay those taxes, however you'd pay them better in proportion to what you buy. The more you make (income) The more you tend to buy, so it would still be a tax that those who make more would pay more into.

Easy way of not paying as much tax would be not spending as much money buying things. very simple imo.

[Donnie (S3 / Jagor)]

Easy way of not paying as much tax would be not spending as much money buying things. very simple imo.

That's one of my favorite points... When I had more money to blow (young, single, newly married) I would be taxed more.  It wouldn't have anything to do with how much I made.  That would allow people to set a comfortable standard of living and adjust their spending to make sure they still have money for what they consider necessities.

Good point imo.

[Alex (Riptearkill)]

wouldn't a fair tax promote hoarding, wouldn't it also promote buying services instead of goods?

[Khellendross]

Not really. And even so. Goods and Services would be under the same tax (I believe). so there wouldn't really be much change.

[MilambrMoo]

So tell me again what happens when goods aren't being bought?  Im assuming, so don't quote this as my word of God, but...  If people spend less, then that means stores keep the items, after a while, they are either shipped back to original company, or stored in a big assed warehouse.  So when a company doesnt sell its items, it surely wont give raises, or hire more people...  I know that some companies would close shop, I know some companies would lessen their work force, and I also know some companies will give a choice of either offering you your job but with less pay, or no job.  So, with that said, personally I dont see how hoarding would work.  If anything, one would almost think taxing the job, and lessen the cost of items would make the jobs stay safe...  Products in demand need to be made.  Raises, more jobs (means more taxes)...  Is it possible to maybe tax the job, calculate the % you need to make it work, and when the #'s of people working change, higher or lower, the % changes (say biannually) according to who is working.  No, I dont believe that Donnie who makes a cool $1,000,000,000 a year should pay more or less % than Me making my awsome $5 a year   I don't believe that higher pay should get taxed more than the regular folks, I also don't believe they should pay less either.  Just part of my 2 cents worth

BTW, not saying it will or not, but if someone wishes to place my attitude in a category, then they can just say I am a Lyleist.  I believe what I believe, and with proper insight, my mind set might change.. But regardless if I change or not, it will still then, and always be ME.

Lyle

[Donnie (S3 / Jagor)]

So tell me again what happens when goods aren't being bought?  Im assuming, so don't quote this as my word of God, but...  If people spend less, then that means stores keep the items, after a while, they are either shipped back to original company, or stored in a big assed warehouse.  So when a company doesnt sell its items, it surely wont give raises, or hire more people...  I know that some companies would close shop, I know some companies would lessen their work force, and I also know some companies will give a choice of either offering you your job but with less pay, or no job.  So, with that said, personally I dont see how hoarding would work.  If anything, one would almost think taxing the job, and lessen the cost of items would make the jobs stay safe...  Products in demand need to be made.  Raises, more jobs (means more taxes)...  Is it possible to maybe tax the job, calculate the % you need to make it work, and when the #'s of people working change, higher or lower, the % changes (say biannually) according to who is working.  No, I dont believe that Donnie who makes a cool $1,000,000,000 a year should pay more or less % than Me making my awsome $5 a year   I don't believe that higher pay should get taxed more than the regular folks, I also don't believe they should pay less either.  Just part of my 2 cents worth

BTW, not saying it will or not, but if someone wishes to place my attitude in a category, then they can just say I am a Lyleist.  I believe what I believe, and with proper insight, my mind set might change.. But regardless if I change or not, it will still then, and always be ME.

Lyle

I don't think hoarding, on a broad scale, is likely.  We've completely lost our independence as a society here in North America, so we CAN'T go without buying things from others.  Not necessities, certainly, but many (most?) people are addicted to consumerism and feel they can't live without the latest phone, car, clothes, whatever.  I'm willing to bet, by virtue of the fact that we all play online games together, that none of us have gone the way of the mountain man... but you're probably close, huh moo?  Or maybe Pete, I think he's close too... not sure though.

I would just personally prefer to pay taxes on my own terms.  As it is, the government takes money from me before I ever see it and they do whatever they do with it.  Then, at the end of each year, they say "Oh, sorry, we took too much, here's some back..."  That money could have gone into an investment, or any number of things... the point being I believe it should be mine BEFORE it's theirs. 

[MilambrMoo]

I won't try to assume I know what the monies is all spent on within the Gov't, without a doubt someone is scamming something from someone...

Mountain man... Hermit? Ya.  I pay taxes whenever I pay a bill, rent, or buy just bout anything other than non-junk food.  When I worked, the best I did way back when was $17.65 an hour in bout 1995 area...  They took taxes from me like there was no tomorrow...  Am I happy about that? Hardly. Do I complain? No, cuz I know that even tho a portion is scammed, that most gets used for what we Canadians love about our country. Its nice here.  Health benefits are a plus.  I don't think it fair for money to get taxed more than once (RRSPs come to mind).  Anyhoo...  Yes, when it comes to getting taxes back, they should be giving you the interest it would have accumulated if it was sitting in your bank.  I won't get into the "I could have done such and such" debate, cuz on the flip side, what if you had the cash in yer pocket, bout to invent it, and get mugged, or the investment went sour, either or, you lose the money... anyhoo (again)...  I believe (not likely to happen but) that the people in charge (Gov't) know where the money should be spent the best. I know, hands in pockets and the like, but I wouldnt pretend it would be in anyone's best interest if I was allowed to choose where the money was spent.  I only know what I know, and obviously would only chose what I thought needed fixing should get fixed.  Don't really think that was where you were going Donnie, but just wanted to toss it in there for shits and grins  

Picture my face when I am first told that... Not only did I pay taxes on the car that I bought, but when I sold it to my buddy, the same car, which was already taxed TWICE at least (not sure if orginal owner was before me or farther up the ladder) had to again pay taxes...  I mean, I do really agree with taxing an item, and of course the larger the item, the more you spend on taxes... But for them to be allowed to re-tax things? That makes Lyle puke.

Spend the money, as long as it isnt a big spending spree, needs to be a constant flow of selling (in my eyes) for it to work best.  No good to want a billion mr. potato heads, hire a trillion people, give a gazillion out in raises, and then nobody goes shopping next day   Sorry, didn't wanna attempt to make it look statistical. 

Also, just wanna make a personal note here... Sometimes I do not remember what I just said, so if ya quote me on something, I might even end up arguing with myself

[Bane]

I do live   on a mountain, faaaaaar from a metro area.But I do like to have a new  cell phone every year or so, and
I  upgrade my computers  often. I also buy a lot of movies, but mostly  when they are cheaper (on the 5-9 dollar rack @ wally world)