Flat Tax Rate. (1 Viewer)

[absolution*]

if i could be bothered id debate you.


but i cant.


i tend to only debate with people of relative intelligence.

 

[Shuter]

The only thing you debate with is your dick every night.

 

[absolution*]

The only thing you debate with is your dick every night.

Hmmm. I dont get it? Was that supposed to make sense?

 

[Shuter]

Hmmm. I dont get it? Was that supposed to make sense?

So you can't argue with me over intelligent issues, but you can still waste your time debating over frivelous things? Shows how you just had no come back to the valid points I raised.

 

[absolution*]

So you can't argue with me over intelligent issues, but you can still waste your time debating over frivelous things? Shows how you just had no come back to the valid points I raised.

Nah, it just takes less effort making you look stupid this way.

 

[Shuter]

Nah, it just takes less effort making you look stupid this way.

I see, you want to save that extra effort so you can penetrate your boyfriend a few extra times.

 

[absolution*]

I see, you want to save that extra effort so you can penetrate your boyfriend a few extra times.

Hmmmm. This is getting stupid now. I think ill leave you alone now to revel in your homosexually-orientated comedy routine. Have fun.

 

[Shuter]

Hmmmm. This is getting stupid now. I think ill leave you alone now to revel in your homosexually-orientated comedy routine. Have fun.

OK, bye bye. Remember how I shut down your arguement and then you had no more valid points left, resorted to insults, and now are leaving because you still can't think of a defence for the points I raised? I do.

So I'm leaving this thread now, don't bother to reply because like you I'll just block my ears and cry "nanannanana I can't hear you".

 

[Beckiki_S]

Shuter, every time someone debates you, you begin accusing them of being gay. I seriously think you have insecurites about your own sexuality.

Edit: Btw, you're wrong.

 

[Shuter]

Shuter, every time someone debates you, you begin accusing them of being gay. I seriously think you have insecurites about your own sexuality.

No haven't you noticed it's only absolution* that I debate, because he's a faggot. I only use it everytime because he IS gay.

Edit: btw you're a stupid slut who has no idea

 

[Purp|e]

man you're a faggot shuter.












wanna cyber?

 

[Xayma]

No growth does NOT equal inflation if it is matched by REAL increases in productivity (as the incentive to work harder would).



No it wouldn't as I've already stated it should provide an incentive to be more productive which in turn INCREASES our LOCAL productivity and efficiency thereby improving the terms of trade.

Why would funding be lower under a flat tax system? We didn't nessacerily say there would be less government revenue, only the sources from and the percentage from which it's accumulated would be different, you are mixing two different policies here.



again, flat tax DOES NOT equal LESS tax.

Ok shuter, explain how it could be matched by an increase in productivity?

Some places already operate at maximum possibile productivity, the only difference is they require more people to do that. So when individuals work harder, they need to employ less people, their net costs go down, unemployment goes up.

Farm's are another example how there is a finite limit in productivity. You can only do so much, and they normally hire people so that everything is done in time, allowing them to keep more of their own money, won't do much at all to increase the farm's producitivity, considering the land is still finite. Even if it did the market for goods is still finite.

 

[Shuter]

man you're a faggot shuter.












wanna cyber?

Invite me into the purple-absolution* convo kthnxbi.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yes Xayma but there is also innovation..

 

[Shuter]

Ok shuter, explain how it could be matched by an increase in productivity?

Some places already operate at maximum possibile productivity, the only difference is they require more people to do that. So when individuals work harder, they need to employ less people, their net costs go down, unemployment goes up.

That's right, which would lead to an increase in people availible to work, correct?

These people can then go and get other jobs which would incrase our nations GDP. Are you saying it is better to have an uneducated and/or unproductive workforce purely so more people are in jobs in the short term, rather than everyone working to the best possibly productivity and thus new jobs and industries will also be created in which the unemployed people can fill.

Farm's are another example how there is a finite limit in productivity. You can only do so much, and they normally hire people so that everything is done in time, allowing them to keep more of their own money, won't do much at all to increase the farm's producitivity, considering the land is still finite. Even if it did the market for goods is still finite.

Amazingly I don't think the only jobs in Australia are on farms.

Yet my point sitll holds true, is it better for a farm to hire 10 lazy workers to complete the job, or hire 5 good workers who get the job done in the same amount of time? They could make sure they get the good workers by offering more money, but with our current tax system the benefit isn't that great as in the highest threshhold virutally half just gets taken in tax.

Additionally as I stated in the first reply, the 5 people could then go and get other jobs, which would help Australia's economy.


It is a similar concept to Ford's $5 work day that he had in the 1930's, almost double the standard wage at the time. He implemented this and even though the costs to make cars almost doubled, profits actually increased because the workers were more productive because they wanted to keep this job so much because it paid so well.

 

[im an idiot]

hmm i really dont think the richest people work very hard at all

 

[katie_tully]

hmm i really dont think the richest people work very hard at all

true. my grandfather was on $300,000 a year ... and he did jackshit really...just had long lunch breaks and potentially aided in the destruction of a few african countries. ...

 

[Xayma]

That's right, which would lead to an increase in people availible to work, correct?

These people can then go and get other jobs which would incrase our nations GDP. Are you saying it is better to have an uneducated and/or unproductive workforce purely so more people are in jobs in the short term, rather than everyone working to the best possibly productivity and thus new jobs and industries will also be created in which the unemployed people can fill.

Where are those jobs going to come from?

Most new jobs would be in the teritary sector, which doesn't really help the situation much, as there won't be enough of a difference in money to be made (ie more money would have to come into the economy to support them).

Amazingly I don't think the only jobs in Australia are on farms.

Yet my point sitll holds true, is it better for a farm to hire 10 lazy workers to complete the job, or hire 5 good workers who get the job done in the same amount of time? They could make sure they get the good workers by offering more money, but with our current tax system the benefit isn't that great as in the highest threshhold virutally half just gets taken in tax.

Additionally as I stated in the first reply, the 5 people could then go and get other jobs, which would help Australia's economy.


It is a similar concept to Ford's $5 work day that he had in the 1930's, almost double the standard wage at the time. He implemented this and even though the costs to make cars almost doubled, profits actually increased because the workers were more productive because they wanted to keep this job so much because it paid so well.

Except we don't have unemployment high enough (particularly in rural areas) for this to be effective. A fair few jobs will still take a large amount of time whether someone skilled or unskilled is doing them.

What would happen if it became the average? Nothing, because then they wouldn't have that incentive to work as hard.

Most industries get an increase in productivity because of new methods and technology, not because a workforce is working hard for it's money.

 

[Shuter]

Where are those jobs going to come from?

Most new jobs would be in the teritary sector, which doesn't really help the situation much, as there won't be enough of a difference in money to be made (ie more money would have to come into the economy to support them).

Where does any job come from? There should be an increase in jobs in all sectors of the economy because REAL economic growth would be occuring. If as you said a business is at full capacity, it may then look to expand it's operations, or new businesses may open up.

Except we don't have unemployment high enough (particularly in rural areas) for this to be effective. A fair few jobs will still take a large amount of time whether someone skilled or unskilled is doing them.

Yes but I was talking about lazy/unlazy. Any job is going to take longer if someone is lazy.

What would happen if it became the average? Nothing, because then they wouldn't have that incentive to work as hard.

Quite the opposite, it would be great if it became the average because this means that people couldn't slack off or they'd loose their job because almost everyone else isn't lazy and does work hard.

Most industries get an increase in productivity because of new methods and technology, not because a workforce is working hard for it's money.

Yes, that is true NOW. That is why I am saying this flat tax would be a good idea, because I argue the reason financial incentives aren't as effective at the moment is because anyone in the highest tax bracket is effectively only getting paid half for any extra amount they earn. THis means that a business would have to double their bonus to give the same incentive to them, and this is not viable for businesses, because the reqards don't equal the cost. With a more linear tax system then any increase in pay should give a more similar increase in incentive. At the moment our tax system seems to reward people working to increase their salary up until about $65 000, but then efectively penalises them heavily for earning anymore. Therefore these people have a greatly reduced incentive to work harder or smarter and earn more, because each dollar they earn they only get paid about half, so instead these people just work mediocure and underutalised in our economy.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Which would explain why katie_tully's 300,000 a year grandfather didn't work very hard... he could of worked his ass off and got very little for his work.