I'd go for four measures (not all of them easily feasible):
1. insanely tax riches (both persons and companies).
2. provide a very well funded safety net for the poor, so that they can quit working-just-to-piece-the-ends-together and start working to save money and buy their own houses
3. outlaw lobbying
4. outlaw being able to get elected if you have interests in business: sit on a board, have a high position in private companies, have had your complete carreer in business, even - have too many business friends would lead to your non-election in politics, see (3). a separation between politics and business, like we (should) have between church and politics.


so, how would you?

This idea of "killing poverty" is just absurd. Some people are just sorry. How the hell are you going to get them out of poverty? You can give and give, and then they go out and buy drugs and alcohol. Sure, some people are born with much better opportunity than others. But something that you socialists just can't fathom is that there's no such thing as a level playing field. No matter what you do, no matter how hard you try.

So then you go and create this huge, complicated, high-taxing government that's supposed to enforce fairness for everyone. The only problem is that one person's idea of fairness is not another person's idea of fairness. Let's insanely tax those riches. Let there be no more giant mansions, no more private jets, and no more mega yachts. Let's put everyone on the exact same level. That leaves you with communism. The hard worker is not rewarded any more than the lazy bum. By insanely taxing riches, you are effectively taxing the incentive for success.

Sure, Capitalism might not be perfect. But it sure as hell gives more opportunity than your proposed system of government. That seems a bit more fair if you ask me.

hold your horses chug. I am not talking about communism here! I'd like that to work, but unfortunately that is only good in theory; it just doesn't work much because of what you say.

socialism though IS possible. you'd still have mansions, yachts and private planes.

I am stating this overly simplistic, aye?! bear with me.

here we go; what I am thinkin about is along these lines:
a guy earning $1.000.000 / year, would be taxed 90%. He'd have $100.000 left.
a guy earning $100.000 / year, would be taxed 50%. He'd have $50.000 left.
a guy earning $10.000 / year, would be taxed 0%. He'd have $10.000 left.

so, the guy getting rich, would still be getting rich. just not so damn fast as some are now.

Yeah, so as I said before, you are taxing success. You try to keep everyone within the same level. Earning $1 million/year is no easy task, you know. Besides, that tax system is totally unfair. A fair tax system would be a flat tax rate no matter what you make. Say for example, 15% for everyone.

But yes, I guess when a person becomes a multi-billionaire, you have to wonder just how much of that they really need. They may give tons of money to charities... But why should THEY be allowed to decide which charity to give their money to? You have a good point, Brains. I mean, doesn't Gates donate so much of his money to causes like fighting AIDS in Africa? To hell with Africa! We should tax all that money away from him so it could be spent here in the U.S.!

Hey, I'm not for taxing their success, I'm for taxing their EARNINGS from that success. They can be as successful as they want, but once you have enough money that you're buying several mansions and/or a gem-encrusted POS RAZR (hell, a gem-encrusted ANYTHING), you're making too much money. They can keep their success, but they obviously need help spending their money.

Without money to show for it, then the success is meaningless. If I start a company and make a lot of money from it, then it's none of your goddamn business how many mansions I buy. If most of the money is going to be taxed away anyways, then hell, what was the point in even starting it?

I've given this alot of thought....my few ideas.
1. Get rid of income tax. Tax consumption. Higher sales taxes, rather than income. This way, you can't hide your earnings under tax loopholes. Under the table jobs, etc. It doesnt matter.

2. Reform the welfare system. After a certain amount of time, the welfare check no longer is a check. A job, be it McDonalds or or Microsoft must be found. Employment centers will assist. And the welfare check will become a reduced supplicant to a paycheck. It will come attached to the paycheck, not as a additional. You don't got to work, you dont get paid.

3. No welfare checks for more kids. Stop at 2. If you have 2 kids or 12, same amount of checks. And offer free vascetomy or women's service. (i dont remember the procedure name)

4. Legalize prostitution and marijuana. Make it a control protected industry. (both of them). You can get taxes out of them, and less illegal dangerous enviornments.

Just a few thoughts. Not a cure by any standards...just some idaes

Yes, the sales tax only system is another great idea. The more you buy, the more you pay. It would be much simpler, that's for sure. That's one reason why it will never happen. Too many government jobs would not be needed anymore.

I really don't have any problem with your other ideas either. Except legalized prostitution would increase the spread of STD's. I'm not sure what effect legalized marijuana would have. It may lead to more crime, or less...

hey that's an interesting one!

fair enough, that's how it works, but what if the barometer for success was not money, but how much you contribute to society?


dk: why would you not support more kids? as far as I know also the states have a "wrong" population pyramid - with the base being as wide as the middle part. here's a projection. with pyramids like that (same here in europe) your population is aging. aging costs a lot to society and there is an increasingly small base of youngsters to pay for it.

in most European countries, child birth actually is encouraged. although I do not know if they'd still support it if you got 12.

Actually legalized prostitution would reduce the risk of stds. I have never visited, nor have plans to visit one. I am happily married. But There is so much ruckus about it, and its senseless. (as it is theory on marijuana)

There was a study done, (ill source it later) that says there hasn't been a single case of HIV in Nevada since condoms were required for prostitution. Also, by having licenses and STD tests mandated on a regular basis, people will be assured that the girl is safe. Unlike now, where people still visit them, but with more risk.
My theory (like with marijuana) is that it is more or less harmless, personal life aside. And it happens anyway, so why not make it a legal profession, and make it safe. I'll expand more later,I'm late for work



I don't mean no more kids, I just mean no increased welfare for more kids. Right now, if some lady on welfare knocks out another kid, her checks increase. But if you cap it, and offer services to let her get sterile (wrong word, I know), she can do her thing which she will do anyway, as will men in the situation, but this way, no risk fo more kids, with less drain on society.
I fully support lots of kids. I want to have as many as I CAN AFFORD. Not as many as the government will have to support. If I can't provide food and clothes, education, etc, then I'm not having another one. If I win the lottery, and can save all the money for the kids, I'll have many.

Gotta go..running late. I'll clarify anything that I screwed up later.

Given that my pay rate edges me just into the next tax bracket, I would actually end up with more money at the end of the year if I took a $1 an hour pay cut.

How's that for screwed up?

I vote yes to legalizing Hookers & Weed!

yeah. that is screwed up. we got the same system here and it sucks. i am all for getting rid of tax brackets and just increasing tax gradually the more you earn. The difference between earning - say - $10/h and $11/h would be you'd be taxed - again suppose - 10% for the former and 10,1% for the latter and so on. i am sure some fair system can be worked out.

the more you earn, the more percentual tax you pay. Up to a certain limit of course (like 90% ). what chug said yesterday about not being paid for the work you do. Not being "monetarily successful" in "my" system, that just is not true. to further elaborate:

a guy earning $1.000.000 / year, would be taxed 90%. He'd have $100.000 left.
a guy earning $100.000 / year, would be taxed 50%. He'd have $50.000 left.
a guy earning $10.000 / year, would be taxed 0%. He'd have $10.000 left.

of course:
a guy earning $100.000.000 / year, would (still) be taxed 90%. He'd have $10.000.000 left - considerably more than the guy paying 0% taxes, I'd say. "success" would still pay off, no?!



me too. there's no sense in outlawing it. if you do, they get forced into criminality. outlawing the former would bring you more STD's, outlawing the latter would bring potheads closer to more dangerous drugs.

You may be surprised to learn how many people work with money as their goal, and not simply the betterment of society.


Well at some point you'd have to look at your earnings and think "wait a minute, I'm getting totally screwed." Think of all the things that you could get with your earnings of $1,000,000/year, yet the government is taking 90 fucking percent of it!

I mean, I'm totally baffled at how anyone could accept the government taking 90 percent of their own earnings. Wait a minute... No one here is accepting that.

you failed comprehensive reading, didn't you, chug?

what does "that's how it works", mean? what is meant with a conditional tense?

let's try imagining things again: what if the barometer for success was not money, but how much you contribute to society?




no one here is accepting that either chugski. see, this topic is about "what would you do?". It is a brainstorming session. you don't go to the details and you don't block things off because they are unrealistic or dumb. I suppose you run along in a corporation, I'd suppose you know.

Having money to show for success is indeed meaningful, but only to a certain point.

You illustrate the problem inherent in capitalism - money makes you happy to a certain point, but after you youve enough to get anything you want, more is worthless, and you end up striving for nothing.

Once you have a mansion in all the places you want to spend your time, why do you need the money to get another one? Why do you need a gem-encrusted cock ring except to say you have one and someone else doesn't? Does it add to your happiness to have something just to make others jealous? If it does, your point about the Bill Gates of the world is moot, because you're not the type to ever give your money away. If it doesn't, then your priorities are obviously messed up and you probably SHOULD be giving it all away like Bill Gates.

Look at the average kid of "old money" in America. There was a documentary done on them by one of their own a few years ago, and it showed just how pathetic having too much money but nothing to want for makes a person. These "kids" (in their mid to late 20s) literally did nothing but hang around the house all day, and then go out every night and get drunk on Krystal with people they hardly knew. The end massage was that the difference between a person with unlimited wealth and a person on welfare is the quality of the booze, the cleanliness of the bar, and the fact that the person on welfare might actually contribute something to society someday. The rich kids would likely end up marrying another uber rich kid, and will have a kid who would look even more inbred than they do, and who would have the same vacuous, pathetic life they've had.

Yeah, money is the indicator of success my ass.

yea ill. you go tell 'em.

the problem isn't the rich making too much. it's the poor making too little. a flat tax rate is bogus given the value of the dollar itself and the level of minimum wage. if joe shmoe works at mcdonals part time for $7.15 an hour and is taxed 15% of his check and tomorrow inflation goes up, what is joe shmoe left with? If he's lucky, he'd make enough money to pay his car insurance and a number 1 with a coke. but then you have jules von douchbag pullin in $8,000 a week who doesn't care about the 15% or inflation bacause he makes some much the tax and inflation is a non-issue.
People don't seem to notice taht the things they buy are going up in price without actually going up in price. It's the value of the money that's killing us which is why government spending on bullshit HAS TO STOP NOW! It also would help a little if minimum wage went up and MAYBE get the value of the dollar back to a reasonable level.