Candidate Declaration: iori_komei, Socialist

Originally posted by Johnmike
So you want to take a flat HALF of my hard-earned money?

Sorry, not only will this severely damage the economy, but why should half of my income go to the government?

And you want everyone to pay this 50%, or do you want it to be prgoressive, regressive, or something else?

This no longer applies, as I have adopted a different system where-in
the amount of income tax depends on how much you make.

So can you explain the system? Maybe I missed it.

I did'nt post it in this thread, so I would'nt be surprised you had'nt seen it.

My post from the QFAC: Your Policy on Taxation thread.

Originally posted by iori_komei
Well, I was actually going to write out an entire system of how I think
it should be, but than I looked at the OP's (Odium) idea on the matter,
and I realized basically mine is the same thing, except for sales tax.

So, I'll explain my idea on sales tax.



Sales tax would be split up into four categories of goods, and the profits
from each would go to different areas of the government.

Before I note go further though, I would like to say that I will work to
set up a system where-in an annual report is created, and the taxes
are set for each year based on that report.


1. General goods, clothes, consumer electronics etc., this would have
a sales tax of up to, but no more than 15% depending on financial
reports.

Tax revenues from this would go into various government programs.
There would be an option on what program(s) you want it to go into,
though you would'nt have to decide if you did'nt want to.


2. Drugs (as in pot, stereroids, meth etc., which I would work to le-
galize), fast food and things that are generally major health risks
would be taxed in two tiers.
-A. Things that are not that bad for you, but can be if abused or
consumed to often, like cheeseburgers (fast-food kind) and soft drugs,
these would have a 3-7% taxation rate depending on the aforemen-
tioned annual financial report.
-B. Things that are very bad for you, unless done in small quanti-
ties more than once a month, this category includes hard drugs like
Heroin and Meth, as well as some foods and consumables that are so
incredibly bad for you, it's mind boggling you would even consume
them in the first place.
These would have a taxation rate of 10-20% based on the annual
financial report.

Tax revenue from this would go into helping funding the social health-
care system and substance abuse and (fair) education programs.


3. Weapons/guns, taxation on these would depend on both what kind
of weapon/gun it is, but would never exceed 10%, the taxation amount
would be decided on by the annual financial report.

Tax revenue from this would go into military funding.
You would be given the choice to choose what you wanted it to go to,
that is what branch, or into R&D.


4. Products that are bad for the environment..
Basically any product that produced negative effects on the environ-
ment, such as vehicles not up to the government required standard
of fuel efficiency.
The taxation amount would be between 15-30% and would be based
on the annual financial report.

Tax revenue from this would go into environmental protection programs,
clean energy and living R&D and into incentive programs to encourage
people to buy cleaner technology.

The income part that I mention can be found in the second post of
the thread.
The only real difference is some of the numbers for the higer incomes.

[edit on 4/3/2007 by iori_komei]

What are your feelings on the Federal Reserve?

Originally posted by LostSailor
What are your feelings on the Federal Reserve?

I disapprove of it, and consider it unconstitutional.

[edit on 4/3/2007 by iori_komei]

So what numbers would you use?

Originally posted by Johnmike
So what numbers would you use?

$0.00 to $8,000.00 USD – 0%
$8,000.00 to $15,000.00 USD – 10%
$20,000.00 to $50,000.00 USD – 25%
$50,000.00 to $100,000.00 USD – 40%
$100,000.00 to $500,000 USD – 50%
$1 Million to $3 Million USD – 70%
Over $3Million 75% to 90%

So if I make $3,000,000 I get to keep $300,000 of what I make?

That's a pretty...villainous concept, don't you think? It feels like stealing.

Originally posted by Johnmike
So if I make $3,000,000 I get to keep $300,000 of what I make?

That's a pretty...villainous concept, don't you think? It feels like stealing.

Yes, that's how much you get out of it.

No, I do not think it's villanous, considering you do not require that
much money in the first place, and the othwer money is going to
good causes.

Who decides what money I do and don't need? From the outside it appears like you're trying to say that people don't deserve what they work for.

Holy Mother of mercy!!! What's the point of working? I really think... You may... Are you sure you've thought that tax plan out iori? How is a guy supposed to buy a Hummer?

Originally posted by LostSailor
Holy Mother of mercy!!! What's the point of working? I really think... You may... Are you sure you've thought that tax plan out iori? How is a guy supposed to buy a Hummer?

You should work because you enjoy what you do, not to make money.

And why in the world do you want a Hummer, I mean it's got to be one
of the worst vehicles ever produced.

[edit on 4/5/2007 by iori_komei]

I want a hummer cause I want a hummer. I shouldn't have to explain that to the government.

What you're proposing will cripple the economy.

Originally posted by Johnmike
I want a hummer cause I want a hummer. I shouldn't have to explain that to the government.

What you're proposing will cripple the economy.

I'm not saying you can't buy a hummer, I started writing two things,
and erased part, I meant want a hummer not need a hummer.

And that wa smore asking him personally.

I just don't like the concept of the government dictating to me how I can and can't spend the money I make.

Originally posted by iori_komei
You should work because you enjoy what you do, not to make money.

That is just not reality. Anyone who says they work... Out of sheer enjoyment, is either lying their ass off. Or, already has a nice stash and is just working for the social aspect of it.

I work to make money. I trust my money in my hands, more then some government entity, to provide for my family. I trust doctors to take care of my health more than some government entity.

I'll pay taxes, I understand that some government is needed to run a civil country. But I'll be damned if I give my government 90% of MY hard earned income. Ever!

I highly suggest, if you plan on winning this mock election, you change your taxation policy. It just plain ludicrous! Highway robbery. The economy would grind to a standstill because no one would wont to work any challenging jobs. Unless they were government officials, taking large chunks of my money, before redistributing it back to the people. What the hell does the government need that much money for anyways?

Originally posted by iori_komei
And why in the world do you want a Hummer, I mean it's got to be one
of the worst vehicles ever produced.

I want one so I could run it through the front door of your parliamentary building and take my freedom back should you ever get elected president!

While LostSailor argues the principles, I must wonder the effect it will have on the economy. What happens when you take a money from the population? Less money to buy, less money to start businesses, less money for investment capital.

In other words, the economy won't be doing so well.

Originally posted by LostSailor
That is just not reality. Anyone who says they work... Out of sheer enjoyment, is either lying their ass off. Or, already has a nice stash and is just working for the social aspect of it.

Teachers don't exactly get payed alot, yet they do the job they do, they do it because it is something they enjoy doing, or something they want to do.

A person can do a job because they want to, I'll use myself as another
example, I enjoy writing, and being creative, I am working on two
novels and a large scale scifii universe to be used in other books or for
games or such, unless a corporation wants to use any aspect of it,
I will not charge anyone anything to read it, or use it, so long as they
acknoledge I am the orginial creator.

I'll pay taxes, I understand that some government is needed to run a civil country. But I'll be damned if I give my government 90% of MY hard earned income. Ever!

Considering to actually have a 90% income tax, you would have to
making something like 7million or more a year, I don't see why in
the world you need all of it, especially even after the taxes have
been taken out, you still have alot of money.

I highly suggest, if you plan on winning this mock election, you change your taxation policy.

Not everyone is like you, thankfully, I will not change policies just
because individuals who share the same viewpoint as you do not like it.

It just plain ludicrous! Highway robbery. The economy would grind to a standstill because no one would want to work any challenging jobs.

Of course people would still do difficult jobs, really the only people
who would be dissuaded en masse are those in entertainment who
are simply in it for the money.

It would lead to more people being happy with there careers to, as
people would be working at something they actually enjoy, not
something that is going to make them obscene amounts of money.

Taking large chunks of my money, before redistributing it back to the people. What the hell does the government need that much money for anyways?'

50% of it goes to the government, 50% goes back to the people,
of course depending on there economic status, that is a person
making $6,000 a year will recieve more than someone making
$50,000 a year.

The money that goes to the government goes primarily to running
social programs, and than scientific programs, the military and finally
the small amount of money those who work in the government (I
mean senators and the President and the like) get for there job.

Originally posted by iori_komei
I want one so I could run it through the front door of your parliamentary building and take my freedom back should you ever get elected president!

You mean the Senate building?

I don't like parliamentary democracies, they are not nearly democratic
enough to me.

Originally posted by Johnmike
While LostSailor argues the principles, I must wonder the effect it will have on the economy. What happens when you take a money from the population? Less money to buy, less money to start businesses, less money for investment capital.

In other words, the economy won't be doing so well.

Personally, I would like it if the economy, in the capitalistic sense was
not of consequence, but however it is, at the time not.

It would not harm the economy, in fact I think it would help the economy.

Think about how much people spend on just surviving and the basics
like food, shelter, water, energy, telecommunication, now imagine that
people no longer had to spend there money on those things, at least if
they did'nt want more than a comfortable level of them, now think how
much more money goes into other things.

For one, I think teachers are paid plenty. They don't even work a full year, and get paid very nice salaries.
Honestly, it's not possible to expect people to work out of their love for working. If most people could, I am sure that they would spend their life playing golf and getting drunk. What a free market does is reward positive behavior (working) naturally, so this balances itself out. Your notion that people would only be disheartened if they are only in it for the money is ludicrous. Why the hell would I bother doing something hard, spending so much time in school, if not paid more for it? The free market benefits from hard work, and the worker does through higher pay. Honestly, you have a view of human work ethic that just does not exist. Why destroy a system that rewards based on work?

It doesn't matter if you see why I'd need all of the money I earn. I work my behind off, I should be able to spend my money as I choose. If I work hard, and take the chances I need, I should be able to keep whatever I earn. And what if I want to invest the money?

However anything the people would have spent will be spent by the government. Your argument doesn't work because the same money will be spent, no matter who does the spending. The only difference is that the government will be doing it instead, and then you need to hire people to regulate it, to spend it, to oversee it, to collect it... If anything, you're creating a bloated cash sink that makes things more expensive than they already are.

There's no way that 90% of someone's salary would go toward those things, either. I'd rather see the car industry, electronics industry, and whatnot, sell their products. I can't even begin to name what in the private sector would be severely wounded by this policy.

I know you wish the economy wasn't important, because apparently you want to tear it down for us.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by Johnmike]