Dumbducky, if you haven't noticed, we've already established all this. Now we are having a good time with Kame, Devlin, and Lanthanide. Don't have us slide back into how retarded the original post was.

But... pretty colors!

Alright fine. I'm not being misled into thinking I'm going to see that money again, because I know I'm not going to see it again. I believe the legal term is sucker.

And no, it was a different article...stories in 2010 the media got wrong or something.

Oh, are we still picking on Lanthanide? Because I wasn't talking about tax breaks to 'big oil.' I'm talking about people who get $7,000 for having a kid. Or the fact that I could get a tax credit if I bought an energy efficient car, even though my boyfriend's CRX and Civic each get about 40 miles to the gallon and he doesn't get a break. Those are the tax breaks we need to get away from.

I already said this here:
"Also your tax code as it is now is ridiculously complex and full of special provisions and payments etc. It's morphed into a ginormous beast that has multiple different purposes, instead of a sole purpose of collecting tax."

I don't see that there's necessarily a problem with either of those incentives, but it shouldn't be done as a tax break.

And yes, your fuel efficient car is nice and all, but unless hybrid/electric cars have a market demand (initially propped up by the government) the technology won't progress very fast or very far, and it is desirable that it does progress quickly. The US government has a successful history of prompting the private industry to invest or research towards specific goals. In my industry this has been the requirement that all US government departments have equipment that can run IPv6.

Incidentally my car is rated for 5.9l/100km (~ 40 mpg) but I don't think it's so efficient that it should get a special subsidy to encourage purchase of it. You get that through lower fuel consumption.

Contrary to popular belief, it really isn't that hard to do your own taxes in America. It really isn't. And I don't think anyone should be getting free money as long as we're operating on a deficit and a growing national debt.


Yes lanthanide, thank you. I'm pretty sure I already knew that this is why the breaks were in place.


I'm not really asking for a break. I'm saying that the tax break system doesn't work and it never will. You would never be able to put in enough provisions.

Doesn't work how? What do you mean by "enough provisions"?

It doesn't work because it isn't, for lack of a better word, fair. Tax breaks become hypocritical, and there aren't enough provisions for income taxes.

So Kame, what do you suggest we do with the poor, aka the bottom x% that only get by living off the the fraction of a percent of wealth the government 'steals' from the wealthiest? Should we just let evolution take its course and let them starve/freeze to death and die off?

It's not evolution that would cause them to starve and die off. It's capitalist economics.

I don't believe I said any of that.

Social security is a sign of a civilised society.

The US is so much like late Victorian Britain in its attitude towards social welfare. Maybe it's in a similar position strategically as well. Either that or the arguments for and against forms of social security have not changed since the idea was first mooted.

Edit: I also think that once you've introduced social security then you can't really take it away completely, though god knows they're trying in the UK. We've been privatising various services since the 1970s and finally the government seems to have decided it has had enough of a national health service and wants to privatise large parts of it. It's funny that while the US is leaning towards public services, we're leaning against them.

I wish they would take away social security. I don't have a problem with the idea of social security, but it isn't really effective here. It doesn't do its job, and it isn't going to last. Even CAFG's link said it needed adjustments - but conveniently enough it didn't say what those adjustments were.

The other thing is that these types of programs choke progress and industry. The pension program is pretty much on its own (thanks to the unions that put it there) choking the steal industry in the states.

??? Wasn't even implying you said... what I just said. I just gave you a fresh question. If you can't answer just say so.

If you're not going to act civilly, I'm not going to respond to you.

More or less, yes. Though no one wants to hear that do they?

I hope you never get a run of bad luck in life, Vrael. A lot of people at the bottom of the heap don't choose to be there. Capitalism is really built on the idea that some people will have a lot more money than others. It's just a shame that those on the bottom of the heap have such a shitty lifestyle in supposedly the world's richest country.

I don't like this argument. It breeds 'bawwww why me'

Thank you for being honest, and not dodgy. If I'm not afraid to say Liberalism leads to less freedoms, Kame shouldn't be afraid to at least acknowledge Libertarianism leads to some extermination of poor.

Well, seriously, "why"? Why, in the richest country in the world, should people be living in poverty?

Not that they should, just that there isn't anything wrong with it. So long as a person legally earns their money, they have a right to it and no one else. Likewise, if you don't earn money, you don't have a right to anyone else's. It's called property rights. If a person wants to help the poor, which is an admirable cause, they can donate their money as they see fit.

A rising tide raises all ships.