1: Your tax scheme doesn't assume relative GNP to government spending.
2: Seriously?  You think 15% is the top bracket?  If you told a rich guy in the US that you were going to require he pay a 15% income tax, he would immediately get a sex change and ask if he could have your baby.  The highest tax bracket in the US is in the mid-30s.  True, government tax breaks allow that to SIGNIFICANTLY drop.  However, there's one issue which people consistently forget about: corporations.  The vast majority of rich people in the US get their money from corporations somehow, whether it be via stock investment or working in that corporation.  In short, though, they're owners of businesses, by and large.  Corporations in the US are also taxed for income, which means the income of people who obtain their income from a corporation is double taxed: Once when the corporation makes the money, and once when that money is distributed to its shareholders.
3: The double-taxation system means that progressive taxation is already implemented in the US.

"The solution is within the free market system: all I would propose is a taxation scheme where the richer you get the higher percentage you would pay in taxes, instead of what we have now, where the richer you get the less percentage of your income you pay in taxes.

ROFL!!!!!

Get a clue Xeno.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

Admit it, you know nothing about how our tax system works. ^.^ Your brainwashed, shake your head and come back to reality.

And Xeno, in a Marixt system there is no government entity, or regulation for that matter. Your just showing to everybody that you have no idea of what Marixm is. Tell me, how would YOU define what Marxism is? I bet you your definition is incorrect.

If it hasn't been got yet...

The issue both the Irani leadership and third world farmer are afraid of of have it that of outside interference. Iran blames its issues on outside influences from organisations such as the IMF, world bank, and western nations that have in the past and possible currently play on Iran. It has been this influence that has lead to the current regime due to too much outside meddling.

Likewise, third world farmers traditionally have been self sufficient but in recent times it has been the policy of international donors to instruct these nations to rip out their farm land and put in cash crops. too many cash crops and the price of these commodities drop, farmers loose income, and cannot feed themselves since their land is used towards inedible products (coffee, tobacco, etc). The best solution would be to allow farmers to drop these cash crops and allow them to move back to subsistence farming.

Probably way off, but in both cases the solution is that a nations government must be free of outside influence, representative of thge people, and enables people to organise themselves into industries that are able to sustain the people.

"I also noticed you have no comment on the tax data that you were presented with which makes your argument flawed. Why do you consistently run away from evidence that proves you wrong?"

I was thinking of other countries besides the US, of course.  Wonder why Americans always think everything is about them... Anyway, I guess that's another issue.

Now, just because the tax categories are stated as such doesn't mean it actually works that way.  Tax systems the world over have loop-holes, credits, deduction, etc. that big corporations and the rich basically exploit to evade paying taxes.

And then there is always hiding funds in Swiss Bank accounts.  Also, one could always move to Monaco or the Cayman Islands and purchase capital / investments there to evade capital gains taxes.

Lastly, Lizon, about your ideas about marxism, communism, leninism:

Throwing a wiki-link is insufficient.  They are a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.  In fact, liberalism is another means to the very same end for which marxism aspires.  Think about it.

In every Western country, the upper middle class always gets raped by the tax system.

Again Xeno, it is obvious you lack the ability to read. According to US News and world report as of 2008 the top 1% of US taxpayers pay 25% of the total income tax in this country. The brackets are averaged rates from people in those tax brackets. That includes deductions and exemptions. The actual data can be seen on irs.gov.

In terms of research grants and co-ops with universities. The upfront cost there is huge. It involves a massive investment into something that isn't guaranteed to produce results. Often times businesses go into projects with universities simply to lower operating costs on their end. These are usually not deductible since it's showing a profit. Corporations do not get special previsions for recruiting talent. Many times they have research or work/credit programs which can get ppl into a field. Many times they do this for high demand positions, the ppl who benefit this are the students of course. The student doesn't have to accept any offer for a full time job. This is a rick on the companies part, and they get little break from these programs.

It's obvious you've never been in the business world. Never owned a business or works with a business owner directly and seen what really on. You should practice that yourself, you will learn a lot and be able to see the world from a new perspective. It's easy to say things like:

"The system is designed with loop-holes to allow the rich to get richer with little or no risk or effort on their part, loop-holes to which the poor simply have no access.  Hell, the rich are the ones who designed the tax system - of course it is self-serving."

When you've never been wealthy of been involved with business owners or been an owner yourself. It's much harder to say that when you have. Perhaps you should push for reforms in your country to fix the flaws in the system there. But don't assume what works there will work everywhere.

And go read Marx and Lenin, inform yourself.

Furthermore I gave further proof that Marxism the ends of a means, and that your ideas reflect those set of ideals. Stop running away from arguments. It's getting tiresome that you keep running away when you know your wrong.

com

Wow... I'm going to agree with Xeno on that particular sentence.

If two contradicting assumptions are made, with no evidence supporting either one... which do we accept as correct?

Guessing there's a slight communication error there...

> avogadro wrote:

> "If two contradicting assumptions are made, with no evidence supporting either one... which do we accept as correct?"

which ever one you choose. that explains every difference in opinion everyone in the world has with each other.

No, but Lizon said "an assumption is TRUE."  That is a statement of universal fact, similar to a court case ruling.  It's not just a stance on what is to be believed by one individual, but by the entirety of a community.

"No, but Lizon said "an assumption is TRUE."  That is a statement of universal fact,"

he said assumptions are true until..... so he is saying truth is dynamic; and can change depending on the facts present....

> Lizon wrote:

> Yes Avo hit it on the head there. I made that statement to get Xeno to provide evidence to support his claims. He consistently refuses to provide evidence to support his opinions or to provide relevant counter points to evidence given opposing his opinions. I typically view things from a scientific PoV, in science one has to make assumptions and theories about how things work until provided further evidence so that those theories can be changed or modified. EVIDENCE is the key word here.

Zarf if we were to use the court case analogy. If the prosecution provides a lengthy and detailed argument for their case and the only counter argument the defense can make is "he didn't do it, the defense rests" then the defendant is going to jail 99% of the time.

To defend an argument you need to counter the prosecution's evidence, poke holes in it, provide your own evidence to support your PoV of how things went down and make a compelling case that you are right. Refusing to defend one's self might as well be an admission of guilt.

I like the court analogy, so we'll keep with that.

Yes, you're 100% right.  However, at that point, the prosecution isn't making an "assumption."  It's a truth claim.  There is no burden of proof for making an assumption, unlike the burden of proof the prosecution in a court would be held to.

In just the same way, if the prosecution's case were to be "he did it, the prosecution rests," and the defense were to say "nope, defense rests," what's the appropriate ruling?  The appropriate ruling would be in favor of the defense, because the prosecution is the one with the original burden of proving things.

Oops, I misread the context.  I thought you were only talking about the "he has never been in business" thing, which may or may not be true (in the end, neither you, me, nor anyone on the forum can prove that).  Continue!