Author: Alec ,

Posts

Total: 189
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @TheRealNihilist
If you don't want to die. Don't get shot. Care to explain how gun laws are not necessary?
This is off topic, so I shouldn't respond to this.  If you want to have a gun debate on a forum, make a forum about it.  This forum is about ASTAP.

People claim bankruptcy for a necessity like medical and you think they can save up for this?
They file for bankruptcy for surgeries other then STD treatment.  I imagine to treat an STD, you just have to take some pills, although I might be wrong on this.

What makes you so sure that the government won't take it a step further and not help people with alcohol almost make like a tax loop that assures them a consistent supply of taxes?
The government does something similar with tobacco yet less people smoke.  If alcohol is treated like tobacco, less people would want to drink.  The tax loss would be gradual and can be added on to the adult tax when it happens.

STD is a medical issue. If the person files for bankruptcy due to medical issues who can you say they can pay for it?
Not all medical issues are expensive.  I don't know how expensive it is to treat an STD, but if they don't get treated, then eventually every human will have ever STD and humanity would suffer on such a basis.

So you are for taxing the rich?
Not on the basis of income, but on the basis of "sins".  If there is a sin tax that rich people are more likely to indulge in, that is tecnecally a tax on the rich, but not because they are rich.


Where are you getting these numbers from? 

TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
--> @Alec
This is off topic, so I shouldn't respond to this.  If you want to have a gun debate on a forum, make a forum about it.  This forum is about ASTAP.
Not off topic. You don't understand how awful that argument is so tell me am I wrong?
If you don't want to die don't get shot.
They file for bankruptcy for surgeries other then STD treatment.  I imagine to treat an STD, you just have to take some pills, although I might be wrong on this.
Medical issues. If they can't afford necessary medical related issues how do you suppose the are supposed to be pay for less necessary or less immediate treatment? This is on the basis not STD treatment is unccessary so that you argument can actually stand by itself if I was actually being harsh then I would say it is not stretch people who claimed for medical related bankruptcy required money for necessary medical issues since STD treatment is necessary they wouldn't be able to pay for it. So basically even if I concede that STD treatment is not neccessary you don't have an argument. 
The government does something similar with tobacco yet less people smoke.
Evidence?
If alcohol is treated like tobacco, less people would want to drink.  The tax loss would be gradual and can be added on to the adult tax when it happens.
Dependant on if you have evidence.
Not all medical issues are expensive.  I don't know how expensive it is to treat an STD, but if they don't get treated, then eventually every human will have ever STD and humanity would suffer on such a basis.
Non-sequitur. They filed for bankruptcy which means they don't have enough money. This is clearly not a point against people who can't for medical issues since that was the cause of bankruptcy. 
Not on the basis of income, but on the basis of "sins".  If there is a sin tax that rich people are more likely to indulge in, that is tecnecally a tax on the rich, but not because they are rich.
So you are for abolishing taxing income?
So you the government should be in the business of taxing people on bad actions not helping them?
Your claim:
The typical alcoholic drinks like 10 beers a day, so that would cost about $20 a day from that alone.  How can poor people afford that with all their other expenses?
Was supported by that link 
which is based on an anecdote. Am I correct? If so do you have actual evidence? 
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @TheRealNihilist
If you don't want to die don't get shot.
If you don't want to get shot, arm yourself because the criminal will always have a weapon.

Medical issues. If they can't afford necessary medical related issues how do you suppose the are supposed to be pay for less necessary or less immediate treatment?
The people are insured.  ASTAP shows how they can get insurance paid for with a minimum wage job.

The government does something similar with tobacco yet less people smoke.
Evidence?

I don't know why you always want evidence, but the smoking rate is below:

They filed for bankruptcy which means they don't have enough money. This is clearly not a point against people who can't for medical issues since that was the cause of bankruptcy. 
?

So you are for abolishing taxing income?
Yes.

The typical alcoholic drinks like 10 beers a day, so that would cost about $20 a day from that alone.  How can poor people afford that with all their other expenses?
Was supported by that link 
which is based on an anecdote. Am I correct? If so do you have actual evidence? 
It was based off of some research.  I know that it's about 10 drinks a day per person that is in the drunkest tenth of the US population.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
If you don't want to get shot, arm yourself because the criminal will always have a weapon.
If you don't want to get pregnant but still would like to enjoy sex. Preach to the government about paying for birth control rather then making people pay taxes for things that help enjoy good things without negative consequences afterwards.
The people are insured.  ASTAP shows how they can get insurance paid for with a minimum wage job.
Your tax plan is a joke. We are supposed to help bad people not tax them. You don't understand how to run a country if you value exploiting weakness above helping others.
I don't know why you always want evidence, but the smoking rate is below:

That is not evidence. Where are the citations? I can't accept this because I can easily create this graph. The sources prove the graph not the other way around.
They filed for bankruptcy which means they don't have enough money. This is clearly not a point against people who can't for medical issues since that was the cause of bankruptcy. 
?
If they can't pay for necessary medical related issues how are they supposed to pay for STD treatment? 
So you are for abolishing taxing income?
Yes.
Tell me do you believe in trickle down economics? If so tell me how it has ever been effective with evidence.
It was based off of some research.  I know that it's about 10 drinks a day per person that is in the drunkest tenth of the US population.
It was an anecdote. Do you have actual evidence? One person personal experience is not a good way in saying most people have this are like this. 
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @TheRealNihilist
If you don't want to get pregnant but still would like to enjoy sex. Preach to the government about paying for birth control rather then making people pay taxes for things that help enjoy good things without negative consequences afterwards.
Pay for your own birth control.  It's not that expensive.  You can buy 6 condoms for $5.  If you can't afford birth control, don't have sex.  It's easy.  I've been a virgin my whole life.

We are supposed to help bad people not tax them. You don't understand how to run a country if you value exploiting weakness above helping others.
ASTAP enables helping people by discouraging bad things.  They aren't big taxes either for the most part.

That is not evidence. Where are the citations?
If there were citations to the graph you would ask what are the citation's citations.  For some reason, you ask for links and when I provide links, you want links to those links.  If I gave you those, you would ask for more, etc.  Here is a citation approved by the CDC: https://public.tableau.com/profile/tina.norris#!/vizhome/FIGURE8_1/Dashboard8_1

If they can't pay for necessary medical related issues how are they supposed to pay for STD treatment?
They can get insurance.

Tell me do you believe in trickle down economics?
I don't believe that the government should subsidize any private company.  If this is trickle down economics, then no.

One person personal experience is not a good way in saying most people have this are like this. 
The person said that the top 10% of drinkers drink 74 beers a week.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
Pay for your own birth control.  It's not that expensive.  You can buy 6 condoms for $5. 
Contraception is better and more pleasing. I say we should make things in people's life better but guess you are not.
If you can't afford birth control, don't have sex.  It's easy. 
If you can't afford medical related issues go die. Don't worry this has happened. Cut down on the apathy alright.
I've been a virgin my whole life.
If you did have sex then you would have had it with a minor because from the lack of understanding you have shown you seem to be young. 
ASTAP enables helping people by discouraging bad things.  They aren't big taxes either for the most part.
Taxing doesn't help and you have yet to prove it with the tax on smoking. 
If there were citations to the graph you would ask what are the citation's citations.  For some reason, you ask for links and when I provide links, you want links to those links.  If I gave you those, you would ask for more, etc.  
Do you understand what good evidence is? In order to have good evidence it need to be properly sourced. That graph missed that okay. I know you are young but I didn't think you didn't understand what good evidence was. I wanted links to actual evidence not a graph. Do you want me to give you a graph on imgur or do you want a link to a credible site or has links to credible sites? 
I want to note that this is a different graph from the first one. Secondly when was smoking tax or the tax on smoking increased?
They can get insurance.
66.6% of bankruptcy is claimed because of medical related issues. Medical insurance is medical related issues.
I don't believe that the government should subsidize any private company.  If this is trickle down economics, then no.
"Trickle-down economics, also called trickle-down theory, refers to the economic proposition that taxes on businesses and the wealthy in society should be reduced as a means to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term."
The person said that the top 10% of drinkers drink 74 beers a week.
Where did they link the source to this statistic? 
I would also like to add that you said poor people wouldn't buy drinks. Nothing in that article stated what you said here:
I imagine rich people are disproportionally more likely to be practicing alcoholics because they can afford it.  

Off topic but still relevant?
How are you for government when you pretty much want to abolish taxes if everyone wasn't sinful?
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 991
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
--> @Alec
How did you get $24000 a year?  My link got nearly $40,000 per year with a $7.25 minimum wage
I googled minimum living wage which gave minimum living wages for all the states. And then I googled minimum wage for Florida. I'm guessing you've got a minimum living wage for a household and you're using the federal minimum wage

There are 24 hours in a day.  A minimum wage worker can work 15 hours a day and have their expenses fulfilled with a $7.25 minimum wage.
Right. But the hours to be worked have to be provided from somewhere. Businesses employ people and set hours based on the viability of operating that business in that period of time. Business maintain operability based on the number of customers they receive. You've decreased the number of customers by requiring them to work for longer hours, as well as overworking them such that they're unlikely to wish to do anything after their shift(s).


Showering once a day takes about half an hour.  Meal preparation can be done quickly if they buy food that's easy to prepare, like many sandwiches.  If they can't afford I house, I suggest just buying a tent and using that as a shelter.  It works and it's cheap, which is what poor people need.  Thoughts on that?
My thoughts are you've drastically lowered the quality of life for a majority of Americans, murdered the ones at the lower end and unaffected the rich minority. I understand your thought process was to lower the tax burden on the rich, however you've excessively pushed this burden onto the poor. I have no idea why you think this is a good idea. Depending on your income, money does not retain the same utility. For a poor person, $10 might be the difference between eating today. For a rich person, $10 is meaningless. It might well be that taxing a poor person $100 would have a dramatically greater impact than taxing a rich person $10,000.
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @dustryder
Right. But the hours to be worked have to be provided from somewhere. Businesses employ people and set hours based on the viability of operating that business in that period of time. Business maintain operability based on the number of customers they receive.
If a business operates from 6 am to 9 pm(or 6:00 to 21:00, I don't know if New Zealand has the 24 hour clock), then that's seems to be when people would be getting stuff from that business.

My thoughts are you've drastically lowered the quality of life for a majority of Americans
This does not affect the majority of America.  All it does is it gives the poor what they deserve for working a low paying job.  If they want a better job, they got to earn it.  How they would earn it depends on their profession.  Plus according to my spreadsheet, the poor at the end of the year would actually have a lot of money left over.  They may not be living in a house, but they have money that can be used for investments so they can eventually afford to rent a place due to dividends.

murdered the ones at the lower end
How did I murder them?  Putting someone in a tent is not murdering them.

I have no idea why you think this is a good idea.
Because the rich contributed way more to society then the poor did and therefore should be allowed to keep their money.  Therefore, I think any income tax is unjustified towards the rich that earned their money.  It's like GPAs.  If your GPA is a 4, someone else's GPA is a 1.5, and you need a GPA of 2 to pass, is it justified to take .5 from your GPA to give it to the guy who didn't work as hard?  Or is it better to encourage the guy with a 1.5 GPA to get a 2 on his own independently so he can be successful without bringing you down.  The best way to being up the poor should not involve bringing down the rich.



dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 991
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
--> @Alec
If a business operates from 6 am to 9 pm(or 6:00 to 21:00, I don't know if New Zealand has the 24 hour clock), then that's seems to be when people would be getting stuff from that business.
But you've at least doubled the minimum requires hours. Do you think businesses can support these extra wage costs? Do you think there will be as many customers when they too have to put in more work to secure their their lifestyle?

This does not affect the majority of America.  All it does is it gives the poor what they deserve for working a low paying job.  If they want a better job, they got to earn it.  How they would earn it depends on their profession.  Plus according to my spreadsheet, the poor at the end of the year would actually have a lot of money left over.  They may not be living in a house, but they have money that can be used for investments so they can eventually afford to rent a place due to dividends.
The majority of Americans do not currently pay at least $17,000 in tax annually. They pay around ~$10,500. This difference is not an insignificant number. So yes, it would affect the majority of America.

It sounds like you're punishing the poor for being poor. The simple fact of life is where you are born in life more often than not decides where you will end up in life. A person who is born in poverty in the ghetto's is more likely to continue to be impoverished for his/her life compared to someone born upper-class. I think it is untenable to punish someone for something that is not their fault.

How did I murder them?  Putting someone in a tent is not murdering them.
Well what happens to someone who cannot work, or works but cannot get enough hours? Or the people who now have to work more than double their hours every single day with 1 hour of rest inside a tent that contains all their belongings.

Because the rich contributed way more to society then the poor did and therefore should be allowed to keep their money.  Therefore, I think any income tax is unjustified towards the rich that earned their money.
This isn't absolutely true. For example, how would you approach someone that has scammed their way into wealth or someone who has purely inherited all of their wealthy? Poor people put in hard work, why do you think it's justified to negate their hard work just because it isn't as impactful towards society? But it's more than that. Why do you think it's justified to put them into slave-like conditions?

It's like GPAs.  If your GPA is a 4, someone else's GPA is a 1.5, and you need a GPA of 2 to pass, is it justified to take .5 from your GPA to give it to the guy who didn't work as hard?  Or is it better to encourage the guy with a 1.5 GPA to get a 2 on his own independently so he can be successful without bringing you down.  The best way to being up the poor should not involve bringing down the rich.
So this scenario relies on both people starting from the same GPA. The more likely scenario is that one person's GPA starts at 4.0, and another person's GPA starts at 1.0. The person with the 1.0 GPA has a chance to end up with a good GPA, but in general, the person with the higher starting GPA will end up with the higher GPA..

In this scenario, your solution for the person with the 1.0 GPA is give him far more difficult coursework than the person with the 4.0 GPA  because you think that he should prove himself worthy of a higher GPA. However in reality, the difficult coursework is far too difficult for anyone except for the exceptional few and you end up suppressing the others.
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @dustryder
Do you think businesses can support these extra wage costs?
How would it be more expensive?  If anything, it's cheaper for a business because they don't have to hire someone around the clock.  

They pay around ~$10,500.
It's nearly $12,000.  Besides, the US has a debt to pay off.  We need to tax people more to pay our foreign debt off.  Once we pay off our debt, taxes would fall to about $13,000 per person.

It sounds like you're punishing the poor for being poor.
I'm not.  I'm merely not rewarding it with tax discounts.

The simple fact of life is where you are born in life more often than not decides where you will end up in life. A person who is born in poverty in the ghetto's is more likely to continue to be impoverished for his/her life compared to someone born upper-class.
With this tax system, it would encourage poor people to earn more money since they're not being taxed for earning more anymore.  With a strict spending plan that poor people can adopt as found in https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/136MFNyPCnOs50_QltxPvkBpS2OydnNfG7WZYb21qTrM/edit#gid=320988619, it enables the poor to save money up for things like investing which can help them get out of poverty.  This way, they aren't dependent on the government for social programs that hold them back.

Well what happens to someone who cannot work, or works but cannot get enough hours?
Why can't they work?  If they're mentally disabled (I say this as someone with autism), then they can still work at stop and shop as a shop bagger or something.  I know someone who is mentally handicapped that does that.  

Or the people who now have to work more than double their hours every single day with 1 hour of rest inside a tent that contains all their belongings.
They work less then double what they currently do by American standards(America has 8 hour work days).  They would get 9 hours to do what they want.  This mostly will be occupied by sleep but they can do other things.

For example, how would you approach someone that has scammed their way into wealth or someone who has purely inherited all of their wealthy?
If they got their wealth through illegal means, then they would be punished.  If they inherited their wealth, then they basically got a very big gift from their Dad.  It doesn't make sense to tax a gift.  Most billionaires are self made with the majority of their wealth.  By mentioning people who inherited their money, your basically saying that the self made rich people can keep their wealth.

Poor people put in hard work, why do you think it's justified to negate their hard work just because it isn't as impactful towards society?
Because contribution to society matters more then the amount of work you put into a product.  For example, if you spend 20 hours a day working on a solving a crossword puzzle, you don't deserve to get paid for it.  If you spend 20 hours a day developing a cure for cancer, you deserve to get paid for it.  It's the same amount of work, but it's the productiveness to society that matters.

Why do you think it's justified to put them into slave-like conditions?
It's not slavery if they get paid a satisfactory wage that they can tolerate.  Especially when this wage is high enough where they can save money and get ahead eventually.

The more likely scenario is that one person's GPA starts at 4.0, and another person's GPA starts at 1.0. The person with the 1.0 GPA has a chance to end up with a good GPA, but in general, the person with the higher starting GPA will end up with the higher GPA..
The person that started with a 1.0 GPA probably won't get as high of a GPA, but they can still get a GPA of 2 or 3 with enough production to their GPA.  He would have more work to do, it wouldn't necessarily be more difficult, but he would have to play catch up if he wants a decent GPA.  It's harder, but possible, and it's through independence and lack of government redistribution and an emphases on independence that America has a higher GDP per capita then the EU, while being less urban.  Right Wing America even has a higher GDP per capita then even left wing Scandinavia.

8 days later

Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
Bump.

Here's the link:


blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 507
2
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
2
5
8
It is possible for people to be born with STDs (1). Should they be punished for the rest of their life for actions they never committed? Also, couldn't someone claim that the kid they had wasn't an accident even if they were? It seems like an easy system to game.

The other taxes are probably not going to raise a lot of revenue in the long term. We already have a gas tax which funnels money into the Highway Trust Fund. Unfortunately, lower fuel consumption and higher fuel efficiency standards for automobiles has decreased the amount of money paid into the fund (2). The rise of electric vehicles and hybrid cars definitely will have an impact on gas consumption as well, particularly if the gas tax is raised to 75 cents a gallon. The tax could deter purchases of less fuel efficient cars in favor of more fuel efficient cars. The average price of a gallon of gasoline in March of 2019 was $2.50. Multiply that times 12 to get an average fill-up of an automobile to get $30.00. 75 cents more would increase the price by 9 dollars. The EIA estimates that the average gas tax per gallon is about 30 cents (3). By more than doubling the tax, consumers are faced with a decision. Either they a) losing more money every time they fill up at the gas pump, or b) buying a more fuel efficient car that is approaching the purchasing price of cars with lower fuel standards. The prospective cars don't even need to be hybrids to decrease fuel consumption. The DOE found that 27% of new light-duty automobiles had fuel economies over 30 mpg in 2018. in 1995, the number was 4.4% (4).

Assuming that the consumption of gas doesn't decrease, there are still problems that plague the tax system because it increases the price of household fuel consumption. 1 in 3 households faced challenges paying their energy bill in 2015 according to the EIA (5). The Americans most likely to spend more of their income on fuel happen to be in the lowest quintile of income earners in the US averaging about 10% of their income being spent on fuel (6). Prices would increase drastically, affecting the livelihoods of lower-income Americans. The EIA study from 2015 also found that 1/5 of families in 2015, for 1-2 months, reduced or eschewed purchases of basic goods (i.e. medicine, food etc.) to pay an energy bill (5).

Alcohol sales, something the ASTAP largely depends on, might not be high enough to maintain consistent revenue streams. Growth rates for wine and spirits are declining, and beer sales are decreasing by about 1.5% (7). One reason for this is likely the increase in medical marijuana, which researcher directly linked with declining alcohol sales (8). The legal marijuana movement is larger than ever at the moment. If legalization continues, there is no doubt that alcohol sales will decline further. A $2 excise tax might push consumers away too.

The rape portion of the tax system seems unattainable. How do we guarantee that every rapist has over a million dollars to pay the state? If they don't have the money, then what happens? Are we going to garnish their wages? Well, since rapists are unlikely to find jobs, that wont be effective. 

For the record, I sympathize with people who want to streamline tax law. I really do. I think that the details need to be ironed out before this tax system becomes solvent though.

Sources
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @blamonkey
Should they be punished for the rest of their life for actions they never committed? 

I wouldn't think of it as a punishment.  I would think of it as an incentive to get the STD treated so they become less common in society, making it better.  Also, it ignores the people who get an STD from sex.  It's not a big punishment for adults either; $200.

Also, couldn't someone claim that the kid they had wasn't an accident even if they were? It seems like an easy system to game.

I have 2 thoughts on this:

1) If they weren't married, it would be safe to assume the kid was by accident.  When going to the doctor that provides the delivery, they would ask for proof of marriage, like a ring or photograph.  If there is none, they get charged an extra $5000 for the delivery.  This money goes to the federal government.

The other taxes are probably not going to raise a lot of revenue in the long term.
They would in the long term.  People will still use gas, people would still smoke and drink.  If rape rates fall, that's a good thing.  People will still commit adultery.  They are not big taxes, so people would probably just pay the fine and continue to do what they do.

The rise of electric vehicles and hybrid cars definitely will have an impact on gas consumption as well, particularly if the gas tax is raised to 75 cents a gallon.
The rise of the gas tax won't have much of an impact on gas consumption.  Most people would just accept the higher gas payments.  We've had higher gas prices.  I don't know if this has happened in Kentucky, but in my state, the gas tax was about $1.30 per gallon and it didn't discourage gas buying.  The current gas tax is around 30 cents a gallon.  75 cents per gallon is somewhere in the middle.

The tax could deter purchases of less fuel efficient cars in favor of more fuel efficient cars.
It barely does, if at all.

The average price of a gallon of gasoline in March of 2019 was $2.50.
That's including tax.  Add 55 cents per gallon and a 12 gallon fill up would cost $6.30 extra per fill up.  If people don't notice the change from a $1 increase in the price, they won't notice it much from a 55 cent increase.

1 in 3 households faced challenges paying their energy bill in 2015 according to the EIA (5). The Americans most likely to spend more of their income on fuel happen to be in the lowest quintile of income earners in the US averaging about 10% of their income being spent on fuel (6).
Poor people often don't pay for their own electricity bill.  If they have a renting cost too high, https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/136MFNyPCnOs50_QltxPvkBpS2OydnNfG7WZYb21qTrM/edit#gid=320988619 shows how poor people can afford ASTAP if the have a minimum wage job.

 Growth rates for wine and spirits are declining, and beer sales are decreasing by about 1.5% (7). One reason for this is likely the increase in medical marijuana, which researcher directly linked with declining alcohol sales (8).
I didn't include weed sales because I didn't know how much revenue they would produce.  Once Canada tests it out for us, and once they confirm that it won't wreck society after 5 years or some time like that, the US can give it a try.

A $2 excise tax might push consumers away too.
When people buy beer, they are thinking about how many beers they want I imagine.  They'll probably notice the extra beer prices and reluctantly pay the extra money.

The rape portion of the tax system seems unattainable. How do we guarantee that every rapist has over a million dollars to pay the state? If they don't have the money, then what happens? Are we going to garnish their wages? Well, since rapists are unlikely to find jobs, that wont be effective. 
I'm honestly willing to enslave rapists until the wages they would have received for their work pay for the rape they committed if they don't have the money up front.  This way, the wages they generate from their slavery can restitute the state for what they would have spent on labor.

I think that the details need to be ironed out before this tax system becomes solvent though.
It's not perfect, but I think it's better then the establishment right wing or left wing tax plan.  Both plans are based around income, which discourages money making.  We need something that discourages bad things instead of discouraging income.  We need something where everyone contributes equally to the tax plan, whether rich or poor.  Since many people think the poor can't afford the tax plan, I made a spreadsheet showing how they could.  The link is below:

blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 507
2
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
2
5
8
--> @Alec

I wouldn't think of it as a punishment.  I would think of it as an incentive to get the STD treated so they become less common in society, making it better.  Also, it ignores the people who get an STD from sex.  It's not a big punishment for adults either; $200.
Treatment =/= cure. Would people who try to treat their STDs be exempt from the tax? Also, what of the people who are born with STDs? $200 isn't something that people can live on, but it is still a considerable chunk of money that doesn't need to be taken. Also, the link you gave me which showcased what the system would look like for poor people raises quite a few questions. Namely, it instructs poor people to live in tents. What of the extreme environments in which people live? Florida, Arizona, Texas, and other states tend to have blisteringly hot temperatures and turbulent weather conditions. Also, some municipalities banned sleeping in/camping in public. Additionally, so-called "anti-vagrancy" laws punish people who camp in public at an astonishing rate. Despite the Justice Department taking the official position that we should not criminalize homelessness through these ordinances, 10,000 citations were doled out in 2015 (1). Even with federal courts challenging these laws, there is still leeway for municipalities to punish people who camp in public if they offer some services to the public (i.e. homeless shelters regardless of their quality). San Fransisco, because it offers homeless shelters to people, can still ban camping in public.

The income earned by people on minimum wage will inevitably differ from what is shown in that link. It assumes that people on the minimum wage work 12 hours a day, or 84 hours per week. The average amount of hours worked per week is about 44-47 hours (5). Poor people would make less money and could barely scrape by under the ASTAP tax plan.
I have 2 thoughts on this:

1) If they weren't married, it would be safe to assume the kid was by accident.  When going to the doctor that provides the delivery, they would ask for proof of marriage, like a ring or photograph.  If there is none, they get charged an extra $5000 for the delivery.  This money goes to the federal government.
So, teenagers who get pregnant would pay the tax as well? Also, a ring and a photo can be faked. A marriage certificate is easy to lose, so it is possible for a lot of people to show up with no documentation of a marriage. This is especially true if a woman is in labor and thus intense pain before arriving at the hospital. The cost of having a birth is already outrageous. The delivery, epidural, and caring for the newborn child could cost over $15,000 if done at a hospital (2).

blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 507
2
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
2
5
8
They would in the long term.  People will still use gas, people would still smoke and drink.  If rape rates fall, that's a good thing.  People will still commit adultery.  They are not big taxes, so people would probably just pay the fine and continue to do what they do.
My evidence suggests that consumption of alcohol and gasoline could decrease without the excise tax. Regardless, excise taxes can have an impact on consumers if the cost is visible enough. In fact, Australia faced a significant hurdle when it tried to decrease alcohol consumption. Despite alcohol sales falling by about 30%, there was a 46% increase in hard liquor sales (3). This is likely because of its higher alcohol content which requires less units needed to get inebriated. In other words, one product was substituted for another. In the US, we would likely experience something very similar as people choose marijuana instead of alcoholic beverages. In fact, states that have legalized medical marijuana have experienced a decrease of alcohol consumption of about 15% (4) A noticeable increase of 2 dollars per unit of alcohol sold would probably contribute to this decrease as well. I am not suggesting that Budweiser is going to go bankrupt, but we probably will face budget crunches in the future if alcohol is one of the main drivers of the budget.
The rise of the gas tax won't have much of an impact on gas consumption.  Most people would just accept the higher gas payments.  We've had higher gas prices.  I don't know if this has happened in Kentucky, but in my state, the gas tax was about $1.30 per gallon and it didn't discourage gas buying.  The current gas tax is around 30 cents a gallon.  75 cents per gallon is somewhere in the middle.
People don't like paying more money for things, so they will naturally buy from the multitude of cars with better fuel economies. The International Energy Agency forecasts that by 2030, electric automobile purchases would rise to 125 million, which is much more then the current electric fleet today which only totals 3 million (6). Cars that aren't electric or hybrids would still see better fuel economies compared to cars from the past. I am not necessarily suggesting that we would immediately see a dip in revenue with the plan. Forecasts are often exaggerated. However, tying ourselves to volatile industries doesn't seem to be the best solution.

I'm honestly willing to enslave rapists until the wages they would have received for their work pay for the rape they committed if they don't have the money up front.  This way, the wages they generate from their slavery can restitute the state for what they would have spent on labor.
Um.... I don't like rapists either. I think advocating for literal slavery is a bit much. They probably will never find a decent job after the conviction, they are put on a sex-offender registry which limits where they can live, and are ostracized by society. I have little sympathy for rapists, but they still have their 8th amendment rights which prevents the state from inflicting cruel and unusual punishment on them. What would this slave work entail?

There are some other points, but I am fairly certain I addressed the bulk of the arguments. 


Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,322
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
--> @Alec
You have a tax on needy children.

And you expect the housing market to shift to tents, shanties and apartment boxes

You expect the poor to work 15 hours a day.



I predict the cumulative effect is that an underclass of people become completely dependant on their employers, assuming they have employment. Probably no land, no time to think for themselves, no wheels, few skills.


Is maximizing GDP your singular goal?
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @Snoopy
You have a tax on needy children. 
Where?

And you expect the housing market to shift to tents, shanties and apartment boxes
Shanties are dangerous, so not those.  I don't know what an apartment box is.

You expect the poor to work 15 hours a day.
12 hours a day.  I found a way for them to survive off of 12 hours of work a day.

I predict the cumulative effect is that an underclass of people become completely dependant on their employers, assuming they have employment.
I don't think that's the case by it's self.

Probably no land, no time to think for themselves, no wheels, few skills. 
They would have time to think for themselves.  Not sure about the "no wheels" part.  That is up to the person if they are willing to pay for a used or new car.  If they live close to work, they won't need a car.

Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,322
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
--> @Alec
Your tax on births out of wedlock it's what I'm referring to
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @Snoopy
I'm taxing the pregnancies to discourage premarital sex.
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 1,826
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
--> @Alec
I like the 1.25m rape Tax, because if there’s one thing we know about rapists, it’s that they’re all millionaires.

I almost like it as much as the STD tax - because, we all know everyone with an STD is going to rush to get tested for STDs now that they come with multiple hundred dollar penalties. Everyone is sure to chose “not have sex” over “not get tested”.

Or maybe the $12k per person charge is the best, because the one thing we know about the unemployed, the retired, those in poverty, those supporting multiple adults on minimum jobs, is that they can afford thousands of dollars in extra tax per year.

Wait - I have a brilliant idea! Why don’t you just tax rapists $100 billion dollars??? That will make al your money!






This spreadsheet is unintentionally hilarious

Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 1,826
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
--> @Alec
No, No! The unintended pregnancy tax is the best!

“Excuse me miss, was your pregnancy intentional”
”what if I say no?”
”then we tax you $5000”
”then, uh. Yes! I totally meant to have this baby!”
”excellent, then you are exempt!”



“Mr President, we appear to have a 748204819% increase in teenagers getting pregnant on purpose”

Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 1,826
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
--> @Alec
No I have it! The best bit of this is that poor people will have no problem paying the $12k tax because they can just live in a tent and work 12 hour days for the entire year with the except Christmas, Boxing Day. Easter Sunday, labour day and Presidents’ Day. 

Their lazy asses need to work 12 hours on New Year’s Eve and Day though. And when they’re sick..



blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 507
2
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
2
5
8
--> @Alec
I should mention that the 10k citations given out to public campers was from one city. 
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 4,332
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
--> @Alec
12 hours a day.  I found a way for them to survive off of 12 hours of work a day.

I would be truly shocked to find that you work more than 12 hours a week.

Also noticed that you recently changed your profile political ideology. Please change it back, this was so much funnier when you were pretending to be a libertarian.
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,474
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
--> @Ramshutu
It seems that your developing 1st place syndrome.  Don't worry, it happens to many people who get 1st on this site.  It happened to RM.

Anyway:

I like the 1.25m rape Tax, because if there’s one thing we know about rapists, it’s that they’re all millionaires.
The rapist would get enslaved temporarily in order to pay off their debt to society.  What they would do is up to the prisons and up to the states to decide.

I almost like it as much as the STD tax - because, we all know everyone with an STD is going to rush to get tested for STDs now that they come with multiple hundred dollar penalties.
If this happens, then STDs would be eradicated from society.  Or they just pay the $200 and continue to have STDs.  Lets say for the sake of argument that virtually everyone gets their STDs treated(exception applies for incurable STDs).  Then we just increase the taxes in a different category.

Or maybe the $12k per person charge is the best, because the one thing we know about the unemployed, the retired, those in poverty, those supporting multiple adults on minimum jobs, is that they can afford thousands of dollars in extra tax per year.
The unemployed can get a job.  Stop and Shop is always hiring.  I know from personal experience.  

No I have it! The best bit of this is that poor people will have no problem paying the $12k tax because they can just live in a tent and work 12 hour days for the entire year with the except Christmas, Boxing Day. Easter Sunday, labour day and Presidents’ Day. 

Their lazy asses need to work 12 hours on New Year’s Eve and Day though. And when they’re sick..
I packed in 5 sick days for them per year.  They would have to work on the holidays since the shops would be busier then.