What are all the Political Ideologies and convince me to have the same political ideology as you.

1. Taxes a) Low Taxes Liberals tend to favor high tax rates for the reason of promoting equality. But that begs the question whether or not a perfectly ‘equal’ society is even desirable. Inequality has increased in recent years, but that is not necessarily bad. Say in a perfectly equal society where everyone had $100, an entrepreneur made something like an iPod. Everyone wants the product so they buy it. But since there is only one seller and multiple consumers, the entrepreneur becomes super rich compared to everyone else—but EVERYONE also became better off because they have this new technology. This is what has been happening in recent years, meaning inequality has mainly been spurred by productivity and new technology which makes everyone better off. Inequality can be bad, but the inequality in recent years has been good based upon how the wealth was accumulated [1. http://scholar.harvard.edu...]. Raising the top marginal tax rate has been found to be bad, according to a literature review by the Tax Foundation. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has published research arguing tax rates have no effect on growth and that the fastest growth occurred during the 50s when tax rates were the highest. But their analysis has many problems, including not controlling for the tax base, variation in taxes other than income taxes, short-term versus long term effects, reverse causality (i.e. growth causes the tax increase, not the other way around), etc. These are all well-known issues and modern economists have been able to control these variables. The CRS study claiming no effect has many holes—it is unpublishable in any peer-reviewed journal. The Tax Foundation argues that the burgeoning evidence suggests research on taxes “consistently point to significant negative effects of taxes on economic growth even after controlling for various other factors such as government spending, business cycle conditions, and monetary policy” [2. http://taxfoundation.org...]. Taxes are bad for growth, and lower taxes should be achieved. Liberals support high taxes, Conservatives and Libertarians support low taxes. Conservatism and Libertarianism win this point. b) Flat Tax A flat tax is an idea in which everyone pays the same percent—not the same amount—of their income to the government. The rich would still pay more as, say, 13% of one billion is larger than 15% of 50,000. What effect, if any, would a flat tax have on the economy? Slovakia, a former communist country, has implemented a low rate flat tax on all of their taxes and has eliminated the majority of their other taxes (e.g. estate taxes) in 2004. Before 2004, the economy grew fairly slow and did not begin to grow until 2003. After 2004, the economy began to grow at an accelerated rate compared to the rest of Slovakia’s history. This basic analysis suggests the flat tax in Slovakia has led to a period of growth and stability [3. http://www.tradingeconomics.com...]. A similar experiment was done in Russia. Russia already had low taxes with 28% being their max tax rate (like under the Reagan administration), but they lowered their income tax to a flat 13%. The International Monetary Fund, although unable to find a supply side effect from the tax, was able to find that more people paid the tax and that revenue increased as a result [4. https://www.imf.org...]. In Russia, a flat tax provided more revenue than a progressive tax! Other researchers did find a supply side effect, noting more hours were worked and it was easier to find jobs. Not only did revenue increase, but the jobs market thrived as a result [5. http://ftp.iza.org...]. A final study on the reform found that there was more tax compliance—so more revenue—but also that productivity increased [6. http://www.voxeu.org...]. The flat tax in Russia was a huge success, and was far superior to the liberal progressive tax they had before. A liberal’s largest objection is that a flat tax cannot acquire enough revenue, which is untrue. A flat tax is capable of generating 18.5% of the wealth in the economy—same as the current tax code. The reason it is superior to the current tax system, but still able to take the same amount from the economy, is because of how it is structured. The flat tax has a strong supply-side bias, which as noted above would grow the economy. There would be fewer loopholes and deductions which make the tax code easier to understand [7. http://www.heritage.org...]. This is when a liberal will object: why do we need tax reform? Why is the current system bad? The current system is riddled with loopholes, deductions, double taxation, estate taxes, etc. All of these serve to complicate the system forcing many Americans to pay for an accountant in order to avoid breaking the law. The system currently also has a very high marginal tax rate (and the highest corporate tax rate in the world), which makes us very uncompetitive and biases against saving. The current tax code “create[s] sizeable disincentives against working, investing, and taking risks”, and all of those things are necessary in order to grow the economy [8. http://www.heritage.org...].The most extensive study on the issue suggests leaving the current progressive tax system and implementing a low-rate, but also revenue neutral, flat tax would lead to economic growth [9. http://www.frbsf.org...]. c) Progressive tax I have already argued the current system—which happens to be a liberal progressive tax—is bad. But a progressive tax may not be bad if we reform it. A liberal would argue we can close the loopholes, lower the rates, and continue having a progressive tax which works. And that is true, for a time. Every time that type of reform has taken place it was temporary. In the 80s, Reagan lowered tax rates (people who say they rose them don’t understand what closing a loophole is). He also closed the loopholes and made the system a lot simpler. Today, over 30 years later, we are back where we started. Tax rates have gone up from around 30% to 40%, and the tax system is super complex. All reforms of the progressive tax have failed. We need a new tax system which is simple and easy to understand. Plus, as noted, rich people work hard for their money. If you want higher tax rates for the rich like under this system, you have to justify the stealing of wealth which was acquired through legitimate means. I am not really going to discuss the sales tax because the flat tax is enough to convince you that conservatives are right—I am not a fan of the sales tax anyway. 2. Economics a) Stimulus spending In theory, the government can spur economic growth by spending. The spending (through a stimulus) is supposed to have a multiplier effect where the money gets circulated and the economy begins to boom. This cannot work due to a policy called monetary offset. The Federal Reserve, say, is targeting a 2% inflation rate. When the government spends money, inflation increases. So in response the Fed reduces the inflation rate in order to keep it at 2%. This makes it impossible for the stimulus to work, the fiscal multiplier is zero meaning no economic growth is induced by the stimulus [10. http://mercatus.org...]. So liberals supporting stimulus packages forget that it is impossible for it to work due to the Fed’s policies, and it is just a huge waste of money. Further, analysis by economist John Lott suggests the stimulus may have made matters worse. Unemployment is worse in regions where costly stimulus packages were implemented, and better in those which opted for supply-side reforms and not demand-side stimulus packages [11. http://johnrlott.tripod.com...]. So, Conservatives and Libertarians are right on this issue. b) Regulation Libertarians generally do not like regulation at all. Regulation in small amounts is necessary. The current Obama administration has been increasing regulation at an exponential rate, and the regulations cost 73 billion dollars each year. The cost of red tape/regulation has been exploding under his administration, even compared to the liberal leaning president George W. Bush. These mandates affect small business the most, who are the main drivers of the economy. If liberals keep passing regulation, the economy will continue to be in this anemic economic growth [12. http://www.heritage.org...]. An academic study has been done on the issue, and came to similar results. Excessive regulation—especially when it is growing fast and accumulates—harms economic growth. Had regulation NOT grown, and stayed at the 1949 level, the economy would be worth 59 TRILLION dollars [13. http://neighborhoodeffects.mercatus.org...]. In comparison, the current GDP is 15 trillion dollars. Had regulation not grown, the economy would be almost FOUR TIMES larger. Had an extremist like me been president, we would be four times richer. Now some regulation is a good thing. A Federal Reserve can, and has, stimulated economic growth via their control over the money supply. Taxes are good (at low levels) because the government can build infrastructure for private industry to use, which spurs growth. The libertarian standpoint is crazy, but so is the liberal side. The Conservatives win. Summary Libertarian points: 4 Conservative points: 5 Liberal points: 0 I hope that I have convinced my opponent to be right-of-center, and that I will be able to convert him fully in the following rounds.