Originally posted by sh76 Efficient at achieving the maximum level of productivity and comfort of and for the maximum number of people.
You're being very vague. First of all, productivity and comfort and not the same and hard to define. Secondly, economists disagree quite a bit about what level of taxation gives the optimal living standard.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra You're being very vague. First of all, productivity and comfort and not the same and hard to define. Secondly, economists disagree quite a bit about what level of taxation gives the optimal living standard.
hard to define... disagree
I never said it was easy.
That it may be difficult or impossible to completely achieve does not disqualify it as the goal.
Originally posted by sh76 Efficient at achieving the maximum level of productivity and comfort of and for the maximum number of people.
But that formulation is consistent with the complete lack of minimal guarantees for the few. Why not try to maximize the minimal level of productivity and comfort for all, or guarantee some minimal level of comfort for all and then tax in accord with some quasi-utilitarian distributive principle?
Originally posted by Hugh Glass "Now what liberty can there be where property is taken without consent??" -- Samuel Adams, founding father and leader of the Boston Tea Party
It is not unfrequent to hear men declaim loudly upon liberty, who, if we may judge by the whole tenor of their actions, mean nothing else by it but their own liberty, - to oppress without control or the restraint of laws all who are poorer or weaker than themselves.
Originally posted by bbarr But that formulation is consistent with the complete lack of minimal guarantees for the few. Why not try to maximize the minimal level of productivity and comfort for all, or guarantee some minimal level of comfort for all and then tax in accord with some quasi-utilitarian distributive principle?
Okay; that's sort of what I meant... same basic difference.
Originally posted by Hugh Glass "Now what liberty can there be where property is taken without consent??" -- Samuel Adams, founding father and leader of the Boston Tea Party
You know Adams was talking about taxation without representation, right? You know Adams thought that the consent required for taxation to be just could be the consent of a man's representatives in government, and need not be the explicit consent of the man himself, right? You've read Adams' memorandum of December 18th, 1771, right? No? Oh, so you don't know what the hell you're talking about when you selectively quote the founding fathers.
Originally posted by bbarr But that formulation is consistent with the complete lack of minimal guarantees for the few. Why not try to maximize the minimal level of productivity and comfort for all, or guarantee some minimal level of comfort for all and then tax in accord with some quasi-utilitarian distributive principle?
More pretentious gobbledegook.
Who are 'the few' who lack 'minimal guarantees', and what does this lack entail?
Who is able to 'maximise the minimal level of productivity and comfort for ALL'?
How can one set about establishing a 'minimal level of comfort' which applies to 'all', and what is a 'quasi-utilitarian distributive principle'?
Originally posted by sh76 [b]hard to define... disagree
I never said it was easy.
That it may be difficult or impossible to completely achieve does not disqualify it as the goal.[/b]
Agreed, but it's not clear at all to me what the goal is, according to you (regardless of how easy it is to achieve and how easy it is to determine how to achieve such a goal).
Originally posted by bbarr Get an education, douchebag.
You need to learn how to avoid writing gobbledegook, windbag.
The fact that you have not answered any of my questions indicates that you do not know what you are talking about.
Originally posted by Sartor Resartus You need to learn how to avoid writing gobbledegook, windbag.
The fact that you have not answered any of my questions indicates that you do not know what you are talking about.
Just like a typically arrogant, remedial student. Just 'cause you have a question, it doesn't mean it's a good one. Why don't you sit down for a little, and think about those questions of yours. Try to puzzle them out on your own. You know, put in a little effort to understand. And then, when you're good and tired from all that thinking, I'll clear things up for you.
Originally posted by bbarr Just like a typically arrogant, remedial student. Just 'cause you have a question, it doesn't mean it's a good one. Why don't you sit down for a little, and think about those questions of yours. Try to puzzle them out on your own. You know, put in a little effort to understand. And then, when you're good and tired from all that thinking, I'll clear things up for you.
You do not appear to have the ability to 'clear up' your own mind, let alone the ability to 'clear things up' for me or anyone else.
Kant's Critique of Pure Reason makes easy reading compared with your drivel.
Originally posted by bbarr But that formulation is consistent with the complete lack of minimal guarantees for the few. Why not try to maximize the minimal level of productivity and comfort for all, or guarantee some minimal level of comfort for all and then tax in accord with some quasi-utilitarian distributive principle?
One might argue that maximizing comfort and productivity already implies such a minimum guarantee, considering people generally don't like to witness poverty and deprivation, and it takes relatively few resources to make such a guarantee. Furthermore, improving social mobility also increases labour productivity since the talented who are born poor will find it easier to find productive jobs.
Originally posted by FMF bbar, one of the smartest and most thought provoking people on this web site, meet Sartor Resartus, one of its dimmest and most predictable.
FMF, the man who 'has travelled the world' and imagines he knows all about everything, meet bbar, the man who posts gobbledegook to impress gullible clowns.
30 Jul '10 16:041 edit
Estate Taxes on the Super Wealthy
Back to Top