2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioI'm too interested in seeing how your Humpty Dumpty act turns out. Tax = theft; pretty good; what next?
Piss off. If you're not here to debate, but to just be a disputatious prick, then
why do you bother to post at all?
I'm also a fan of your other act.
(There's another motivation, which remains obscure to me; but I suspect it's a necessary evil.)
(Oh -- I hate to point this out, but the adversarial note in our discussion was introduced by your good self, with your talk of irrelevant one-liners; so suck on it, hypocrite.)
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWell, if you want to pretend that I said 'Tax = theft' then go right ahead. But
I'm too interested in seeing how your Humpty Dumpty act turns out. Tax = theft; pretty good; what next?
I'm also a fan of your other act.
since I've said over and over that I did not say that, and you seem to like
'tax = tax, therefore it's all good,' be a good sheep or thug or whatever you
prefer.
For myself, I don't like to be coerced into moral action.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioAgain, I'm not advocating taxing the rich out of jealousy or spite. People are free to do whatever they want with their disposable income. The main issue is that the tax is not only required for the good of society, but the rich also benefit as I have explained earlier. Do the rich not benefit from better infrastructure, lower crime, better labour productivity, lower corruption, better health care, more investment in science, a better functioning democracy, etc.? Conversely, they do not benefit at all or only very little from an excess of luxury goods as most of the utility is lost due to the fact that these goods tend to be positional to a high degree, which is reflected in the diminishing returns on income increases.
This is very scary thinking. If someone is wealthy and won't donate
their money, then you advocate stealing from him. If the wealthy person
is willing to donate, then we don't need to.
This is thuggery, plain and simple. A person who is either skilled or
lucky enough to be wealthy should by virtue of being wealthy be able to
spend it on whi to a more
moral action, for that would make me scarcely different than they.
Nemesio
I'm not saying the rich should be taxed differently according to whether they contribute to society or not; there is no practical way for doing this and the civil society is far, far more inefficient than government as there is little incentive to reduce waste.
Originally posted by ScriabinHow does your link refute what I say? I didn't claim Massachusetts was the only place that does reasonably well. That's why I said like Massachusetts.
Although?
How ignorant can one be and still remain able to breathe? You clearly have absolutely no concept whatsoever of the number of wealthy areas in the USA nor of the scope of their opulence.
Which quantum reality did you say you came from? The one where they flap their jaws before engaging their brains?
see http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/28/real_estate/wealthiest_states/
and
http://wealth.mongabay.com/
Originally posted by normbenignActually, I favor business taxes over personal income taxes, or other forms of direct taxation (See Wealth of Nations, and original Constitutional prohibitions on direct taxation)
"You seem to equate taxing the rich to taxing businesses."
No, not at all. Although a certain amount of wealth is required to capitalize any business, corporate or otherwise. Actually, I favor business taxes over personal income taxes, or other forms of direct taxation (See Wealth of Nations, and original Constitutional prohibitions on direct taxatio ...[text shortened]... eing able to change course much more accurately and quickly than larger enterprises.
You are right, VAT is too low in the US. It's 19% here, and 25% in Sweden. VAT is a nice and efficient method of taxing, however you also need to redistrubute income to maximize wealth, and VAT can't do that as it is merely a % of what you buy. Business tax is somewhat of a problem because multinational companies can move abroad and evade tax that way, which is why an international agreement would be required if one were to (partly) replace income tax with business tax.
This rather presumptuously concludes that others know better how to use their money than those who earned it.
Not per se. I think the wealthy understand very well (or at least, most of them) that society would be better off if they do not build that third pool at their house but instead donate the money to science. However, they also assume, and rightly so, that their individual contribution won't really matter. You've guessed it: it's another Prisoner's Dilemma.
Just one example: Of the trillions of dollars spent on Social Welfare programs in the US, about 28% went to the beneficiaries. The rest was administrative costs of the programs.
This looks like a figure taken from a neocon blog, but if it's really that inefficient, the problem isn't social security but the way it is applied. And in any case, if a positional good is purchased, 100% is wasted.
That isn't the fault of the electoral system. A purely democratic, mob ruled system would hardly elect a more capable body
I'm not talking about "purely democratic". I'm talking about proportional representation, which makes government much more accountable for what they do.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraper se, dude, per se. That's exactly what it amounts to, you like the idea of spending money that you didn't earn.
Not per se. I think the wealthy understand very well (or at least, most of them) that society would be better off if they do not build that third pool at their house but instead donate the money to science. However, they also assume, and rightly so, that their individual contribution won't really matter. You've guessed it: it's another Prisoner's Dilemma.
Originally posted by normbenignNo one is being "punished". The one who benefits the most should be paying the most in an equitable system.
"Without an economic system which is based on governmental measures, like enforcement of contracts, creation of legal tender, etc. etc. the amassing of wealth is impossible. Therefore, it only makes sense that those who benefit most from the system imposed by government pay for it."
Everyone under a system of government which guarantees individual righ ...[text shortened]... t back to those who did not, minus a substantial handling fee, the inefficiency of government.
Originally posted by NemesioYour idea of "coercion" is extremely weird. The net effect on what you have left over is absolutely zero whether you choose to make a charitable donation or not. Government is choosing to limit its taxation of you IF you give charitable donations. How is this an outrage to you?
Wow. So far, I've gotten a whole boatload of insults, but no one willing to
define 'greed' or 'need' with any care.
Boss de Nage: Again, you reassert yourself, but with no argument forthcoming.
It's as if you believe that as long as the government calls it a 'tax' it can't possibly
be stealing. Certainly, you don't believe that, so why can't clearly ...[text shortened]... oney or
your life?'
Nemesio
The "kids in Bangladesh would kill to eat that spinach" argument you are making doesn't work with 6 year olds and it doesn't work here either. That somewhere there may be people living in even more abject poverty and suffering then the most disadvantaged in the US is hardly a reason to not alleviate the poverty and suffering in our society.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe VAT is a terrible, regressive tax. I sincerely hope the US never adopts anything like it here on the Federal level.
[b]Actually, I favor business taxes over personal income taxes, or other forms of direct taxation (See Wealth of Nations, and original Constitutional prohibitions on direct taxation)
You are right, VAT is too low in the US. It's 19% here, and 25% in Sweden. VAT is a nice and efficient method of taxing, however you also need to redistrubute income ...[text shortened]... onal representation, which makes government much more accountable for what they do.[/b]