Thread: An Idiots Guide to Inequality Part 1

How can you solve the problem of inequality by tweaking but retaining one of its most pernicious agents: wage taxation?

 

You know China is geoist.

But somehow capitalist India under the Raj starved tens of millions to death, while under "liberal" rule famine is largely a thing of the past.

Can you explain how giving homeless poor people money for doing nothing makes them work less, but giving rich, greedy parasites more money for doing nothing makes them work more?

 

Laf doesn't either. He thinks the fruits of people's labor should be taken from them by taxation and given to rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic landowners for doing nothing.

If they have the same goals. I don't know about you, but I don't think Laf does. He wouldn't resist liberty, justice and truth so fiercely if he did.

 

wrong, a geoist is someone who believes a liberal Nazi govt should kill millions to take away their land as a first step toward liberal totalitarian rule.

- - - Updated - - -

actually you are the only liberal who knows that

 

india capitalist Raj????? More goeist nonsense???

 

bringiton wrote (in #12;

<<<He (Lafayette) thinks the fruits of people's labor should be taken from them by taxation and given to rich, greedy, privileged, parasitic landowners for doing nothing.>>>

So you hate taxation, well and good, you are promoting a different system (geoism); but the above quote seems a harsh judgment of Lafayette's 'democratic capitalism' with a *progressive* taxation regime (incl.100% MRofT above 'obscene' income levels, if I recall correctly), which would enable sufficient funding of the public sector for universal access to quality healthcare and education (prerequisites for economic inclusion and elimination of poverty) - without removing the incentive to work. Iriemon's charts demonstrate that rich people work regardless of the MRT. [The incentive thing is way overblown - people work for all sorts of reasons, some of them non-monetary; and a decent global tax regime without tax havens, differential tax regimes etc would put an end to the rich (individuals and companies) hiding their wealth beyond the reach of tax authorities in "all" countries, in which case the rich would *have* to work like the rest of us, thereby contributing to the amelioration of disadvantage and poverty.
-------
I notice Ted wants lower taxes AND balanced (US government) budgets (presumably believing this is the way to 'out-compete' overseas players; stuff them, they are not part of Making America Great Again, and a bit of old-fashioned protectionism as part of the competition might prove helpful: recall Trump's proposal of 45% tariff on Chinese goods )

Well Trumpy is about to deliver the mother of all budget deficits, with lower, more 'competitive' rates of taxation, AND increased spending on infrastructure, schools, hospitals ( and universal health care? - he *did* say it early in the campaign!), and military expenditure....

Might this solve Trump's problems?

https://www.intellihub.com/why-dona...l-reserve-and-start-issuing-debt-free-money/#

 

By retaining wage-taxation progressively, thus doing away with the surfeit rush of Income-into-Wealth that serves no-one but Wall Street investment-bankers who must manage it. (Then on it goes to family inheritors, who never worked a day in their lives to generate one penny of it.)

Most all like Madoff, until he was overcome with his own personal madness for riches. As a mental illness, it is "catching" ...

 

Conservatives want lower taxes so people will have more of their money not stolen and thus available for fun and investment. Conservatives want balanced budgets so as not to pay interest and to discourage liberal govt from taxing, spending and wasting. Do you understand?

 

Ted wrote:

<<<Conservatives want lower taxes so people will have more of their money not stolen and thus available for fun and investment. Conservatives want balanced budgets so as not to pay interest and to discourage liberal govt from taxing, spending and wasting. Do you understand?>>>

I understand that Trump may well be more interested in my ideas around economic policy development than yours.

<<<Conservatives want balanced budgets>>>

So Bill Clinton's was the only conservative govt (= balanced budget) in the last three decades? In any case, Trumpy obviously ain't much concerned about balanced budgets (see my post #107)

<<<so as not to pay more interest>>>

we can all agree with that, so why won't you consider public sector issuance of debt-free money?

https://www.intellihub.com/why-dona...l-reserve-and-start-issuing-debt-free-money/#

(Note: the author considers it's now impossible for the US to ever repay the govt. debt!)

[Such a scheme could operate independently of, but in conjunction with, capitalism confined to the private sector].

<<<discourage liberal govt from taxing, spending and wasting>>>

...necessitating denial of universal basic rights to the best education and best health care available (rights btw agreed by Trump); in any case, such spending is not "wasteful".

Trump today: "we will not let any more companies leave America!".

....doesn't sound like some-one who believes that free trade, with lower more "competitive" tax rates is "a race to the top".

Perhaps he might be interested in exposure to Keynes' Bretton Woods proposals (rejected when the US was the world's largest surplus nation - but the tables have turned now).

 

you mean Newts was the only balanced budget-right? Newt made Clinton say the "era of big govt is over" and "end welfare as we know it."

- - - Updated - - -

so??? Trump was not our subject?????

 

It is landowners who kill millions EVERY YEAR by taking away their liberty to use land to survive.

Sad....

No, I am not. It is well known among people who are willing to know facts (i.e., doesn't include you).

 

liberal insanity with which no person on earth agrees.

 

The Raj was very capitalist, as it was largely created to defend corporate interests. Previous rule of India by the BEIC -- you don't get much more capitalist than government by a corporation -- was even more capitalist, and also killed millions.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, everyone who is willing to know facts agrees with it.

 

No, that will never work, because you will still be stealing the wages of the most productive, while giving a free pass to rich, greedy takers who will simply choose to extract rents of privilege in ways that don't emit taxable income. You don't seem to understand that the complexity of the income tax system is needed to make it bearable, because it is inherently unjust and evil. A little tweak to the rates can't change that.

 

more liberal pure gibberish fantasy based on what?????!!

- - - Updated - - -

so then why not present just one person on earth who agrees with your obvious insanity

 

Historical fact. You wouldn't know what that is.

&#8220;Wherever in any country there are idle lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right.&#8221; -- Thomas Jefferson

 

and that to a liberal means that land owners kill millions? Insane?

 

Ted wrote (in 136);

<<<so??? Trump was not our subject?????>>>

but very much a legitimate part of the topic of this board... some of us are past the obsolete 'liberal' - 'conservative' dichotomy, including pragmatist Trump (but admittedly the jury is still out with Trump).

 

how can they be obsolete when there have only been two ideas under the sun since Plato and Aristotle: freedom or govt. Isn't thinking fun??

 

Ted wrote:

<<<how can they (left-right political divide) be obsolete when there have only been two ideas under the sun since Plato and Aristotle: freedom or govt.>>>

Freedom OR govt? Obsolete conceptualisation indeed! And the quicker we get past such obselete thinking the quicker we can master the universe.

Yes, the ability to think is wonderful. (Hint: evolution has moved on since 'life' first climbed out of the slime on the sea floor, and when *slave-dependent* Aristotle was examining the world; in our time national rule of law
(= government), soon to become international rule of law (=global peace and co-operation), opens up unlimited possibilities for economic and political freedom for all.

 

Some can follow a logical implication, others can't.

 

So you know how much income every person in the US ought to receive? Really? How can you know this?

 

The inequality isn't the result of wage taxation. Even if I paid zero taxes, some would be much poorer than me and some would be much wealthier than me. The fundamental driver in inequality is the dynamic between how money circulates and where it pools. It is as much about how we spend our money as how much money we have to spend.

 

Since we have beautiful Republican capitalism we are free to let money pool anywhere we want. If we don't want billions to pool in Bill Gates' hands we are free to stop buying from him. Only violent Nazi-like liberals want to buy from Gates and then use govt to steal the money back.

 

thats true its a result of Bill Gates, for example, inventing stuff people want to buy to improve their standard of living and you not having anything comparable that people want to buy to improve their standard of living. Do you understand?