Tax discrimination

Again you say nothing

 

Your are always welcome to present your point of view with a rational argument, whenever you feel capable of it.

 

Complaining about economic forms of discrimination under any form of Capitalism should be considered immoral, simply because it may lead to greater Socialism.

 

Again you post nonsense. This is absolutely meaningless

 

Did i mention i am also working on my attitude and character, when i don't have enough money.

 

We are a nation with freedom FROM equality.

 

Where have all the nice politicians of morals gone in modern times?

 

The wealthy get to pick the candidates and frame the elections in their entirety. All the way down to the precinct level. So I get to vote. Big whoop.

 

You need to go further than that. Labour movements, for example, have had historical success in organising joe pleb into electorate success despite severe inequalities

 

The ballot vote that means nothing. Right. They wealthy have another vote, though, that I don't have, a vote that means something: money.

 

Your choice of sig block proves you know that opportunity is not equal -- the landless must pay the landed for access to the opportunities government, the community and nature provide -- and you're comfortable with that.

 

You continue to refuse to know the fact that your "social wage" is meaningless garbage because "social expenditures directed toward the working population" are simply taken by landowners, who are privileged to charge the working population full market value for all the services and infrastructure government provides.

 

Anyone can run and your vote carries as much power as anyone elses.​

 

One cannot understand the labour market (and therefore the social wage) with Georgist claptrap. Please read something a little more up-to-date

 

I find the tax discrimination argument disingenuous if the wealthy (who have enough money to make more money) are not being adversely affected by our current and progressive tax regime, nor were they when the tax rates were high enough to cover budget shortfalls.

 

That people can withstand unfair treatment doesn't excuse it.​

 

It can't be unfair treatment if they are not being adversely affected as the non-wealthy are by, for example, increases in fuel prices which affect the non-wealthy disproportionately in our political-economy.

 

Sure it can. Fair means unbiased, impartial. You can have a bias or partiality for or against someone who is able to tolerate it. Their tolerance doesn't mean you weren't unfair.​

 

How is it biased or impartial if the wealthy are making even more money than before? There must be some harm for your claim to be true under any form of Capitalism but not truer forms of Socialism.

In other words, if the wealthy are making even more money than before, it cannot be considered as harmful as low tax rates on the wealthy apparently are to the least wealthy whose income has gone down.

 

It's not impartial. It is biased. Three kids line up for a race. I pick one. I scatter tacks in his lane, tie a weight around his neck, and blindfold him. He still wins the race. His victory does not mean my actions were either impartial or unbiased.​

 

Here is the point you keep missing in your false analogy:

 

Seems only when they retire are they worth a (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

One cannot understand the labor market by refusing to know the relevant self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality, and lying about them when they are identified.

Please find a willingness to know that trying to keep others ignorant of crucial facts is evil.

 

You have no means to understand the labour market. You merely have a very silly land rant that you endlessly give in order to hide from the knowledge deficiency.

 

More accurately, you have no means to prevent me from understanding it, although you do have the means to prevent the less honest and intelligent from understanding it.

<yawn> I've proved that your "social wage" is an illusion -- or a lie -- because everything governments (or private charities) spend on providing services to working people is simply taken by landowners. Here's more proof:

That's what you have to try to stop, in order to serve evil.