Top income brackets should be taxed at 99%.

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by Bic_Cherry, Oct 8, 2019.

  1. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,009
    Likes Received:
    237
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It's not a pretense. You did say something that stupid. And I am certain that you did it disingenuously, to evade the actual issue.
    Now that is an intelligent question that makes some sense, but I think you meant to ask who can RIGHTLY do so, as who CAN do so is just a matter of brute force.
    Whoever will make just -- i.e., market -- compensation to the community of those whom he deprives of it -- the same community that both secures his exclusive tenure for him and makes the land more advantageous for him to use.
     
  2. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,009
    Likes Received:
    237
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Why even say something so self-evidently absurd?

    No, just a monthly payment from the landholder to the community that secures his exclusive tenure for what he is taking from everyone else.
     
  3. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    17,508
    Likes Received:
    2,520
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And the state wouldn't violate my right to liberty? It would let me use any land I wished?
     
  4. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,009
    Likes Received:
    237
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Exclusive land tenure is self-evidently impossible without violating people's rights to liberty. The state would be there to ensure that such inevitable violations were justly COMPENSATED.
    You would be at liberty to use enough of the available advantageous land of your choice to have access to economic opportunity for free. If you wanted to deprive everyone else of more than that, you would make just (market) compensation to the community of those you were taking it from.
     
  5. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    17,508
    Likes Received:
    2,520
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you agree that they would be violating my right to liberty. Got it.
     
  6. Blaster3

    Blaster3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2018
    Messages:
    5,131
    Likes Received:
    3,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    so you're saying that everyone in the company should make the exact same take home pay...

    why be the boss when being the lowest responsible position pays the same money with less stress/headache... why own the company if all you'll earn is the same money as the night janitor...

    krazy foolish ideals ofthe progressive minded
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  7. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,009
    Likes Received:
    237
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Exclusive land tenure always inherently violates everyone's rights to liberty. The question is, will such violations be justly compensated, as I would prefer, or will the victims simply be forcibly robbed, as you would prefer?
     
  8. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    17,508
    Likes Received:
    2,520
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So we can now acknowledge that your system requires that people's right to liberty be violated.
     
  9. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,009
    Likes Received:
    237
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Nope. Flat false. It is exclusive land tenure that requires people's rights to liberty be violated, not my system. Under my system, if no one wants exclusive tenure to land someone else wants to use, no one's rights are violated. Under ANY system, if anyone has exclusive tenure to land someone else wants to use, people's rights to liberty are violated. My system does not violate people's rights, it just ensures the violations inherent in exclusive tenure are justly compensated.
     
  10. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    17,508
    Likes Received:
    2,520
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So under your system I would not be prevented from using the land nature provided? Nobody would prevent me from doing so? Any land I choose?
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2019
  11. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,009
    Likes Received:
    237
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The exclusive landholder would prevent you, of course, as under any system with exclusive landholding. As I have already explained to you so very clearly and patiently, multiple times, and you so disingenuously refuse to acknowledge.
     
  12. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    17,508
    Likes Received:
    2,520
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The stinking thieving landholder would prevent me from using the land that nature provided? That's bullshit. Your system sounds stupid.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2019
  13. Bic_Cherry

    Bic_Cherry Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Actually, people will be even MORE MOTIVATED to work to serve the society because trust in society and the government would be much greater.

    Such progressive taxation till the top level bracket is 99% will mean that since the really rich pay more in taxes, they would also more sharply scrutinise government activities and expenditure, thus making the bureaucracy leaner and more cost efficient. Because the rich pay PROGRESSIVELY more taxes, many lower income groups will probably pay zero in income taxes since the lower brackets of income will be taxed at very low or zero income taxes (zero to say 3% etc). More work will be available since the greed of the capitalist is moderated and so the implementation of robotics will not be so reckless and unbridled.

    The reckless implementation of robotics should be curbed because it can be extremely harmful to the environment since most robot manufacturers today are highly pollutive in their manufacturing processes and there are few efforts at recycling obsolete or discarded robots.

    Society will be more cohesive when the workers know that they are not being systematically exploited by capitalist and in so far that the taxation system remains non corrupt, strikes will be few and far between because workers cannot find reason to protest against their capitalist employers when firstly, the impetus to exploit workers is gone and workers cannot find evidence that they are being exploited since there is no motive for capitalist to exploit them in the first place.

    Many people will want to work to benifit from the low income taxes available to the average worker so workers are reluctant to go on strike since they know that many other citizens will readily fill in their job vacancies so long as the work contract is fair and judiciously complied with, should they be fired for striking / refusing to report for work during work hours.
     
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2019
  14. william kurps

    william kurps Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2019
    Messages:
    5,088
    Likes Received:
    1,880
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The reckless implementation of robotics should be curbed


    Thata an amusing statement..since one is using technology to post on the internet.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2019
  15. Bic_Cherry

    Bic_Cherry Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Just because one uses technology doesn't mean all technology is good. U must be more descerning please.
    Nuclear ICBM are also the most advanced technology based, but all superpowers know that their use should be severely restricted or curbed because going along that mutually competitive path will certainly mean annhiliation of all life one Earth, if u know what I mean.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2019
    william kurps likes this.
  16. william kurps

    william kurps Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2019
    Messages:
    5,088
    Likes Received:
    1,880
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Ok I get what you mean and respect your opinion, so technology is making life simpler yet taking over jobs.
     
  17. Bic_Cherry

    Bic_Cherry Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2012
    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Obviously since 'technology' is such a big term, it has to be used judiciously, especially when there are nowadays many other concerns, global warming and pollution especially. World is becoming a much smaller place (e.g. North Korea never posed any significant threat to USA except viz its philosophy of communism, but then it was vz literature and no military ever attacked declared war on USA with its uniformed troops arriving on USA soil (not counting terrorist acts)) : nowadays, its not really the communist ideology but the ICBM that N Korea has.

    A bit off topic, but u get the gist that technology for technology sake has some dire consequences for society at large.

    Ditto local society, a government will not be able to function nor the society be in peace if there is widespread inequality aka Hong Kong, thus the need to have progressive taxation so that just as the rich are able to lobby the government more or are more connected, they too will not be too greedy for government funding for their business interest etc because they know that they will then have to pay more for it according to law. People are also much more likely to be law abiding if they felt that the law was created by wise and mature people for overall societal good rather than a mafia (illegitimate government) in the best interest of its own cronies/ supporters only.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2019
  18. Spim

    Spim Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,587
    Likes Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Quite honestly I think Society is always accepted some form of primal division.

    the great disparity, etc. the fortunate few rule the unfortunate many.

    What's most interesting about this particular time frame we live in is that we are actually able to vocalize our negative opinions about this much further than the end of the bar. but that just creates more division.
     
  19. Right is the way

    Right is the way Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    2,480
    Likes Received:
    846
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nothing is stopping you from pay more taxes. You are not required to use a deduction. But something tells me you already knew this and you are taking all the ded8that you are allowed. Statements like yours are complete and utter bs. Everyone that says I am rich and will gladly pay more taxes are almost always the ones doing everything possible to lower there taxes.
     
  20. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    17,508
    Likes Received:
    2,520
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Shouldn't the aim of taxation to be to raise revenue for the government? What's with the social engineering?
     
  21. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,009
    Likes Received:
    237
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It's inherent in exclusive landholding. You are arguing against the definitions of ordinary words.
    Not compared to what some people prefer to it...
     
  22. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    17,508
    Likes Received:
    2,520
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So your proposed system would prevent me from freely using the land that nature had provided?
     
  23. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,009
    Likes Received:
    237
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Revenue can be raised in many ways, some socially benign, others harmful. The two most fundamental and widely accepted principles of sound public revenue systems are "beneficiary pay" and "ability to pay." Income tax violates both. A tax on the value of privilege satisfies both.
     
  24. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    4,009
    Likes Received:
    237
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Nope. Landholders would. The system would just make sure they did not thereby inflict injustice on you and everyone else. If no one wanted exclusive tenure, you would be free to use all the land non-exclusively, as is your natural right.
     
  25. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    17,508
    Likes Received:
    2,520
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your system would allow landholders?
     

Share This Page