The constant calls to place high taxes on the 1%, the constant fetishising of the 60s when top marginal rates were over 90%, and the constant calls to make the rich 'pay their fair share' (even though they already pay the vast plurality of the tax bill) got me thinking. If you earn over $32,000, you are a global 1%er, like 44% of Americans. You are almost certainly NOT paying your 'fair share' internationally. In fact you are paying very little, a pittance compared with the income taxation which hits the domestic 1%. Is this not the inevitable destination of internationalism today? Of the European Union, of the United Nations, of the International Criminal Court, and "human rights law" generally? What has prevented this to date? Distance used to really screw over negative externalities. Before 1837 the fastest method of communication was a man on a horse. Now we communicate at the speed limit of the universe. It used to take 6 to 8 weeks to get from London to Boston, now it takes 5 hours with a headwind. In 1700 the largest city in the world was Beijing with 650,000 people, now 5 million cities are common on most continents. A poor Sudanese man is closer to a rich New Yorker today than a poor Mississipian was in 1800. All of these factors combined make global taxation more likely and feasible. After a few generations of this technological proximity a global redistribution will be too tempting to pass up. All the same arguments apply globally today as they did domestically yesterday, and most of the objections are being overcome: -Rich nations no longer have culture. They have a metaculture. -What happens in Calcutta definitely matters to Washington now. In an era of global trade and travel global law needs to catch up. -Classical liberalism is no longer rife in rich nations. They have done internally what the global 99% want externally. ________________________________ So. 1. Do you think a global income tax against the global 1% is feasible or likely within the next century? 2. Do you recognise this as the logical extension of the arguments the left has been using for the past 150 years? 3. Do you support such a hypothetical system? Thanks.
You're telling that guy struggling to get by on $15 an hour that he's lucky to be getting even that. I'm sure he's "feelin you".
There are cost of living considerations. Money goes much less further some places than others. The issue is that so often, where the money is is also where the cost of living is high, so that money tends to get drained pretty quickly. This is often why big cities are so attractive to immigrants, because they can live in a tiny space and avoid spending any money, and then eventually take that money back home with them to a country where it will stretch a lot further. You could be earning $35,000 a year but that would still be relative poverty is you were trying to live somewhere like the Bay Area or New York City. This is also the reason the Japanese are "poor", even though if you took their money and put it on international exchange rates they would be rich. But again, if you're willing to live a lower standard of living and assiduously manage to avoid spending any money that you don't have to, you could theoretically live in a high cost of living area for a period of time and accumulate some substantial savings.
America declared it's independence in 1776 and earned it. I'll be an isolationist before I pay a global income tax. Go jump in a lake.
Ummm...the fact that people are working full time and only MAKING $32K a year is WHY Trump got elected...and now you...A Trump supporter is telling them that they're lucky to be making even THAT? Are ya friggin kidding?
If you are struggling to get by on $15 an hour, you have a lifetime of bad choices to blame. Not someone elses tax rate.
