Tax Math

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Why is it dishonest and immoral if it works and those footing the bill actually benefit from the system? How would the "rich" hire people if they are dying in the gutter and/or they are criminals and/or they have no education or productive skills? Do you see the rich massively fleeing Northern Europe because their system is so "dishonest and immoral"?

Where would they flee to? Morality isn't decided on the basis that everyone does it.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yes, let's make everything voluntary, that works wonders. After all, anarchism is the most honest system out there, where morality thrives.

"Yes, let's make everything voluntary, that works wonders. After all, anarchism is the most honest system out there"

Anarchy and Democracy use the same technique to achieve their agenda. Force!! Both require getting the biggest, toughest gang, and to hell with the rights of the minority, especially the rich minority. Democracy or anarchy, looting by force, for allegedly good reasons doesn't make the looting honest or moral.

Originally posted by kbear1k
"Libertarians are not anarchists."
What exactly do libertarians stand for? (Since many seem to stand for selfishness.)

Liberty! They are the original and true liberals. Private property, individual rights (there are no other rights), free markets. Protection by government of rights, and from force and fraud.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Indeed. And because representative democracy is the only sensible way to determine allowed pollution levels (as the market has no way of doing it, and dictatorships are very prone to corruption, the consequences of which are visible in e.g. China where pollution is severe), Wajoma immediately goes into full-fledged cognitive dissonance-mode. Amusing, in a way.

"as the market has no way of doing it"

Markets are the best way to achieve goals of all sorts. Why do you think there is so much advertising bragging about how "green" various companies are?

"dictatorships are very prone to corruption" as are democracies.

Free market republics best respond to the actual desires of consumers, who vote with their purchases.

This whole post is "full-fledged cognitive dissonance-mode. Amusing, in a way."

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Wow, that's classy. You are now, after all the time evading the issue, going to deny altogether you said companies may not physically harm you?

No you have repeatedly made unsupported assertions. Simply back them up with the posts that have been alleged or STFU.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You said something which implies that pollution should be banned by law and then refused to clarify what you meant if not what was deemed the implication. Here's another opportunity to clarify. Should or should not others be allowed to harm you, physically? If not, you are in favour of banning pollution by law - after all, pollution is, by definition, h ...[text shortened]... to what degree (if at all a limit), and by what mechanism ought society decide to what degree?

So I didn't argue that all pollution should be banned by law as you claimed here:

"blah blah..., like when he argued in favour of banning all forms of pollution by law."

And I have never said that all pollution should be banned by law as you claimed here:

"Actually you did say that - and you have refused every opportunity to elaborate your position on this and a myriad of other issues when questioned."

So now backed totally into a corner you wish to imply that I implied that all pollution should be banned by law? And you will now present me with an opportunity to speak? How do you manage to enter your house, your head must be as big as a ship, I don't need you to provide opportunities for me to speak. Manipulation and misrepresentaion is the MO of FMF, he's not very good at it but we expect it, you sir should do the right thing, there is an opportunity here, not presented by me, but an opportunity of your own making, the opportunity to apologise.

Originally posted by Wajoma
So I didn't argue that all pollution should be banned by law as you claimed here:

"blah blah..., like when he argued in favour of banning all forms of pollution by law."

And I have never said that all pollution should be banned by law as you claimed here:

"Actually you did say that - and you have refused every opportunity to elaborate your position o not presented by me, but an opportunity of your own making, the opportunity to apologise.

Still nothing to explain - or replace - your ridiculous comments about pollution?

Originally posted by wittywonka
This is a long post, but if you're concerned about tax rates in the U.S. (on either
side of the spectrum), then read on...

Like a growing number of Americans, I think enacting a modest tax increase on
the wealthiest Americans is a necessary means of paying off the U.S. deficit. I am
also not convinced that tax increases on the very wealthiest Ameri ...[text shortened]... t, I would hope some sort of modest rate
adjustment like this would go up for consideration.

TLDR




I'm kidding.

FWIW, I think your rates are too low. I think we could live on something like:

10%: $0-$10,000
15%: $10,001-$35,000
25%: $35,001-$80,000
28%: $80,001-$150,000
33%: $150,001-$200,000
35%: $2000,001-$350,000
39%: $350,000-$500,000
42%: $500,000-$1m
45%: $1M-$10M
50%: $10M-$100m
60%: $100m+