Do You Prefer Capitalism or Socialism?

Why are you trying to change the subject to me personally?

 

First you can use cash and second there are plenty of banks you are required to use a specific one.

 

Who told you that? Where is the evidence for your claim?

 

For many purposes, you can't.

Being at "liberty" to choose which thief robs you is not the same as not being robbed.

 

I'm just trying to find out what is this fair distribution of the tax burden is since the left/MSM/Dems and especially Biden do not think we have it now.

I have been trying for over twenty years to get someone on the side in various forums to finally post what the numbers would be where they would finally say we have reached that fairness.

Crickets then as now.

 

I wasn't cleaned if you were how did you manage to get cleaned out by the bank your deposits are federally insured. And the banks received bridge loans which they payed back ahead of schedule and with interest, the taxpayers made money off it.

 

Reading the thread. Care to respond to what I said now?

 

It's not required to get through life you can use cash. Now if you want to do a lot of things it is good to have a credit card but that is just a service you can get from a variety of companies that are not banks but lending institutions. I have an Amazon credit card which is managed for them by Chase but I don't have any money deposited in a Chase bank account and there are LOTS of other credit cards I could use.

So what's your point here? I am not exploited but Amazon or Chase.

 

By paying the 5-10x higher monopoly prices providers charge because government-issued and -enforced privileges ensure they don't have to compete....

Like Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan.....

I already told you numerous times, and you just ignored it and falsely claimed I had not responded. A fair tax burden would be somewhat more unequal than the distribution of wealth, as the measure of wealth is wealth, not income.

 

You can also go live alone in the woods. So what? That does not alter the fact that if you prefer to access economic opportunity, you have to pay parasites for their permission.

Being legally prohibited from accessing economic opportunity unless you pay a parasite for permission is being exploited.

The fact that you choose to stay away from some particular thief does not mean they aren't stealing from others.

 

Unless you have a government-issued and -enforced monopoly privilege that ensures no one can compete with you, as all large corporations do.

Nonsense. It is much easier just to buy up a monopoly privilege so you don't have to compete. That is why corporate profits have been relentlessly increasing as a fraction of GDP while wages have been dropping.

That is nothing but puerile "Meeza hatesa gubmint!" nonsense.

 

Sure: where in the thread is there actual evidence for your claim?

 

You are again trying to change the subject to me personally. We are talking about the millions of mortgage borrowers who lost everything while the banks they had borrowed from were bailed out.

GARBAGE. The banks merely paid back those loans with a slew of other government loans, grants and bailouts.

 

No, you aren't. I have told you numerous times what a fair distribution of the tax burden would be, and in each case, you have ignored it and falsely claimed that I did not respond.

That is false. I have told you numerous times: a fair distribution of the tax burden would be somewhat less equal than the distribution of wealth, as wealth is measured by wealth, not income. You merely will not touch that fact with a ten-foot pole.

 

Free markets are logically impossible under capitalism.

No, that's merely Pareto optimality, a criterion neoclassical economists use to rationalize leaving existing injustice undisturbed. If someone's monopoly privilege gets them $X in monopoly profits while reducing total production by $3X, then abolishing their monopoly will make them worse off by $X while making society better off by $3X. That is an increase in social welfare.

If you assume everyone starts with equal rights and no exchange is made under duress. Those conditions cannot obtain under capitalism, as everyone's rights have been forcibly stripped from them and converted into the private property of the privileged, especially landowners.

 

?? Huh? You don't need customers to have capital.

 

Communists are.

I doubt that.

There is no such thing as fair capitalism; but the governments of most advanced capitalist democracies do a much better job of rescuing their people from enslavement by the privileged than the US government does.

 

Corporations inherently have government protecting them. That's the whole purpose of limited liability.

"Meeza hatesa gubmint!"

 

And your point is???? They can still go bankrupt.

And no point there, either.

 

Which is why anti-trust laws need to be beefed up and actually enforced.

 

Anti-trust has no effect whatever on IP monopolies or landowner privilege.

 

They have an inherent advantage granted by government.

So could slave owners. So what? That has no effect on the nature of their privilege.

The point is obvious: anti-government bigotry is not an argument.

 

No you have not you dodged all around it. I gave you the current distribution of the income tax and asked if that is not a fair distribution give me the numbers that would be, what are these target numbers that will show the tax burden IS now fair how will we know when we have reached this fairness.

I'm still waiting. And wealth has nothing to do with taxes as we do not tax wealth. I have a lot of wealth now but I have little income now, I'm retired. When I was younger I had LOTS of income but little wealth. And you can't even explain how we determine everyone's wealth every year so we know what tax is due.

And even if we managed to do so under your plane, what would be that distribution of the tax burden that you would deem as fair and why would it be fairer than now?

 

That is another bald falsehood, as any reader can confirm. I have answered you specifically and in detail, numerous times.

And I told you repeatedly that there is no way to make the distribution of an income tax fair, and you also ignored that and falsely claimed I had not responded. As long as you falsely insist that only income can be taxed, and that the correct measure of wealth is not wealth but income, there is no possible way to implement a fair distribution of the tax burden relative to wealth. You could with equal "logic" ask what would be a fair distribution of the gas tax burden relative to wealth. It's just nothing but absurd and disingenuous garbage.

No you aren't. All you are doing is still disingenuously pretending that I have not answered you.

Your claim that what can and should be taxed is limited to what IS taxed is just false, absurd, and disingenuous.

So you demand that no one ever be permitted to talk about taxing wealth because that would mean you would owe more tax; and you demand that no one ever mention taxes on anything but income, because you don't have much income. Your criteria of tax "fairness," even of what taxes people are permitted to talk about, is therefore based on nothing but your own narrow financial self-interest. Not rocket science.

Again, that is an outright false claim from you, as I have already explained how to do it, and have informed you of the fact that there is no reason whatever to do it annually when people already pay most of their bills monthly.

As I have already told you multiple times and you have falsely claimed I have not, a fair distribution of the tax burden would be somewhat more unequal than the distribution of wealth -- implying that you would owe a lot more tax -- because the two most fundamental and widely accepted principles of sound taxation policy are "ability to pay," which is measured by wealth or net worth, not income, and "beneficiary pay," which is measured by value of government-issued and -enforced privileges owned and enjoyed, not income.

 

I never said it was perfectly fair. But we are the richest country in the world and we are the only modern country that doesn't have a living wage great vacations cheap college daycare paid parental leave ID card to end illegal immigration and mainly taxing the rich their fair share for crying out loud. A flat tax system like we have is a disgusting giveaway to the rich. At any rate socialism is always democratic, communism never is. And the only people for communism have a gun to their head in China North Korea and Vietnam. English speakers get the supercapitalist savage capitalist outlook. France Germany Scandinavia Russia Italy Spain etc etc know the difference. They used to have communist and socialist parties. The socialists won, and the communist s disappeared after the USSR stopped supporting them.

"We are all social ists now"-President of Finland when Obamacare passed. Of course he didn't know what scumbag obstruction the GOP is