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:
    5,605
    Likes Received:
    457
    Trophy Points:
    83
    <yawn> I repeat, because you obviously didn't read it the first time: he doesn't -- not least because the government that undertakes to secure your rights has no jurisdiction in Japan, and citizens of Japan likewise owe no duty of respect for the rights of people in countries where they have no vote. It's your democratically accountable government that has the job of securing and reconciling your rights, not the Japanese government.
    Sorry, excessive exposure to evil makes me physically ill.
     
  2. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So the farmer in Japan is depriving me of my right to liberty and yet offers me no compensation?
     
  3. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,605
    Likes Received:
    457
    Trophy Points:
    83
    To the extent that you are deprived of your liberty to use land in Japan (hint: you aren't), I'm afraid that's the way it is. States -- governments -- administer possession and use of land, remember? There's no common state or government administering your location and land in Japan, so you have no one to secure your liberty right to use land in Japan, or ensure you are compensated for the (non-existent, remember) deprivation you suffer as a result of a farmer in Japan using land in Japan.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2020
  4. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    2,640
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hm, then your system stinks. It doesn't prevent people from violating my right to liberty.
     
  5. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,605
    Likes Received:
    457
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Something stinks, anyway. But I think it might be your tsunami of absurd and disingenuous bull$#!+.
    That is impossible in any case -- as you know very well, but are disingenuously pretending not to. Exclusive tenure inherently abrogates the liberty rights of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land. The only question is whether an exclusive tenure holder will simply steal access to the economic advantage of the location from everyone else, or if just compensation will be made both from the beneficiaries and to the victims of exclusive tenure.
     
  6. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    38,562
    Likes Received:
    9,986
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) See?! There you go again, trying to find a workaround so you don't have to accept 'failure' as a function of free choice. Or IOW, so you don't have to accept free choice. As long as even one person can start with nothing and yet succeed via nothing but their determination, self-discipline, and effort .. then you have zero argument. Clearly, if that one person can do it, then the conditions exist for it to be possible.

    2) On the contrary, since we know that conditions exist for escaping poverty via determination and self-discipline, then it's entirely plausible. And not just plausible, but likely in 99% of cases. Don't take my word for it though .. run your own little experiment. Go to any supermarket in an economically disadvantaged area, and see what people put in their shopping carts. If you really want to be thorough, you should also check what kind of phone they have, if they buy alcohol and/or cigarettes, and what kind of car they drive.

    3) Who is the 'victim', in your scenario? The person who - despite living week to week on a low income - fills their shopping cart with meat, cheese, soda, packaged convenience foods, and snack foods, and who owns a late model iphone and drives a fuel hungry car?
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  7. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,605
    Likes Received:
    457
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No, that's just you makin' $#!+ up again. I am merely, unlike you, willing to know the fact that the outcomes of choices are altered by institutional context that is NOT a choice by its victims.
    No, that's just you makin' $#!+ up again. I am merely, unlike you, willing to know the fact that the outcomes of choices are altered by institutional context that is NOT a choice by its victims.
    No, that is nothing but more of the same absurd, evil, anti-factual, anti-moral, blame-the-victim garbage from you that I have already disproved multiple times. Some people are strong enough to run a race while carrying a rider on their back. That does not, repeat, NOT mean that those who are NOT strong enough to run while carrying a rider on their back have "chosen to fail," or are somehow to blame because they didn't try hard enough, didn't train enough, blah, blah, evil blah. It is self-evidently and indisputably the burden imposed by the RIDER that is causing them to fail, not THEIR CHOICES or any deficiency of effort or sacrifice on their part, or flaw in their character.
    FOR. THAT. PERSON. Everything you say is conclusively refuted by that one simple fact.
    No it isn't. That's just you repeating your usual absurd and evil blame-the-victim filth.
    No, that's just you makin' $#!+ up again.
    BWAHAHHAAAAHAAAA!!! People who shop with a cart in a supermarket are already far above the level of the weakest. They've already shown they can carry a rider without stumbling and falling, because they have a place to put groceries, a kitchen with a fridge and stove, a roof over their heads, etc.
    What brand of sleeping bag they have under a tarp in the bushes beside the local golf course...
    We are all victims of privilege. Some are just perpetrators as well as victims. Your claim that anyone who does not embrace a life of privation worthy of a Franciscan monk is to blame for not escaping poverty, and not the burden of parasites they are forced to carry, is evil and despicable beyond the rich resources of the English language to express.
    Part of not being strong enough to carry parasites riding on your back is not being bright enough to handle money skillfully. Advertisers target such people because they are easily controlled. It requires an exercise of the imagination to believe that the resulting "choices" originate with the consumer.
     
  8. cirdellin

    cirdellin Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,558
    Likes Received:
    599
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why not tax everyone above middle class 100 percent?

    They won’t give up and say what’s the point in working and investing, right?

    Investment has nothing to do with GDP right?

    Landlords and tenants and grocery stores don’t need people with jobs, right?

    Money is merely a fake social construct, right.

    Let’s see how the real world deals with this!
     
  9. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    38,562
    Likes Received:
    9,986
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) No, it means the conditions for success MUST exist within the given society (and let's not forget that it's you who insists society prevents success - so let's be intellectually consistent). Else that person couldn't have done it. This is an exercise in logic. You can claim the gate is locked (tight, beyond breaching), but if some random guy manages to open it .. then clearly the gate is not locked. In this analogy, your claim that the gate is locked is predicated upon your lack of desire to test the latch. Or perhaps the fear you'll have to accept tthat trying the gate latch is a choice.

    2) Don't be ridiculous. No one is holding a gun to our heads and making us buy fast food and iphones. Of COURSE it all starts with the consumer. Do you think manufacturers would keep spending their billions churning out products no one was buying?
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  10. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,605
    Likes Received:
    457
    Trophy Points:
    83
    For the success ONLY of those who actually succeed. The rest may still face conditions that make success impossible FOR THEM.
    Some people have genetic resistance to malaria parasites. They can thrive despite being infected. So the conditions certainly exist within a given malarial environment for them to thrive despite carrying a load of parasites. That doesn't mean the conditions exist for people who are susceptible to malaria parasites to thrive in such malarial environments.

    GET IT???

    Rich, greedy, privileged parasites create a hostile environment for people, just like malaria parasites. Some of the victims are resistant, and able to thrive despite the hostile environment, while others lack such resistance, and succumb to the burden of parasites placed on them by the hostile environment. The fact that some are naturally resistant and can survive the hostile environment does not mean the environment is not hostile.

    GET IT???
    That a given person is resistant to malaria does not mean their environment is not malarial. This is an exercise in logic. One that, sad to say, you have repeatedly failed to master.
    No, just too tightly for a person of ordinary strength to work the spring.

    Just as a few might be strong enough to run a race while carrying parasites on their backs, while the great majority are of only ordinary strength, and cannot.

    GET IT???
    It is not a random guy who thrives in a malarial environment. It is only the specific guy who is resistant to malaria who thrives there.

    Similarly, it is not a random guy who runs a race carrying someone else on his back; it is only the specific guy who is strong enough to do so.

    And it is likewise not a random guy who succeeds in an economic environment made hostile by the privileges of rich, greedy parasites, but only the specific guys who have the specific qualities needed to thrive despite such hostile conditions.

    GET IT????
    No, that is nothing but another absurd and disingenuous ad hominem fabrication on your part. What is actually going on in this analogy is that you are, much like a carny at a midway gyp joint, claiming that what is demonstrably easy for someone who knows the trick should also be easy for the sucker who can't see the trick being worked.
    The notion that working poor people struggling to keep their heads above water haven't chosen to "try the latch" is nothing but more of your absurd, disingenuous, and evil blame-the-victim filth.
    I'm not the one claiming a multi-trillion dollar industry -- marketing -- is nothing but smoke and mirrors. You are.
    So what? If the purveyors of such goods can make someone feel like they have a gun to their head, the effect is just as profitable.

    GET IT???
    Garbage disproved in any introductory marketing course.
    I know they spend billions making people buy products they don't even want.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2020

Share This Page