Should there be a cap on attainable wealth?

[beenthere]

Don't start pulling that shit, again. You know damn well we have been talking about income taxes. Remember, the percentages?

Canndo is the king of strawmen!

 

[cannabineer]

Progressive translation: Canndo is my buddy and I don't like you, so he is right!

If you can't see that canndo tried to make an argument out of thin air, it only tells me you are a hack yourself.
All you ever do is get pissed and throw insults at people who you disagree with.

And it has nothing to do with what political persuasion you are, if someone is wrong I'm going to point it out, I'm no different than most people on this forum who stand up for what they believe in. IMO Cannabineer got caught building a strawman, I replied, end of story, but apparently not for you!

BTW, why do you keep using nitrogen in you posts, when you learn to grow, you'll find out you were making an ass of yourself, now run along and go give UncleBuck some likes!

Ever notice that the guys who declare "end of story" are seeking to cap debate? They fear its result: "that never was the story, Heinrich". cn

 

[Mr Neutron]

Correct, percentages. It is however, the same, you pay for your lodging, you pay for security, for water, for your sewer, for the bed and the electricity.

I think your confusion is manifesting itself in your writing because I have NO idea what you are trying to say. Certainly, you are NOT equating theft of property through an income tax is the same as paying rent and utilities.

We survived because we didn't have as much to deal with as we do now.

You are exactly correct on that. We didn't have to support an over-bloated and corrupt government. We had Presidents who had enough balls to stand up to the monied interests and throw out the central bankers/planners.

What do you get for your taxes? I believe I just told you, order.

I get order in Mexico for paying taxes in the US? Tell me more.

 

[beenthere]

Ever notice that the guys who declare "end of story" are seeking to cap debate? They fear its result: "that never was the story, Heinrich". cn

LMAO You must have got abandonconfict's private message!
Alright cannabineer, lets look at my statement of "end of story" and debate it, you in?

 

[cannabineer]

And that is the the big question isn't it.

Personally i think a 90% cumulative tax is punitive. Max tax should be maybe around 60%. This largely preserves the incentive to get wealth in the first place, and that is one of the engines of our economy. not the sole one, as the freemarketeers wish to posit, but certainly an important one. A balance needs be struck between the needs of the community (as serviced by the state's revenue and disbursement mechanisms) and the psychology of the entrepreneur (take the eggs but feed the goose).
A simple, equitable tax scheme could probably be devised quickly, but the termite mound of entrenched interests, each lobbying for just a few oh-so-reasonable exemptions, murders that prospect. cn

 

[cannabineer]

LMAO You must have got abandonconfict's private message!
Alright cannabineer, lets look at my statement of "end of story" and debate it, you in?

No. Debate with arrant liars goes nowhere. You, sir, have proven yourself an arrant liar. However if you think I'll reliably sit still for your artless slibels (is Internet yatter truly libel?) you grow complacent. Chances are your troll's heart is cackling with glee at having goaded me to react. Enjoy. cn

 

[beenthere]

Ever notice that the guys who declare "end of story" are seeking to cap debate? They fear its result: "that never was the story, Heinrich". cn

LMAO You must have got abandonconfict's private message!
Alright cannabineer, lets look at my statement of "end of story" and debate it, you in?

Look who's the hypocrite, you tell me I fear the result of a debate and you reply with:

No. Debate with arrant liars goes nowhere. You, sir, have proven yourself an arrant liar. However if you think I'll reliably sit still for your artless slibels (is Internet yatter truly libel?) you grow complacent. Chances are your troll's heart is cackling with glee at having goaded me to react. Enjoy. cn

Now I'll point out how you build your little strawmen.

Look at my post below and notice I say IMO (in my opinion) you come in another thread and throw out a cute little accusation that my "end of story" says something other that I claimed, nice one! What you are saying is, I'm not allowed to have an opinion if you happen to disagree with it!

And it has nothing to do with what political persuasion you are, if someone is wrong I'm going to point it out, I'm no different than most people on this forum who stand up for what they believe in. IMO Cannabineer got caught building a strawman, I replied, end of story, but apparently not for you!

 

[abandonconflict]

Why anyone wants society to remain a rat race is beyond my comprehension. It doesn't make for positive innovation and it doesn't make for a happy society.

As an example of the lack of joy in a highly stratified, hierarchical rat race, dog eat dog, stress pit, the army excels. I can remember waiting in a chow line, during a short lunch break happy to be away from my gopher wheel. However, the chow line happens to be someone else's gopher wheel. Pushing my tray along, pointing to what I was willing to ingest, the cooks would sloppily scoop and splat my serving onto my plate with disdain. The foods would mingle and mix and the key ingredient was always fuck you.

A visit to the VA hospital was quite a similar experience. One would think that people would be happy doing what they love and had dreamed to one day do. Find a diagnosis that matches the symptoms, issue a prescription and yell 'NEXT!'.

Even parents come home from a day in the rat race and stress their children out. So from very early in life, one is exposed to such competition and acculturated thusly. It is no wonder that so many fear a world with fewer competitors and more peers. The more society is stratified, the fewer peers one has. How can this ever make life more enjoyable? If you enjoy the competitiveness in socioeconomic stratification, there is someone who does not. If you share your happiness, you have a peer. I prefer love, but even more, I prefer to troll the righties.

 

[cannabineer]

Look who's the hypocrite, you tell me I fear the result of a debate and you reply with:


Now I'll point out how you build your little strawmen.

Look at my post below and notice I say IMO (in my opinion) you come in another thread and throw out a cute little accusation that my "end of story" says something other that I claimed, nice one! What you are saying is, I'm not allowed to have an opinion if you happen to disagree with it!

What is interesting here is that you say I am constructing straw men, and not providing a single example. You can't. So you say "he's doing it!" but not documenting. You are an enthusiastic practitioner of the Big Lie, but in miniature. cn

 

[Harrekin]

I consider my payments to the government for order in my society money well spent - clearly you do not. How much exactly do you pay out of your income to those who are truely deadbeats? I often wonder at those who are so upset about having "their money" taken and given to those who are not in need. Do they actually know how much is taken? Are they as upset over the money that is taken from them to give to corporations that are receiving "welfare"?

When you get to the stage where 50% of all corporation, VAT, income, stamp duty, excise, ALL TAXES levied within your nation are spent on welfare, then maybe you'll be a little less blinkered.

Europe is already where you want to bring America, learn from the mistakes we made, don't strive towards them.

EDIT:
I don't have a problem with welfare "in theory" btw, but the people who need/deserve it rarely get what they need because of fraud and lazy "career dole claimants".

 

[canndo]

I think your confusion is manifesting itself in your writing because I have NO idea what you are trying to say. Certainly, you are NOT equating theft of property through an income tax is the same as paying rent and utilities.



You are exactly correct on that. We didn't have to support an over-bloated and corrupt government. We had Presidents who had enough balls to stand up to the monied interests and throw out the central bankers/planners.



I get order in Mexico for paying taxes in the US? Tell me more.

The rest of my post is moot with you Neutron - the only thing you pay for with your income tax is a place holder, you retain your citizenship is about it.

 

[canndo]

When you get to the stage where 50% of all corporation, VAT, income, stamp duty, excise, ALL TAXES levied within your nation are spent on welfare, then maybe you'll be a little less blinkered.

Europe is already where you want to bring America, learn from the mistakes we made, don't strive towards them.

EDIT:
I don't have a problem with welfare "in theory" btw, but the people who need/deserve it rarely get what they need because of fraud and lazy "career dole claimants".

Still the same question, how much do you personaly pay to those who don't deserve the money? How much exactly, is "stolen" from you and given to those who do not deserve it?

 

[canndo]

Personally i think a 90% cumulative tax is punitive. Max tax should be maybe around 60%. This largely preserves the incentive to get wealth in the first place, and that is one of the engines of our economy. not the sole one, as the freemarketeers wish to posit, but certainly an important one. A balance needs be struck between the needs of the community (as serviced by the state's revenue and disbursement mechanisms) and the psychology of the entrepreneur (take the eggs but feed the goose).
A simple, equitable tax scheme could probably be devised quickly, but the termite mound of entrenched interests, each lobbying for just a few oh-so-reasonable exemptions, murders that prospect. cn

Income only, from all sources at the highest levels, as I said this would begin at around the 10 million per year point. All money left in interests that support jobs would be left untaxed or barely so. One of the reasons so many took their money out of businesses and placed them in other - shall we say, accounts, is because it was worthwhile to do so. Our current tax structure does not necessarily encourage people to build businesses but does encourage things like offshore accounts. If it is more profitable to sell or dismantle a business than it is to expand it, then those tax structures should be altered.

 

[cannabineer]

Income only, from all sources at the highest levels, as I said this would begin at around the 10 million per year point. All money left in interests that support jobs would be left untaxed or barely so. One of the reasons so many took their money out of businesses and placed them in other - shall we say, accounts, is because it was worthwhile to do so. Our current tax structure does not necessarily encourage people to build businesses but does encourage things like offshore accounts. If it is more profitable to sell or dismantle a business than it is to expand it, then those tax structures should be altered.

I definitely agree with that. Shame it's so hard to push that past the what's-in-it-for-me crowd. cn

 

[beenthere]

Income only, from all sources at the highest levels, as I said this would begin at around the 10 million per year point. All money left in interests that support jobs would be left untaxed or barely so. One of the reasons so many took their money out of businesses and placed them in other - shall we say, accounts, is because it was worthwhile to do so. Our current tax structure does not necessarily encourage people to build businesses but does encourage things like offshore accounts. If it is more profitable to sell or dismantle a business than it is to expand it, then those tax structures should be altered.

You're leaving out a significant key that prohibits investment and job growth and that's enormous amount of unneeded government regulations. This is a major component in the decision of many large companies to take their operations abroad. Foreign countries with business friendly tax incentives is not the only reason America losses jobs!

 

[Mr Neutron]

The rest of my post is moot with you Neutron - the only thing you pay for with your income tax is a place holder, you retain your citizenship is about it.

Thank you for answering.

 

[beenthere]

What is interesting here is that you say I am constructing straw men, and not providing a single example. You can't. So you say "he's doing it!" but not documenting. You are an enthusiastic practitioner of the Big Lie, but in miniature. cn

Are you saying it's like you calling me an "errant liar" without providing a single example? OOPS!

 

[cannabineer]

Are you saying it's like you calling me an "errant liar" without providing a single example? OOPS!

The last time I did that, you ignored it, then engaged in deliberate misquoting. The word is "arrant", for those who care. cn

 

[Mr Neutron]

I definitely agree with that. Shame it's so hard to push that past the what's-in-it-for-me crowd. cn

It's not about "what's in it for me". It's about what is right and wrong and taking away ANY portion of people's livelihood, wages, salary or whatever you trade for your labor is theft and it is immoral.

 

[canndo]

You're leaving out a significant key that prohibits investment and job growth and that's enormous amount of unneeded government regulations. This is a major component in the decision of many large companies to take their operations abroad. Foreign countries with business friendly tax incentives is not the only reason America losses jobs!

No, another good reason is that we don't allow child labor in this country - oh those pesky regulations. We don't let people work for 22 cents an hour in this country - DAMN those job killing regulations. We don't let companies dump their toxic effluent into our rivers and send fly ash into the air - Jesus those job killing regulations are destroying the business environment in the United States.