User Tag List

View Poll Results: Hmm??

Voters
33. You may not vote on this poll
  • 0%-10%

    6 18.18%
  • 11%-20%

    2 6.06%
  • 21%-30%

    5 15.15%
  • 31%-40%

    4 12.12%
  • 41%-50%

    5 15.15%
  • 51%-60%

    1 3.03%
  • 61%-70%

    1 3.03%
  • 71%-80%

    1 3.03%
  • 81%-90%

    0 0%
  • 91%-99(?)%

    8 24.24%
First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 101

  1. #41
    Honor Thy Inferior Such Irony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INtp
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    5,091

    Default

    I'm in favor of these maximums:

    50% for the extremely rich.

    10-20% for the majority.

    0% for those in living at or below the poverty line.


    Then you have to define incomes that are considered 'rich', 'poor', 'middle class'.
    INtp
    5w6 or 9w1 sp/so/sx, I think
    Ravenclaw/Hufflepuff
    Neutral Good
    LII-Ne




  2. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SD45T-2 View Post
    That's a broad category, so the results can very wildly. The short answer would be inequality, but that doesn't really tell you anything about the overall quality of life in country X, or if things are fiscally sustainable. And there can be places with ostensibly egalitarian goals that have a large population living under horrible conditions while the political elite live in luxury. That's what the Soviet Union was like.
    Wait, did you just discuss how a deliberately non-egalitarian or anti-egalitarian policy results in the soviet union in which egalitarianism was the deliberate policy? What are you smoking or is this just another capitalist logic fail?

    Inegalitarianism or absolutely eschewing equity results in feudalism. Simple as. Most capitalists are fine with it provided that its privately controlled with the state interfering to spoil their fun.

  3. #43
    Senior Member pv255's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Wait, did you just discuss how a deliberately non-egalitarian or anti-egalitarian policy results in the soviet union in which egalitarianism was the deliberate policy? What are you smoking or is this just another capitalist logic fail?
    No, He is saying the USSR was constitutionally a socialist state, but in practice the political elite lived in luxury while the rest of the people were generally poor. It was never a policy that the political elite live in luxury, just a practice. They lied to the people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Inegalitarianism or absolutely eschewing equity results in feudalism.
    Please help me make this connect.
    __________________________________________________

    Since no one has answered my question from my previous post. I will answer it. Federal income taxes has many purposes.
    1. To promote egalitarian ideas. Evidence is in the sliding income tax rates.
    2. To incentivize certain behaviors. Evidence is tax breaks for marriage, higher education, first time home-buyers, ect.
    3. To control prices. Evidence is capital gains tax and variable taxes on certain products/services.
    4. To demonstrate control. Evidence is American Revolutionary War.

    Every federal tax activity falls into one of these categories. Taxes are not just about one thing.
    Note that I specify this to federal taxes. State and local taxes are actually necessary to fund state and local operations.

  4. #44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pv255 View Post
    No, He is saying the USSR was constitutionally a socialist state, but in practice the political elite lived in luxury while the rest of the people were generally poor. It was never a policy that the political elite live in luxury, just a practice. They lied to the people.


    Please help me make this connect.
    __________________________________________________

    Since no one has answered my question from my previous post. I will answer it. Federal income taxes has many purposes.
    1. To promote egalitarian ideas. Evidence is in the sliding income tax rates.
    2. To incentivize certain behaviors. Evidence is tax breaks for marriage, higher education, first time home-buyers, ect.
    3. To control prices. Evidence is capital gains tax and variable taxes on certain products/services.
    4. To demonstrate control. Evidence is American Revolutionary War.

    Every federal tax activity falls into one of these categories. Taxes are not just about one thing.
    Note that I specify this to federal taxes. State and local taxes are actually necessary to fund state and local operations.
    Taxation predates egalitarianism and never was and never will be a purpose of taxation. Most of the uber rich are exempt from taxation and have engineered situations in which revenue from taxation drops of so that beyond a certain point their wealth will always be safe.

    The real reason, only reason, for taxation is its service to elite power.

    On the most fundamental level it serves to circulate money in the economy which makes mass production and mass consumption possible, in the final instance that is about confering legitimacy upon capitalism as the greatest means for the majority of people to satisfy their needs and wants, now its possible for a society to exist in which the majority are excluded from production and consumption, niche production and niche consumption is possible.

    Its the sort of society I believe the world could come to resemble as capitalist ideology takes greater hold, exercises greater appeal to utopian imagination and fantasy or simply if the rich are more and more successful in their class struggle which is playing out globally.

    How long that sort of society would survive I'm not sure, I'm not sure because while the unemployed, state employees and other groups elites feel they could cope without will be the first to be hit hard there are a myriad of small, medium, even large enterprises who will be unable to turn a profit any longer and will join the impoverished. At that point stupid ideologies like fascism or communism look like a good way to channel the rage to the majority of people (if you dont believe that look at the latest results from Greek elections).

  5. #45
    Senior Member pv255's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Taxation predates egalitarianism and never was and never will be a purpose of taxation. Most of the uber rich are exempt from taxation and have engineered situations in which revenue from taxation drops of so that beyond a certain point their wealth will always be safe.

    The real reason, only reason, for taxation is its service to elite power.

    On the most fundamental level it serves to circulate money in the economy which makes mass production and mass consumption possible, in the final instance that is about confering legitimacy upon capitalism as the greatest means for the majority of people to satisfy their needs and wants, now its possible for a society to exist in which the majority are excluded from production and consumption, niche production and niche consumption is possible.

    Its the sort of society I believe the world could come to resemble as capitalist ideology takes greater hold, exercises greater appeal to utopian imagination and fantasy or simply if the rich are more and more successful in their class struggle which is playing out globally.

    How long that sort of society would survive I'm not sure, I'm not sure because while the unemployed, state employees and other groups elites feel they could cope without will be the first to be hit hard there are a myriad of small, medium, even large enterprises who will be unable to turn a profit any longer and will join the impoverished. At that point stupid ideologies like fascism or communism look like a good way to channel the rage to the majority of people (if you dont believe that look at the latest results from Greek elections).
    All that up there... made no sense to me. Please find me an example, build a model, or draw me a picture.

  6. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pv255 View Post
    All that up there... made no sense to me. Please find me an example, build a model, or draw me a picture.
    If you read anything other than Hayek it would make sense. Good sense. Go. Learn.

  7. #47
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Its funny that its always welfare that's unsustainable never inequality or privilege.
    Well, usually there are no budget constraints on inequality or privilege. Therefore, they're generally economically sustainable.

    They can definitely be socially unsustainable and unjust, though.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  8. #48
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UniqueMixture View Post
    What are the long term consequences of non-egalitarianism?
    In terms of income? Freedom. In terms of legal rights? Tyranny.

    Under certain conditions and under extreme circumstances, monetary inequality can lead to substantial legal inequality in practice*....but,

    a.) It has to be more extreme that what is currently in place in developed democracies

    b.) The prioritization of monetary egalitarianism tends to do the same thing, except quicker.

    *as well as inhibit the development of legal equality in the first place

  9. #49
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    I have to pay no taxes, I only pay my monthly contribution to the national social workers party

    they want freedom and bread !

    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  10. #50
    Ghost Monkey Soul Vizconde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    To tax is to destroy.

    I think people should only be taxed on what they agree to be taxed when they are an adult. Thus after you turn 18 you can get such and such benefits from the government but you will be taxed accordingly. So lets say you want a government that goes to wars, school your children, fights wars on drugs, build a lot of prisons, pay your medical, pay your school, pay for your old age pension then you pay x%.

    If on the other hand you don't want government paying for anything for yourself or your pet projects and willing to pay reasonable for tolls to drive the interstate and not expect the fire department or police to come when you call 911 etc. then you essentially pay 0%

    There would also be moderate middle grounds.

    Corporations however since they are not natural citizens would be required to pay a reasonable amount of tax in accordance to the relative burden they place on society. Thus a corporate/limited liability non profit homeless shelter or church would pay little tax but corporation that makes nuclear waste, smog, and wear and tear on the roads would pay a lot more.

    People would essentially vote with their taxes/lack of taxes.
    I redact everything I have written or will write on this forum prior to, subsequent with and or after the fact of its writing. For entertainment purposes only and not to be taken seriously nor literally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Spamtar - a strange combination of boorish drunkeness and erudite discussions, or what I call "an Irish academic"

Similar Threads

  1. What do you think America's role in the world should be?
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 07-09-2012, 10:09 PM
  2. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-04-2011, 10:28 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-15-2010, 10:56 AM
  4. [NT] NTs what do you spend most of the time thinking about?
    By yenom in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 05-30-2009, 11:30 PM
  5. Time to re-evaluate myself (again?) - what do you think I am/could be?
    By TenebrousReflection in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-18-2008, 07:22 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO