Tax discrimination

Thank you for confirming that you have nothing to offer but your relentless and stupefyingly boring slag-George script.

 

You're the one who claimed the context was mathematical, pumpkin. Now it's blatantly obvious that your notion of "equality" in taxation consists of rich folks paying the same amount of taxes as poor folks, but getting orders of magnitude more benefit from government spending.

It would be hard to contrive a more unambiguous case of special pleading than that.

But then, your sig block has been screaming that fact for years.

 

I have modern economics, with no ideological blinkering stopping me from using different political economic schools of thought (e.g. I'm not Marxist but the analysis into conflict is certainly needed to understand the labour market and therefore economic outcome). In contrast, you just have an one dimensional land rant which ensures that you have no means to make valid remark over efficiency or equity. It doesn't matter then who is your opposition (be it a Friedman fan who liked his negative income tax, a lefty trying to improve welfare effectiveness with a minimum income guarantee, a fair taxer with a particular view over equity etc etc etc), they will be beyond your level of economic analysis.

 

You should have been more specific in your choice of standardized definitions regarding what you meant by "equality".

 

I should have changed the definition of the word? To prevent you from choosing to apply it to an unrelated relationship?​

 

We are referring to forms of equality in our republican form of government. Only you are claiming your case is special and plead it that way.

 

And you imagine all things should be equal? Even to the point of arresting innocent citizens simply to ensure we incarcerate an equal number of rich and poor?​

 

Your straw man argument is your own, I only adhere to the meaning you provided from a standardized definition of the term: equality. Who said anything about arresting innocent citizens.

 

You seemed to suggest incarcerating folks based on their wealth rather than their guilt. ​

 

How did you reach your conclusion that my suggestion would not be in the context of all things being equal? You are most welcome to your own straw man argument since you constructed it yourself.

 

Because it seems unreasonable to assume 'all things' -- including peoples individual decisions -- would be exactly the same.​

 

What is your definition of equal, again?

 

equal adj \ˈē-kwəl\
Definition of EQUAL

(1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2) : identical in mathematical value​

 

In other words, our War on Drugs should be incarcerating an equal proportion of both rich and poor, all things being equal.

 

??? BWAHHHAHAHHAHHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! "Modern economics!" "No ideological blinkering!"

BWAHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!1!!

You are still following your ideologically blinkered slag-George script, which consists of nothing but contentless supercilious sneering. No arguments made. No facts adduced. No analysis offered. But mostly, no point in reading.

 

Well, you are the one claiming, based on an absurd notion of "equality," that those whom government impoverishes should pay just as much tax as those whom it enriches. How is that different in principle from imprisoning innocent citizens based on an equally absurd notion of equality?

 

Yet you are pushing the absurd and dishonest notion that all benefit exactly the same amount from government spending.

 

The level (or lack of) of your comment is in full display here. Rather than refer to economics with validity you go for immature humph. That won't work dear chap. We both know that the problem is simple: you cannot refer to modern economics as it would automatically advertise just how childish your land rant really is. You have no means to understand either the economic agent or economic outcome, ensuring your impotence and need for the emotional clap-trap.

Georgism, as the paper you gave demonstrated, is pretty much irrelevant. My only task is to try and get you to say something relevant to the modern economy. Its admittedly a mighty one!

 

It's unreasonable to assume all things are equal.​

 

Is it unfair to assume the equalness of equality before the law as well? Why do you keep pleading that your case is special?

 

the tax should be per dollar earned over the poverty level and no caps... and of course all income treated as income, labored income should not be taxed higher


.

 

People are equal under the law. They make their individual choices outside the law. The rate at which those choices come into conflict with the law is therefore not equal.
​

 

What if we apply this principle and "rule of construction" regarding public policies which are made in accordance with some input from society, and which the wealthy are better able to exploit due simply to wealth according to a capital based maxim that claims, it only takes money to make more money?

 

<yawn> Read Steve Keen and try to get some sort of clue. Your constant contentless sneering is just boring, sorry.

Two lies in one sentence. Come on, Reiver, you can do better than that.

No, your only task is to try prevent others from understanding the implications of the Law of Rent and the Henry George Theorem.

 

Yet you, absurdly and dishonestly, assume all citizens should pay an equal amount of tax.