Tax the 1%...

Yawn. Anti-Americans never say anything, but still insist on advertising it.

 

Obviously these...

 

Unlike you, I knew what it was before Google.

 

You think that is a credible response? God bless!

 

You missed the point entirely.

It's about trying to measure 'reasonable' in a situation which doesn't involve reason. You simply have no way of knowing what is reasonable expenditure, because it will be different for every person.

Put another way - as per my original post - let's look at a universal basic income of say, $600pw. Let's say you've decided that's 'reasonable'. Here are two scenarios which put the lie to the idea that such a thing can be determined:

First guy: lives in an area with very low rents. buys bulk rice and beans, and only eats in season fresh fruit and vegetables (which are plentiful and cheap), doesn't smoke, drink, take vacations, run air conditioning, eat meat, or buy fast food. buys only used clothing and shoes, and rides a bike instead of drives in every situation where that's even remotely possible. manages to save $200pw of that $600pw, and in a few years is in a position to buy a cheap home where he grow his own food, thus reducing his costs even further. now he's saving $400 a week of that UBI. in another couple of years he's able to buy a second cheap home, which he then rents out for $200pw, so now he's keeping the entirety of his $600pw.

Second guy: lives in a place with high rents. buys processed and convenience foods, meat, soda, beer, alcohol, and tobacco. eats fast food four times a week. runs air conditioning. only buys new clothing and shoes. drives everywhere. struggles to do that within $600, and so never saves a single cent from week to week. 10 years in and he's still at zero, or possibly worse.

Which is 'reasonable'?

 

Its more of a whine isn't it, as you well know

 

Discussing any topic with you is like a conversation with Joe Biden, a long meandering sidetrack of nonsense. You are immune to credible responses.

 

Finished weeding the silverbeet, so back to add the unsaid:

First Guy ends up funding Second Guy, given the inevitable tax on his independent income, while Second Guy claims $600 isn't enough to survive on.

Anyone who thinks that's reasonable isn't any kind of socialist. That's flat out elitism.

 

Look at you appealing to the peanut gallery

 

You've been a great audience!

 

Tut tut, is this the level you can achieve? If so, take a break. I appreciate you've dug yourself a negative income tax hole, but show some pride. God bless!

 

Could you describe in detail this alleged "hole" that I've dug myself into?

 

Let's not fall for slogans.
We need to tax everyone fairly and not let the rich and corporations skate through loopholes written into law by their lobbyists. When you hear that someone or some corporation is paying almost nothing in taxes, and it's all 'perfectly legal', then you know the law is wrong.
If you want a country worth spit, we need to pay for it.
I also think that we could do way better with the tax money we already collect if we attacked fraud and waste seriously.

 

Excellent idea.

15% of the value of government-issued and -enforced privileges -- a tax on which is the only possible meaning of "fair taxation for everyone" -- would raise much more revenue than government spends.

Some of the 1% own more government-issued and -enforced privileges than could fit on a single page.

 

"Just get a job, save up your money, and buy some slaves of your own. PROBLEM SOLVED!"

 

False and absurd. Which Americans voluntarily chose to have their rights to liberty forcibly stripped from them by government and made into the private property of rich, greedy, privileged parasites?

 

There are no slaves in America- just people who think of themselves as slaves because they actually have to work for a living.

 

Already achieved! You referred to a concept that only led to a logical preference for progressive taxation, ensuring a right wing 'whoops' moment. That's the trouble with right wing economics: it always generates unfortunate consequence which advertises incompatibility with logic. Its for that very reason that they've typically given up on economics, such as the cretinous use of "Auntie Mildred's purse isn't a magical money tree" to push uneconomic austerity.

 

Name one.

 

Garbage. Americans who have had their rights to liberty stripped from them and made into others' private property DON'T think of themselves as slaves, even though they have to pay rich, greedy, privileged parasites just for PERMISSION to work for a living. That's very much the point:

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” -- Goethe

 

One what? American who voluntarily chose to have their rights to liberty stripped from them without just compensation and made into others' private property? That's who I asked YOU to name.

 

I referred to it? Ha Ha Ha!

I responded to another post in #249:

I didn't endorse it, I was skeptical! So it doesn't matter if it's "a concept that only led to a logical preference for progressive taxation" or not.

With you, it's like setting up a giant bear trap in your full view, inviting you to step in it, and you do, assured you've achieved victory!

Don't ever change!

 

Yep. It amused me when you did as you didn't realise it was merely an example of right wing economic stupidity.

Look at you saying nothing. What you should have done is either say "I don't support the negative income tax as right wing economics is cretinous for questioning my whine about progressive taxation" or "I support the negative income tax as I realise right wingers were cretins all along". Get choosing

 

I already stated my skepticism. I take it you are supporter because something something progressive taxation...(step into my bear trap!)?

 

You didn't pick between the only two options. Tut tut. Its as if you've been found out

Of course, given the diminishing marginal utility of income, progressive taxation is just rational. But heck, right wingers don't do rational. They herd.