Top income brackets should be taxed at 99%.

No I don't. You just made that up.

 

"Lawful battle"?? LOL! It was indisputably illegal rebellion.

War is not labor as it does not relieve scarcity, and its product is landowner privilege, not land. O B V I O U S L Y.

Like slaves did 160 years ago....? True. And with exactly the same justification.

 

No, the resulting legal entitlements, such as compulsory collective "bargaining," are.

 

No, you do.
Your arguments all ad up to the same thing,
"Subsidize me".

 

Brought to you by you friendly neighborhood state

 

it was lawful for Americans and illegal for loyalists to england

war relieves the scarcity of oil since it is a finite resource.

slaves were not lawfully human

 

I don’t agree with band-aids and a 99% tax rate is band-aid.

How the economy is structured determines the outcome. A vertical structure will create the pre Great Depression era and current economic conditions and horizontal structure will create the post Great Depression conditions.

The question is what do we want?

Obviously the majority would rather have the flatter distribution of a hyper competitive internal market and the stronger growth rates of the horizontal structure.

As for the top tax rate many models have it in the high sixties to optimize the return. Remember that is total taxation not just the Fed rate.

 

Very much the MMT position, in relation to tax.

btw, interesting to see Fox News interviewing Bernie, who does not give the answer the Fox announcer wants.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1226536797565374464

 

....and you are displaying your classical liberalism, with its <everyone for himself> ethos.

In fact we CAN run the entire on globe on free sunshine within 3 decades, if we put our minds to it, because the resources and knowhow do exist (in conjunction with research and development, but we can immediately begin building the pumped-hydro storage backup for solar/wind to quickly reduce reliance on coal to 20% or less).

But Conservatives are invested in the military industrial complex and the filthy fossil industry, each worth many $trillions, so......off to war we go...

 

We have already covered this, and disagreed about "low productivity workers". How are "low productivity workers" going to prosper, by simply removing privilege?

Not if sufficient public housing is available.

UNUDHR article 25 confirms the right to above poverty participation in the economy.
The more I hear from you, the less I like Georgism.

I'm not sure why you don't have more support from at least the non-land-owners on this thread; your view is very much a classical liberal <everyman for himself> model.

But it's totally unrealistic in our global production-line world, in which we all need to be rewarded for our participation at above poverty level, not for our ability to compete in it.

Entirely consistent with MMT, with the least competitive labour being guaranteed above poverty wages.

MMT maximises prosperity for all, (with at least a minimum above poverty wage) whether the population is increasing or decreasing, and whether robots are taking the work or not.

My LPG car had disappointing performance, and the price of LPG in Australia is now uncompetitive with gasoline anyway.

Meanwhile, you seem to be losing the CO2 debate; even Boris Johnson agrees with VW the days of the ICE are numbered,

So why aren't car makers turning to methane as a fuel for ICE vehicles on mass?

Meanwhile the general public who are increasingly traumatised by climate related catastrophes all around the globe are forcing politicians to take note of the AGW predictions of some climate scientists.

 

Even low productivity workers can produce enough to get by on if they are not burdened by privilege. You seem to have no idea how much production is being taken by the privileged and how much production is simply prevented by privilege.

So, public ownership of land. OK. But people don't need public housing. They can provide housing for themselves if they have their liberty rights to use land.

The UN says lots of wrong and stupid things.

I'm not a Georgist, and you are free to be wrong.

The truth is always the least popular position.

Let's try justice first instead of charity first, and see if charity is needed when we have justice.

The MMT job guarantee is totally wrong-headed, as will become increasingly obvious as AI removes more and more people from the rolls of the employable.

Garbage. It does nothing to counter the effects of privilege. You greatly overestimate how much demand can be added to the economy without pushing inflation because you do not understand the statistical distribution of productivity in the workforce.

The technology will get better.

I have won the debate, because all the actual empirical facts continue to agree with me and contradict the anti-CO2 hysteria campaign.

Gas is still cheaper, and methane is not good for diesels.

Garbage! They are only being traumatized by relentless lies about climate-related "catastrophes," which are in fact not occurring.

Which always turn out to be wildly wrong.

 

It was flat-out illegal and you know it.

Maybe on Planet Zondo, where you live...

Of course they were. Their rights to liberty were just someone else's property.

 

No, you just made that up. You cannot support it with any actual quotes from anything I have said.

No, that is YOUR argument. My argument is, "Why should I be forced to subsidize you?"

 

You're not.
Put your hand back in your pocket and take it out of mine

 

Or, they can work and sacrifice beyond their 8 hours, lunch and breaks every day to achieve something. That's a thought

 

Just so you are up to speed re work and "sacrifice":
https://www.forbes.com/sites/noahki...ottom-50-of-country-study-finds/#788e27cd3cf8

The 3 Richest Americans Hold More Wealth Than Bottom 50% Of The Country, Study Finds

“If left unchecked, wealth will continue to accumulate into fewer and fewer hands, a trend we’ve been witnessing for decades,” wrote Josh Hoxie, one of the study’s co-authors".

Your ideology of <reward based on ability to compete in the "invisible hand" market> is now revealing itself in all its ugliness.

 

I'm not one of the 3 richest americans.
Will you volunteer to pay my tax rates?

 

You may not be one of the 3 richest Americans, but your ideology based on <reward according to ability to compete in an "invisible hand" market> is incapable of engendering an economy that works for all.

btw, a financial transaction tax on those wealthy enough to play in the financial industry derivatives casino won't affect you, but if you want a debate on tax*, I urge you not to merely confirm the ugliness of your <everyman for himself> ideology.

*(eg, tax is theft etc etc)

 

That's a lot of words just to say you want to pay lower tax rates than others

 

That's not what I said at all; that you distort what I said is an indication of the problem that democracy faces, as the ideology of <every man for himself> seeks to hold sway by whatever fraudulent means it can.

On tax: to the extent that government (as opposed to anarchy) requires taxation in order to function, then that taxation should be borne equitably by everyone, to which I am ready to contribute.

So you can retract the "you want to pay lower tax rates than others" lies.

“If left unchecked, wealth will continue to accumulate into fewer and fewer hands, a trend we’ve been witnessing for decades,” wrote Josh Hoxie, one of the study’s co-authors".

 

You want to use the roads at a prorated rate based on your tax rate?

 

On equitable taxation: a progressive tax regime is required because CEO remuneration is so far out of touch with the real costs in the economy:

“If left unchecked, wealth will continue to accumulate into fewer and fewer hands, a trend we’ve been witnessing for decades,” wrote Josh Hoxie, one of the study’s co-authors".

 

On equitable taxation: a progressive tax regime is required because CEO remuneration is so far out of touch with the real costs in the economy:

“If left unchecked, wealth will continue to accumulate into fewer and fewer hands, a trend we’ve been witnessing for decades,” wrote Josh Hoxie, one of the study’s co-authors".

 

I'm not a CEO.
Why do you want me to pay more than you?

 

Poor comprehension skills?

If I'm earning more than you, I should pay a higher marginal rate of tax than you....obviously (I accept this is difficult for you grasp, with your belief in the primacy of the individual over community wellbeing, aka everyman for himself, or there is no such thing as community etc etc