Top income brackets should be taxed at 99%.

Interesting assertion. Proof please?

Interesting assertion based upon the previous unproven assertion. The house of cards grows taller. Again, proof please?

A conclusion based upon unfounded assertions is also simply a bald statement. Prove your premises, and maybe we'll consider your conclusion.

Needless to say, you have asserted a whole bunch of stuff that remains to be supported.

 

Its ways about your responsibility to him.
His responsibility is simply to fall out of a uterus and hold his hand out.

 

More sophistry by those who wish to initiate aggression against their fellow man and his property .

 

Its endless. Like children, they have an infinite number of reasons why what's yours should be theirs

 

As you say, they want what's yours. But also remember, they want you as well. They want to control your body.

The want complete and utter domination of their fellow man. It's both sad and horrifying. That, and the fact that they want to confiscate our effective means of defense, is very telling and belies all their sweet-talk.

It's obvious what they want to do, and it doesn't involve lubrication.

 

Well. since you asked nicely...I'll supply you with the proof.

I said:

"1. If there is more than 1 individual in the world, then contract enforcement, aka rule of law established by government, is necessary to avoid anarchy."

(Note: I have already explained it to TedintheShed, who was 'unable' to reply....)

Humans have both conscious and unconscious motivation.

Someone described this as "acting 90% out of emotion and 10% out of rational thought (via the "thinking brain" in the cerebral cortex, which spends most of its capacity justifying the ego's self-interestedness).

I describe it as acting out of BOTH conscious co-operation (equivalent to Ted's voluntary co-operation/agreement in his Anarchist fantasy), AND unconscious competition* based in instinct, which if left unchecked by government, will result in anarchy (with a small 'a')

*Note: all competitions need a referee, to avoid domination of one self-interested individual or group by another self-interested individual or group.

Since the rest of your post relies on a refutation of this basic truth regarding "the human condition", I will wait for your reply until commenting further.


Squidward said:

Thanks for the chuckle....but desire to simplify reality (you guessed it, to enable justification by the self-interested ego in our complex world - see above -) is a well known characteristic of the Right.

 

Ask your mom for free ****.
I don't owe you anything.

 

Don't have the intellectual capacity to tackle the substantive part of my post?

Hence your simplification: you see yourself above the community on whose resources you depend, for your prosperity.

 

Give it a rest.
You live in the same community with the same available resources.
Stop blubbering

 

Yes, and we all depend on, as well as contribute to, those resources for our prosperity.

Feel free to tackle my reply to longshot (in the same post to which you responded), which explains the basis of your error.

And then add this:

Since an individual's 'earnings' are related to the efforts of others (ie, related to existing and developing community infrastructure and knowledge), taxation is a necessary part of ensuring economic justice in the community.

 

Yes, so pay the same for them as me

 

That's progress, at least.

Now we agree we need to pay taxes.

So that gets us back to how much tax we need to pay.

Gates and Buffet think they should be paying more tax; while 20% of the population have negative wealth ie owe $6000 on average; obviously they ought not pay any tax, at least until an above poverty Job Guarantee is introduced (another Bernie policy).

So your idea that everyone pay the same amount of tax is certainly problematic, and indeed will result in economic collapse, as eg, Bezos corners the entire global retail market, and still pays the same tax as you.

 

Why could private arbitration not be used to settle disputes?

 

I said you pay the same.
But as usual, you hide behind the poor

 

The same as as you, yes, that's what you said, I'm OK with that.

Not "hiding", just pointing out the reality of their lack of ability to pay.

And the rich?....you failed to comment on those at the other end.

 

So why do you not want to pay equal?

 

It could, but private arbitration is only practicable in a fraction of cases, which belong to the category of "voluntary agreement" mentioned in my post.

But that's only half the story: the other half is based in unconscious, self-interested competition

Hence government is required to pass laws relating to the entire community and the range of behaviours exhibited by the individuals in it; eg law relating to acceptable behaviour within the community; traffic management, taxation levels (and bear in mind my previous explanation of the necessity of taxation in a just society, to manage competing self-interest on behalf of the enjoyment by all, of the resources and hence the general prosperity to which we all contribute.

 

Because eg if Bezos and a sufficiently large cohort of similarly rewarded - by the "invisible hand" market, pay the same as you and me, the economy will collapse.

Why? At present, the top 20% have 90% of all wealth, that's unsustainable unless taxes can pay for the public services we all require, eg infrastructure (of which the US requires urgent upgrade), debt free tertiary education, and guaranteed above poverty employment.

Otherwise poverty, alienation and criminality will be an unfortune part of reality n the community.

"You are living in poverty, your neighbourhoods are like war zones, your schools and hospitals are broken.....",

But longshot should know by now: "Money doesn't grow on rich people" - another story which I am pursuing. (In short Government does not need to tax in order to spend … do some research)
.

 

They can, but not just private arbitration.

In David Friedman's excellent book The Machinery of Freedom, Chapter 29 entitled "Police, Courts, and Laws- On The Market" he describes a system of privatizing all legal and civil disputes.

There are other ways described by other people, but this is my favorite.

There is absolutely no excuse to allow the power seeking individuals of government a monopoly of power, it is just people are indoctrinated to believe differently.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html

David is the son of Milton, in case you were wondering.

 

I'm not Bezos.
Why do you want me to pay more than you?
Why do you hide behind the extremes, Bezos and the poor?

 

When was the last time Bezos (as an example) received welfare, SNAP, or disability?

Why should other people pay for additional education for individuals, when it is for the monetary and social gain of the receiver?

What would be the grade average requirements and subject matter requirements to validate taxpayer funds contributing to the monetary and social gains of the individual receiving it?

What will be the restrictions on the tuition charges by 'for profit' institutions? Will non-degree courses and studies be included in the consideration for being taxpayer funded?

Those that use the majority of services funded by taxpayers, pay the least towards those services. It is proven that 'having skin in the game' gives value to the user. Providing services with no onus is the ultimate 'freebie', with the resulting effect of 'meh'.

 

I notice you cannot/will not debate the issues I raised in post #781.

Hence you are content to reject the notion of government "by the people for the people"
A sure sign you are promoting an ideology, based on unconscious self-interestedness.

Feel free to debate the issues raised in #781; in so doing you will discover something about the human condition.

 

Pass..you obviously aren't following the debate about the necessity for tax, its quantum, and ability to pay.

Re education...

Because the resources of the community, increased by education, benefit everyone.

Those seeking tertiary education are presumed to have the ability to contribute - give back to the community - at that level of professionalism.

None. Anyone silly enough to seek education at 'for profit' institutions won't be worried about fees.

All education should be publicly funded, consistent with individuals' abilities (as noted above).

Addressed above.
……...

But to broaden your thinking around the question : "How will we pay for it?", have a look at Warren Mosler's "7 Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy".

https://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf
(page 16)
The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank is telling us in plain English that they give out money (spend and lend) simply by changing numbers in bank accounts. There is no such thing as having to “get” taxes (or borrow) to make a spreadsheet entry that we call “government spending.” Computer data doesn’t come from anywhere. Everyone knows that!

It turns out money is a function of government, not merely a replacement for barter.
So sovereign currency issuing governments do not need to tax in order to spend, but rather can buy whatever is available for sale in the nation's currency.

IOW, if the resources are available, the community - by allocation of (dollars, yen, etc) through the government's agencies of treasury and reserve (central ) bank - can have what it wants.

So money can be 'created' in the public sector, as well as in the private sector.

Just as deposits are created in private banks when they write loans for credit worthy customers, so the government can create deposits in accounts at the central bank.....if the resources the government wants to employ/use are available for sale....

So the community need no longer be at the 'tender mercies'(!) of invisible hand" private sector markets.

 

Why is arbitration limited to only a fraction of cases?

Not necessary. Private arbitration can handle disputes.

 

It's not....did you leave out the word 'private', deliberately?

So the answer, re limits of 'private arbitration' is: because the "human condition" requires government to avoid anarchy; that's not an opinion, it's objective biological and psychological fact, explained here, again:

Humans have both conscious and unconscious motivation.

Someone described this as "acting 90% out of emotion and 10% out of rational thought (via the "thinking brain" in the cerebral cortex, which spends most of its capacity justifying the ego's self-interestedness).

I describe it as acting out of BOTH conscious co-operation (equivalent to Ted's voluntary co-operation/agreement in his Anarchist fantasy), AND unconscious competition* based in instinct, which if left unchecked by government, will result in anarchy (with a small 'a')

*Note: all competitions need a referee, to avoid domination of one self-interested individual or group by another self-interested individual or group.