Top income brackets should be taxed at 99%.

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by Bic_Cherry, Oct 8, 2019.

  1. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,322
    Likes Received:
    367
    Trophy Points:
    83
    <yawn> I repeat, because you obviously didn't read it the first time: he doesn't -- not least because the government that undertakes to secure your rights has no jurisdiction in Japan, and citizens of Japan likewise owe no duty of respect for the rights of people in countries where they have no vote. It's your democratically accountable government that has the job of securing and reconciling your rights, not the Japanese government.
    Sorry, excessive exposure to evil makes me physically ill.
     
  2. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    17,864
    Likes Received:
    2,625
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So the farmer in Japan is depriving me of my right to liberty and yet offers me no compensation?
     
  3. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,322
    Likes Received:
    367
    Trophy Points:
    83
    To the extent that you are deprived of your liberty to use land in Japan (hint: you aren't), I'm afraid that's the way it is. States -- governments -- administer possession and use of land, remember? There's no common state or government administering your location and land in Japan, so you have no one to secure your liberty right to use land in Japan, or ensure you are compensated for the (non-existent, remember) deprivation you suffer as a result of a farmer in Japan using land in Japan.
     
    Last edited: Jun 25, 2020
  4. Longshot

    Longshot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    17,864
    Likes Received:
    2,625
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hm, then your system stinks. It doesn't prevent people from violating my right to liberty.
     
  5. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,322
    Likes Received:
    367
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Something stinks, anyway. But I think it might be your tsunami of absurd and disingenuous bull$#!+.
    That is impossible in any case -- as you know very well, but are disingenuously pretending not to. Exclusive tenure inherently abrogates the liberty rights of all who would otherwise be at liberty to use the land. The only question is whether an exclusive tenure holder will simply steal access to the economic advantage of the location from everyone else, or if just compensation will be made both from the beneficiaries and to the victims of exclusive tenure.
     
  6. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    37,942
    Likes Received:
    9,660
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) See?! There you go again, trying to find a workaround so you don't have to accept 'failure' as a function of free choice. Or IOW, so you don't have to accept free choice. As long as even one person can start with nothing and yet succeed via nothing but their determination, self-discipline, and effort .. then you have zero argument. Clearly, if that one person can do it, then the conditions exist for it to be possible.

    2) On the contrary, since we know that conditions exist for escaping poverty via determination and self-discipline, then it's entirely plausible. And not just plausible, but likely in 99% of cases. Don't take my word for it though .. run your own little experiment. Go to any supermarket in an economically disadvantaged area, and see what people put in their shopping carts. If you really want to be thorough, you should also check what kind of phone they have, if they buy alcohol and/or cigarettes, and what kind of car they drive.

    3) Who is the 'victim', in your scenario? The person who - despite living week to week on a low income - fills their shopping cart with meat, cheese, soda, packaged convenience foods, and snack foods, and who owns a late model iphone and drives a fuel hungry car?
     
  7. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    5,322
    Likes Received:
    367
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No, that's just you makin' $#!+ up again. I am merely, unlike you, willing to know the fact that the outcomes of choices are altered by institutional context that is NOT a choice by its victims.
    No, that's just you makin' $#!+ up again. I am merely, unlike you, willing to know the fact that the outcomes of choices are altered by institutional context that is NOT a choice by its victims.
    No, that is nothing but more of the same absurd, evil, anti-factual, anti-moral, blame-the-victim garbage from you that I have already disproved multiple times. Some people are strong enough to run a race while carrying a rider on their back. That does not, repeat, NOT mean that those who are NOT strong enough to run while carrying a rider on their back have "chosen to fail," or are somehow to blame because they didn't try hard enough, didn't train enough, blah, blah, evil blah. It is self-evidently and indisputably the burden imposed by the RIDER that is causing them to fail, not THEIR CHOICES or any deficiency of effort or sacrifice on their part, or flaw in their character.
    FOR. THAT. PERSON. Everything you say is conclusively refuted by that one simple fact.
    No it isn't. That's just you repeating your usual absurd and evil blame-the-victim filth.
    No, that's just you makin' $#!+ up again.
    BWAHAHHAAAAHAAAA!!! People who shop with a cart in a supermarket are already far above the level of the weakest. They've already shown they can carry a rider without stumbling and falling, because they have a place to put groceries, a kitchen with a fridge and stove, a roof over their heads, etc.
    What brand of sleeping bag they have under a tarp in the bushes beside the local golf course...
    We are all victims of privilege. Some are just perpetrators as well as victims. Your claim that anyone who does not embrace a life of privation worthy of a Franciscan monk is to blame for not escaping poverty, and not the burden of parasites they are forced to carry, is evil and despicable beyond the rich resources of the English language to express.
    Part of not being strong enough to carry parasites riding on your back is not being bright enough to handle money skillfully. Advertisers target such people because they are easily controlled. It requires an exercise of the imagination to believe that the resulting "choices" originate with the consumer.
     

Share This Page