david starling
Well-known member
Once the very wealthy have paid their taxes, the money belongs to the various governments. In the U.S., the Preamble to the Constitution is an excellent guide as to how the money should be spent.
That's the best way to run the System, both in a practical sense, and morally as well. Your morality appears to be based on a defense of the greed and gluttony which make Capitalism unsustainable in the long run.
The trick is to tax just enough to keep the distribution of wealth at a reasonable level, without damaging the ambition to attain great wealth. Over-taxation would be detrimental.
An anti-capitalist Cap? Love it! I see some Taurus's express themselves as pretty eco, mother earth above dollars and all! Do you see aspects in your chart that reflect an anti-capitalist way of thinking and acting?
You avoid answering why you think you have a right to take other people's money and threaten them with physical force. Even if it was for what you mistakenly imply to be "the greater good", you are still over-stepping over the rights of others. So, again, what gives you the moral right to take from others? My morality is based on personal liberty, which is the basis of western society. I believe each individual has a right to do whatever they want with their property. The goverment has no actual right to take more from you than from others.
High taxation is usually detrimental to most countries. In fact the biggest problem for developing countries has been high taxes that stump growth. On the other hand, most developed countries created their current wealth mostly during the decades they excersised free market economy.
Lets examine this:
If what you said was true, then by definition people would be less employed today than decades before, because population has increased and (according to your numbers) there are less jobs available.
Yet, unemployment rates in the U.S. have always remained between the 4%-10% rate for over 60 years, despite multiple technological developments. In fact, for example right now, you have more people employed that you did 20 years ago in the end of the Clinton era during the 90's, despite the american population having increased by 50 million individuals since 1998.
In contrast, in less technologically developed countries, such as those in South America (including my own), we find unemployment rates that go from 15% to 30%.
So the numbers don't really support your statement regarding technological development destroying jobs faster than it creates them.
The reality is that with the advent of technology jobs are moving from being a dependant into self-employment, but they are by no means dissapearing.
And what kind of 'force' do you suggest we apply to separate people from their money?
Why is it fair to do that?
The same "force" that separated the slave owners from their slaves and feudal lords from their peasants.
Fair? First people are forced to live in dog-eat-dog world by the rules of some crazy Russian psychopath writer and if that same people rise some day and say: "Enough of this madness, the game is over! We say so because we are the strongest!", then suddenly you don't want to play dog-eat-dog game anymore?
I see. All rich people are evil, therefore you can do anything you want to them. Sure, mob rule would be a real improvement over what we have now.
SiriuslyHow do I move this to Cap's anti-capitalism thread?
I'm just talking about an economic system that does the most good and the least harm, and includes maximizing individual liberty. Having a LOT of money gives one a LOT of power under Capitalism, and, unfortunately, that power CAN be abused. But, honestly, is a high but not exorbitant tax rate on the extremely wealthy equivalent to declaring them "evil" and doing "anything you want to them"? We're all in this material world together, and I'd like to think there are very rich people who would welcome the chance to help make it better or everyone.
Taxation without representation was a big thing in US history. Look it up.
Okay. So you charge exorbitant taxes on the rich, and imprison them if they don't pay. What if they opt out by moving their businesses, money, and themselves to a more market-friendly country? Would that be permitted?
A lot of wealthy folks help out by donating to charity, albeit that has problems, too.
Also, do you believe that the government is all-wise and benevolent, not prone to corruption and greed, and is the best vehicle for fair wealth distribution?
What I want is a functional system that works to preserve individual liberty without opening the door to suffering, war, and degradation of the Environment.
Here's one for you--do we have the right to use whatever medications and recreational drugs we choose? Or, do we have to curtail that right for "the greater good"?
It depends which statistic you choose. Around 40% of adult population in USA doesn't work. Around 22% of population aged 25-54 doesn't work.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/...e-wasnt-real-here-are-some-other-options.html
This is just a beginning of robot industrial revolution. We haven't seen anything yet. Technology is advancing at an exponential rate. In 10 years there will be things possible we cannot even imagine today.
This is an old video but it has very good message.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
What I don't understand is the following:
If human society advances to such technological level that we could make all human labor obsolete, if we advance to such level that we could provide abundance for all humans on this planet, why would anyone in the right mind be against reorganizing society in such way to make this possible?
Why would anyone want to stick with this old inadequate system if there is a better option? If you are freed from labor and given a gift of free life why would you still insist on this dog-eat-dog world?
The same "force" that separated the slave owners from their slaves and feudal lords from their peasants.
Fair? First people are forced to live in dog-eat-dog world by the rules of some crazy Russian psychopath writer and if that same people rise some day and say: "Enough of this madness, the game is over! We say so because we are the strongest!", then suddenly you don't want to play dog-eat-dog game anymore?
No, the idea is to find a NON-exhorbitant tax-rate that works. As for the Government, it's full of people out to enrich themselves. That's why I want the distribution methods "built-in" and automatic, so politicians can't mess with them. An analogy would be an automobile engine, with both a storage battery (the wealthy) and a distributor. If you can't draw energy (money) from the battery, the engine stalls out.