Tax discrimination

That's an obvious fib! You copy and paste definitions, but then completely misuse term. You do it continuously, only demonstrating the severe weakness in your argument.

You're not even trying to make sense now. Why don't you admit that a dam isn't a monopoly and a space race isn't a natural monopoly? It would be the clever thing to do

 

Why do you believe they are not forms of monopolies arising from a lack of simple competition?

That pretty much explains the natural public sector monopolies of our wars on abstractions and the Space race, and the building of Hoover Dam (even if not the operation).

 

This is nonsensical. A monopoly, by definition, refers to a lack of competition. You just don't understand the sources of that lack of competition and make painfully silly comments like "a dam is a monopoly" and "a space race is a natural monopoly". You're just wrong. You couldn't be more wrong. Everything you've typed has been utter drivel, with no pertinent reference to a product market

 

I come up with the perfect post and nobody comments on it
Almost perfect.
Everyone should pay 2/3rd's of their income on survival. Those that don't should suffer tax increases until they are paying 2/3rds of their income on taxes and surviving.

 

I'm not against charity for folks who, due to poor choices or poor luck, find themselves in hard times. That's different from paying someone to "not provide labor input," to not work. I think charity is reasonable, I also think it has limits. When someone decides they can work, but would prefer to live off of charity... I'm comfortable putting a limit there.

Working at will does not mean getting paid even if you choose not to work.
​

 

Your comment "a progressive tax makes things fair" was perfect. I didn't need to hear anything else as you summarised neatly in that short sentence

 

... if their survival costs 2/3's of their income it would have been perfect.​

 

You are welcome to bring forth your definitions from a standardized source of definitions. I have provided several definitions that support my contention.

The product, in the case of public policy decisions involves the coercive use of force of the State in some cases and the greater glory of human understanding in another case; but those are externalities to microeconomics and hence, your problem and penchant for special pleading to merely obstruct an argument but not contribute to the greater glory of human understanding by discovering truth value through argumentation.

I think you may fit right in on USPoliticsOnline.

 

Why do you have any problems with paying people a form of minimum wage to not provide labor input to the economy or to not be exploited by capitalism as a moral and ethic in modern times?

Why even have a War on Poverty in that case?

And, in any case, how else do we solve for the phenomena of a natural rate of unemployment under our current form of capitalism? Doesn't it make sense to solve for that phenomena, even if it means subsidizing people to not provide labor input to the economy in a manner similar to agriculture subsidies; even if only as a form of equality of privileges and immunities?

Or, do you believe it is better for our republic to engage in the moral turpitude of bearing false witness to our own laws and that form of repugnance to our republican form of Government, merely to enforce a "third world" work ethic in our modern and more developed political economy where corporate welfare has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses to persons who were not in official poverty and could afford entire departments to help them conform to rational choice theory and fill our corporate welfare forms in triplicate?

 

A nonsense reply again. The problem isn't Econ 101 definitions (which of course you can copy and paste). The problem is your quite ridiculous abuse of the definitions. A dam isn't a monopoly. A space race isn't a natural monopoly. You've talked utter garbage, reflecting your inability to use economics with any resemblance of sense

 

When I partner with another person to accomplish a common goal, I expect us to contribute equally and be treated equally by the enterprise. I recognize their will be approximations and concessions towards those ends, but if it's a partnership of equals I expect us to act like equals -- in that partnership. That does not assume we are equal in all things, or guarantee we will become equal in all things.

I think charity is a reasonable thing, and I have compassion for those who due to poor luck or poor choices may benefit from a hand up. But I see no reason why partnering with other people in this nation obliges me to pay them if they choose not to work. This isn't 'moral turpitude' or 'false witness,' it's just asking the equal citizens of this nation to act as equals and recognizing that limited charity offered to those in hardship does not erase their obligations in the partnership or oblige me to support them indefinitely.​

 

What a coincidence, so do I; it also means I expect the other person to not resort to as many fallacies for free. How does your point of view work in, for example, employment where you partner with an employer to achieve a common goal and where he can fire you, but you can't fire him?

Why do you care what someone else does with their individual liberty, if it is lowering your tax burden and improving the efficiency of our economy at the same time?

Do you also not believe in equal protection of the laws among equals?

 

Of course you can fire him: quit. If you're more reticent to do so, than he is to fire you, it's possible you aren't in fact equal partners and he's brought more to that table than you have.

I care about someone doing something with their individual liberty, if they expect me to pay for it. I think that's reasonable. And yes, I think the 14th amendment is a good idea.​

 

You know it isn't the same thing since merely quiting under our current regime can get a person the unequal treatment of being denied and disparaged in their unemployment benefits.

I find your argument and those of your point of view disingenuous since you can always quit and go on welfare if the tax burden is too much for you, instead of advocating the moral turpitude of bearing false witness to our own laws.

 

How is it unequal? Your boss doesn't get unemployment benefits either.

I understand you have trouble with English, but your "moral turpitude of bearing false witness" line is getting kind of silly. If you simplify your statements you might have better luck getting your ideas across.​

 

Your disingenuous rebuttal inspires no confidence in your sincerity, since merely quiting under our current regime can get a person the unequal treatment of being denied and disparaged in their unemployment benefits for merely being legal and moral to our own at-will employment laws.

Non sequiturs are usually considered fallacies; but, then I don't really expect you to have the moral of true witness bearing with so many fallacies. It is another reason why your "moral" indignation regarding paying taxes is also, so disingenuous; simply because it would actually require the morals you only claim to have.

Thank you for ceding the point regarding your line of reasoning.

 

The unfairness you see is a difference in what each man makes. Forcing a man to give his neighbor money doesn't change what the neighbor is making, it just changes what the neighbor has. Tomorrow he'll still make less. Progressive tax doesn't make things fair.​

 

Reference to the 'social wage' (i.e. difference between 'social expenditures directed toward the working population and the taxes directly levied on this same group') is the interesting one. Apparent progressive tax can just become marginal distributional shifts within income groups

 

Wouldn't any social wage increase the amount of tax receipts over any regime of allowing poverty? If so, then merely solving poverty would ensure that more people are paying taxes.

 

You again make zero sense, demonstrating that you're randomly using terms

 

Why would it sicken you? It's THEIR feckin' country.

 

It's our feckin' country. It belongs to all 313,000,000 of us equally.​

 

That's not true is it? If it was you'd see a lot more social mobility. A class ridden country, with an underclass, isn't convenient for the usual democracy clichés

 

I am not sure what you mean; a poverty of money in money based markets only ensures that even general taxes are paid less due to less circulation of money in money based markets. Conversely, any increase in the circulation of money ensures that more (general) taxes are paid.

 

Respectfully, I think it is. We definitely have a problem here, reflected by the wealth gap. But the gap isn't the problem -- it's a consequence of it. And despite the lack of personal responsibility and productivity by so many folks, I think we're still a nation of equals under the law. And I would not see that change.​