Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> >    I have yet to hear any good argument why rich people should be punished
> > with high taxes, other than emotional things like it being "fair".

>         Again, you use the word "punishment". Since when was taxing punishment? 

  It's a "punishment" in practice, even if it isn't technically one.
If you earn more, you get taxed with a higher percentage. That discourages
earning more in that country, especially if in a neighbouring country you
could earn the same amount and get taxed less, in which case you get to
keep more. Guess what happens.

> If increasing taxes for the rich is punishment, then isn't increasing 
> taxes for *any* group punishment?

  Taxing everyone the same percentage is not punishment, in any sense.

>         It may simply be the case that the government needs the money, and 
> having a progressive tax rate is the most optimal way to do so for the 
> economy. Wasn't that the criterion you yourself set?

  Only up to a certain point. When you tax rich people with 60%, while in
the neighbouring country they get taxed 20% for the exact same income, guess
what happens.

  I wouldn't say entrepreneurs moving out of the country is good for the
country's economy.

> >    Taxing rich people a lot is not very productive because they are so few.

>         What is "a lot"?

  60% in Finland.

>         A 1% tax increase hurts the medium and low income citizens more than it 
> hurts the rich.

  A medium-wealth person can afford paying 10 euros more for each 1000 euros
he earns.

  The core question is what is better for the economy: Having medium-wealth
people paying 1% more and rich people paying 10% less, or the other way
around.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Warp schrieb:
> >   Maybe, if there's a good economical reason to do so. However, I'd say
> > equal tax % for everybody is a good lower limit (well, as long as that %
> > is not exorbitant). Rewarding success shouldn't be done at the cost of
> > punishing poor performance. That's morally daunting.

> There would also be the problem that most rich people are rich because 
> they were born into a rich family, and most poorer people are poorer 
> because they were born into a poorer family.

> Success may not always depend on performance, but also on the possession 
> of assets.

  But it's better to keep the rich people inside the country than drive
them out with high taxes. The rich people will benefit the country they
live in.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> I just heard a report on the radio of a millionaire who openly revealed 
> that he pays no more than about 3000 EUR a year in taxes, due to tax 
> loopholes.

> /That's/ the sort of things that make poorer people /seriously/ jealous.

  On the other hand, how much does he contribute to the country's economy?
Maybe he *spends* more, while paying less taxes, and thus keeps cash
circulating and jobs running?

  If this *one* person would pay a very high percentage in taxes, exactly
how many people would benefit from that? Would the benefit be large than
him spending the same money?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

In article <4a86783f@news.povray.org>,
Warp wrote:

> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Warp schrieb:
>> >   Maybe, if there's a good economical reason to do so. However, I'd say
>> > equal tax % for everybody is a good lower limit (well, as long as that %
>> > is not exorbitant). Rewarding success shouldn't be done at the cost of
>> > punishing poor performance. That's morally daunting.
>
>> There would also be the problem that most rich people are rich because 
>> they were born into a rich family, and most poorer people are poorer 
>> because they were born into a poorer family.
>
>> Success may not always depend on performance, but also on the possession 
>> of assets.
>
>   But it's better to keep the rich people inside the country than drive
> them out with high taxes. The rich people will benefit the country they
> live in.

I would make sure that rich people don't have more say, directly or
indirectly, in the political voice of the country. I don't see this
happening at all, and it is there that I would work first.

Rich form a class, like the poor, and the people in between. As a
social class, common interests arise, and so a big rich company
identifies itself with the rich, and the sort of position that company
takes is really not popular. The most recent example: the Honduras
coup d'état.

The problem is really not exactly in the economic model, but in the
impunity of letting the rich decide for the poor through political
maneuvers and propaganda which exploits the ignorance of people.

You may choose P, but if all your friends choose R, then that's R that
it'll be. We have these large amounts of people in poverty and
oppression --- I'm not particular talking about one country ---, and
somehow the system is not with them. They must all be choosing R, even
though it is P that benefits them, but they do it anyway. That's very
unintuitive.

Take a poor woman in a good country. She gets, say, 1000 bucks on
welfare. That's welfare. Good. This country does something for
her. She gets it because she's poor. We give it; it's not the
government; it is us; we are the people. We wouldn't give 1000 bucks
on welfare to a rich person because that rich person doesn't need
it. Instead, we give a rich person a 1000 bucks on tax discounts, for,
say, creating jobs, which is something that poor people don't do.

(*) What about the middle class?

The middle class is interesting. They seem to have the same ideology
of the rich, except that they do not really get the benefits the rich
get (at the scale they do.) But they certainly don't think like the
poor. They go to the most-expensive school they can afford.

Post a reply to this message

In article <4a8623b5$1@news.povray.org>,
clipka wrote:

> Neeum Zawan schrieb:
>>     I think the people of every country view their system as "centrist" 
>> or a good balance. So the capitalism in the US is the "standard" for 
>> them, and the stuff in Europe is too far off to be called it the same 
>> thing.
>
> Even in Germany, the German economic system isn't called "capitalism", 
> but "social market economy", and is considered to be /different/ from 
> capitalism (which is usually interpreted to mean "laissez-faire 
> capitalism" in particular).

True, but which it never is.

Post a reply to this message

"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a85d499@news.povray.org...
> On 08/14/09 10:53, somebody wrote:

> > No only that, but if the rich were like black holes that hoard the money
> > without letting it flow back, they would no longer be rich and it would
> > actually raise the value of money for everyone else's pockets.

> This needs to be expanded upon a bit and placed on the Internet. A new
> type of economics.

Nothing new I am afraid, and someone already wrote a nicely expanded
version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_money

(see the "macroeconomic effect" section)

Post a reply to this message

"Neeum Zawan" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a8640a2$1@news.povray.org...

> If it didn't push people back, then yes (i.e. if there's a separate
> system of doctors who get paid directly, and who don't deal with the
> people normally in the line).
>
> The real problem may be the line. However, her jumping it likely caused
> problems for others. How can that not be negative?

Indeed. One problem with waiting lines of any sort is that it's an open
invitation for bribery, nepotism, favouritism, racism, sexism... any any
other kind of ism. Not to mention "class" differences (athletes get special
treatment, zero wait times, for instance, especially in countries with
"social" medicine). I have no doubt that the waiting times in Canada of
poor, obese, aboriginal men for diagnosis and surgeries would on average be
rather noticably longer than that of upper class, white, fit females, for
instance, even if no explicit foul play is involved and when it's all
completely subconscious. Doctors rate the severity of cases, and they will
be influenced consciously or subconsciously by non-medical matters. Even how
you happen to dress that day will influence the quality of care you will
receive. Just because a health care system is publicly funded and most care
is free, it doesn't mean it will be fair by any means.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:24:42 -0500, Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:

>	Universal means that everyone should be covered (through public or 
>private means).

So to summarise, some Americans do not want a universal health service because
all Americans would benefit. Even those Americans who cannot afford to pay for
their health insurance. This would mean that the health insurance that they have
paid for would be wasted and some people would be getting something for nothing.
Coupled with the belief that the American health system is the best in the world
and to criticise it is un-American.
OK that is a bit simplistic, I know but that is what I read.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

In article <vetd859ck606o6toknp94lhicmg1c9kqud@4ax.com>,
Stephen wrote:

> and to criticise it is un-American.

That's not so bad. When you really cross the border, you get called
anti-American (or communist!). 

``When I was back there in seminary school...'' I used to laugh with
friends by calling other people like this:

  HE'S A COMMUNIST!!!!!!!!!!

Everyone who disagreed with us was a communist. I had a good friend
who talked about socialist ideas. We always called him ``A
COMMUNIST!!!'' --- sometimes very loud in the middle of the grocery
store! It was so much fun. I had no idea in those days how
effectively-horrible it was to call someone names like that.

> OK that is a bit simplistic, I know but that is what I read.

When things get complicated, it's either because you're writing
povray, or Haskell, or C++, ... or defending the establishment!

-- 
I think this is the best troll I've ever written! :D

Post a reply to this message

On 15 Aug 2009 14:03:46 -0400, Daniel Bastos <dbastos+0### [at] toledocom> wrote:

>In article <vetd859ck606o6toknp94lhicmg1c9kqud@4ax.com>,
>Stephen wrote:
>
>> and to criticise it is un-American.
>
>That's not so bad. When you really cross the border, you get called
>anti-American (or communist!). 
>

It was at one time, re The House Committee on Un-American Activities.

>``When I was back there in seminary school...'' I used to laugh with
>friends by calling other people like this:
>
>  HE'S A COMMUNIST!!!!!!!!!!
>

We used to call people Tories. :) But then I'm from an area where we revelled in
the name "Red Clydesiders"

>Everyone who disagreed with us was a communist. I had a good friend
>who talked about socialist ideas. We always called him ``A
>COMMUNIST!!!'' --- sometimes very loud in the middle of the grocery
>store! It was so much fun. I had no idea in those days how
>effectively-horrible it was to call someone names like that.
>

Lucky he wasn't lynched. 

>> OK that is a bit simplistic, I know but that is what I read.
>
>When things get complicated, it's either because you're writing
>povray, or Haskell, or C++, ... or defending the establishment!

I wouldn't know about the last three :D
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message