4 ms·

He supports heavy taxes on private property. Tax laws are based on violence. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforcing-the-law-is-inherentl

by aminok 10y ago

He supports heavy taxes on private property. Tax laws are based on violence. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforcing-the-law-is-inherently-violent/488828/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforcin... >Enforcing the Law Is Inherently Violent >A Yale law professor suggests that oft-ignored truth should inform debates about what statutes and regulations to codify. Socialist ideology relies exclusively on aggressive violence. >His argument is to have finanacial transparency which does not mean taxing everything. Transparency is a euphemism for violating people's privacy. >As far as progressive taxation is concerned, Organised groups or individuals generate Income by exploiting resources which are either natural or is generated by other individuals. Towards what end they accumulate this wealth? "exploiting" is such a leftist buzzword. People in a market generate income by trading something of value that they generate for currency that others freely give them. Their income is what they receive through private trade. They come under no moral obligation to provide income to other co-nationalists simply as a consequence of making private trades.

drieddust 10y ago
> He supports heavy taxes on private property. Tax laws are based on violence I didn't get the same impression watching the video. Do you have any references? As far as Law and Violence is concerned, I agree voilence to some degree may be involved. So what is your alternative? No Law every man/group for himself? There is no such thing as No Law. Void will ne replaced with Natural Law in which powerful eliminates weak. If well reasoned Law is not present in society, Law of jungle will take over. > People in a market generate income by trading something of value for currency that others freely give them Something of value is the operative word here. From where "something of value" comes? There is no tax on exchanging valuable thoughts. We are only taking about financial trades which does impacts society.
- aminok 10y ago
  >Do you have any references? http://taxfoundation.org/article/what-would-piketty-s-80-percent-tax-rate-do-us-economy http://taxfoundation.org/article/what-would-piketty-s-80-per... >As far as Law and Violence is concerned, I agree voilence to some degree may be involved. So what is your alternative? No Law every man/group for himself? The violence of Law should be applied exclusively against those who violate the human rights of others. It should not be used to take property from one group to give to another. >Something of value is the operative word here. From where "something of value" comes? I grab some clay, and create a nice figurine. You give me some sea shells in exchange for it. No one has a right to a share of my sea shells. If some group of people preaching "social democracy" violently assault me for refusing to hand over a share, they are the aggressors. The social democracy advocates have done what Bastiat predicted: >When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.
  - drieddust 10y ago
    Quoting from the article you are referring to: > He recommends a global wealth tax and, for the United States, top income tax rates of 80 percent on income above $500,000 or $1 million to combat inequality and 50 or 60 percent on income above about $200,000 to combat inequality and grow the government. First of all I haven't read the book yet so can't comment on the numbers.This limit can very well be a million or a few millions. He is arguing is that effective tax rate on multinational companies is lower than small and medium scale businesses. This isn't good for capitalism. In fact this will just hasten the process towards concentration of resources in the hands of few organization or groups. Will it look like a capitalist society anymore when a few big groups own everything and others compete for minimum wages? > The violence of Law should be applied exclusively against those who violate the human rights of others. It should not be used to take property from one group to give to another. You are circumventing the basic question. From where property came from? Did individual said "Let there be property" and property came into existence? No, property is a result of individual's or an organized group's utilization of natural or human resources. Piketty is not arguing to take it away with force in communist fashion. All he is arguing is that tax should increase with income which is contrary to what is happening on the ground nowadays[1][2]. > I grab some clay, and create a nice figurine. You give me some sea shells in exchange for it. No one has a right to a share of my sea shells. We are discussing taxation of higher income not some petty transaction between individual player. However, if we take your argument to its logical conclusion and imagine a billion dollar Multi-National making the same argument that I am just bartering few thousand tonnes of clay with few hundred tonnes of seashell so we aren't responsible for soil erosion and extinction of species. Only reason not to tax large groups was that they generate employment and moves the society forward by investing money into research. This is not true research [3] as well as jobs[4]. [1] http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/10/why-we-need-a-global-wealth-tax-piketty.html http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/10/why-we-need-a-global-wealth-t... [2] http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/ http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secreta... [3] https://www.ted.com/talks/mariana_mazzucato_government_investor_risk_taker_innovator https://www.ted.com/talks/mariana_mazzucato_government_inves... [4] http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/do-lower-taxes-create-more-jobs/ http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/c...

by aminok 10y ago

drieddust 10y ago

> He supports heavy taxes on private property. Tax laws are based on violence I didn't get the same impression watching the video. Do you have any references? As far as Law and Violence is concerned, I agree voilence to some degree may be involved. So what is your alternative? No Law every man/group for himself? There is no such thing as No Law. Void will ne replaced with Natural Law in which powerful eliminates weak. If well reasoned Law is not present in society, Law of jungle will take over. > People in a market generate income by trading something of value for currency that others freely give them Something of value is the operative word here. From where "something of value" comes? There is no tax on exchanging valuable thoughts. We are only taking about financial trades which does impacts society.

aminok 10y ago
>Do you have any references? http://taxfoundation.org/article/what-would-piketty-s-80-percent-tax-rate-do-us-economy http://taxfoundation.org/article/what-would-piketty-s-80-per... >As far as Law and Violence is concerned, I agree voilence to some degree may be involved. So what is your alternative? No Law every man/group for himself? The violence of Law should be applied exclusively against those who violate the human rights of others. It should not be used to take property from one group to give to another. >Something of value is the operative word here. From where "something of value" comes? I grab some clay, and create a nice figurine. You give me some sea shells in exchange for it. No one has a right to a share of my sea shells. If some group of people preaching "social democracy" violently assault me for refusing to hand over a share, they are the aggressors. The social democracy advocates have done what Bastiat predicted: >When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.
- drieddust 10y ago
  Quoting from the article you are referring to: > He recommends a global wealth tax and, for the United States, top income tax rates of 80 percent on income above $500,000 or $1 million to combat inequality and 50 or 60 percent on income above about $200,000 to combat inequality and grow the government. First of all I haven't read the book yet so can't comment on the numbers.This limit can very well be a million or a few millions. He is arguing is that effective tax rate on multinational companies is lower than small and medium scale businesses. This isn't good for capitalism. In fact this will just hasten the process towards concentration of resources in the hands of few organization or groups. Will it look like a capitalist society anymore when a few big groups own everything and others compete for minimum wages? > The violence of Law should be applied exclusively against those who violate the human rights of others. It should not be used to take property from one group to give to another. You are circumventing the basic question. From where property came from? Did individual said "Let there be property" and property came into existence? No, property is a result of individual's or an organized group's utilization of natural or human resources. Piketty is not arguing to take it away with force in communist fashion. All he is arguing is that tax should increase with income which is contrary to what is happening on the ground nowadays[1][2]. > I grab some clay, and create a nice figurine. You give me some sea shells in exchange for it. No one has a right to a share of my sea shells. We are discussing taxation of higher income not some petty transaction between individual player. However, if we take your argument to its logical conclusion and imagine a billion dollar Multi-National making the same argument that I am just bartering few thousand tonnes of clay with few hundred tonnes of seashell so we aren't responsible for soil erosion and extinction of species. Only reason not to tax large groups was that they generate employment and moves the society forward by investing money into research. This is not true research [3] as well as jobs[4]. [1] http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/10/why-we-need-a-global-wealth-tax-piketty.html http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/10/why-we-need-a-global-wealth-t... [2] http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/ http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secreta... [3] https://www.ted.com/talks/mariana_mazzucato_government_investor_risk_taker_innovator https://www.ted.com/talks/mariana_mazzucato_government_inves... [4] http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/do-lower-taxes-create-more-jobs/ http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/c...