6 ms·

>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-woul

by 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...
- aminok 10y ago
  >This limit can very well be a million or a few millions. An income tax rate of 80 percent on any income bracket is extremely heavy according to my definition of a 'heavy tax', as is a tax amounting to 2-10% of the value of privately owned assets. His proposal is of the typical disastrous socialist variety that show an utter misunderstanding of how capital is formed. >You are circumventing the basic question. From where property came from? Did individual said "Let there be property" and property came into existence? You didn't ask that question. I answered it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12829401 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12829401 >No, property is a result of individual's or an organized group's utilization of natural or human resources. Acquiring property is a result of an individual utilizing their own property, or the human resources that others freely give them, in a manner that generates value. Piketty's proposal is to violate people's human rights. The fact that it's done through taxation rather than communist-style expropriation of the means of production doesn't change that. >We are discussing taxation of higher income not some petty transaction between individual player. However, The principle doesn't change because the values involved increase. A sound principle is universal, and not arbitrarily stop being morally applicable due to considerations relating to the sum involved. There is no sound principle for a tax on income or private property. >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. But I used clay as my example because it is abundant. If we are going to change the fundamental premise of the example, and assume a scarce natural resource is being appropriated, then society could certainly charge a fee for the act of appropriating the natural resource. Let's say that each tonne of iron ore extracted from the crust costs society $10.00 in diminishment of natural resources, and in environmental damage. Let's say society charges an iron ore miner $50 to extract a tonne of iron ore, to compensate for these costs. Now if the iron ore miner pays the fee, mines the ore, smelts the iron, and fashions the iron into an incredible machine, you have absolutely no right to what the machine produces. An income tax is not a tax on using scarce natural resources, or a charge for damaging the environment. It is robbery against someone successfully generating economic value. It is a human rights violation.
  - 10y ago

by aminok 10y ago

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...

aminok 10y ago
>This limit can very well be a million or a few millions. An income tax rate of 80 percent on any income bracket is extremely heavy according to my definition of a 'heavy tax', as is a tax amounting to 2-10% of the value of privately owned assets. His proposal is of the typical disastrous socialist variety that show an utter misunderstanding of how capital is formed. >You are circumventing the basic question. From where property came from? Did individual said "Let there be property" and property came into existence? You didn't ask that question. I answered it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12829401 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12829401 >No, property is a result of individual's or an organized group's utilization of natural or human resources. Acquiring property is a result of an individual utilizing their own property, or the human resources that others freely give them, in a manner that generates value. Piketty's proposal is to violate people's human rights. The fact that it's done through taxation rather than communist-style expropriation of the means of production doesn't change that. >We are discussing taxation of higher income not some petty transaction between individual player. However, The principle doesn't change because the values involved increase. A sound principle is universal, and not arbitrarily stop being morally applicable due to considerations relating to the sum involved. There is no sound principle for a tax on income or private property. >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. But I used clay as my example because it is abundant. If we are going to change the fundamental premise of the example, and assume a scarce natural resource is being appropriated, then society could certainly charge a fee for the act of appropriating the natural resource. Let's say that each tonne of iron ore extracted from the crust costs society $10.00 in diminishment of natural resources, and in environmental damage. Let's say society charges an iron ore miner $50 to extract a tonne of iron ore, to compensate for these costs. Now if the iron ore miner pays the fee, mines the ore, smelts the iron, and fashions the iron into an incredible machine, you have absolutely no right to what the machine produces. An income tax is not a tax on using scarce natural resources, or a charge for damaging the environment. It is robbery against someone successfully generating economic value. It is a human rights violation.
- 10y ago