3 ms·
Hardly. It could be as simple as setting a high tax rate at some threshold of income. Not sure why you're jumping straight to central control of the economy as
by GavinMcG 9y ago
Hardly. It could be as simple as setting a high tax rate at some threshold of income. Not sure why you're jumping straight to central control of the economy as though it's the only option - it's the most extreme option among many.
- CamperBob2 9y agoHow is "setting a (presumably very) high tax rate at some threshold of income" not a strategy for implementing "central control of the economy"? At some level of income confiscation, you're basically describing slavery.
- GavinMcG 9y agoAll those poor slaves who were earning over $300,000 a year in the 1960s United States, and had to pay a 91% marginal tax rate on the extra. It's entirely reasonable to debate the appropriateness of such rates, but claiming that "slavery" is even close to a legitimate comparison demonstrates a shocking disregard for the plight of actual slaves, both past and present.
- CamperBob2 9y ago(Shrug) A gun at your head is still a gun at your head, regardless of the number in your bank account.
- AstralStorm 9y agoUnless you're paid for getting the gun held to your head, right? /s Generally without such taxation such "personal money" gets frozen out of economy and competition as well gets distorted. The rich have many more options to avoid the taxes as well.
- GavinMcG 9y agoNo, not really. The abstract threat of force for acting as though you could possibly have or accomplish everything without having had the support of society is nothing like the very immediate threat of torture, rape, or death. They do happen to be on the same spectrum, which gives you only the barest excuse for such a callous view.