3 ms·

This article is a bunch of truths that were cherrypicked to form a narrative where taxing wealth is bad, in a way that feels almost like soviet propaganda. The

by mihaic 2y ago

This article is a bunch of truths that were cherrypicked to form a narrative where taxing wealth is bad, in a way that feels almost like soviet propaganda. The world is complex, some taxes should be lowered, some raised, some government spending should be reduces, other increased, and other just reorganized. This short of nuance-less naive thinking only harms general understanding of what solutions to improve our society could look like.

bryanlarsen 2y ago
I didn't get "taxing wealth is bad" from the article at all.
lukeschlather 2y ago
The author doesn't actually say taxing wealth is bad, just that it's not the panacea some might imagine it to be. I think there's something of a missing point in this article - the author points out that much of the richest people's wealth is illusory, but the corollary here is that if taxing wealth reduced their apparent wealth, that would probably be a good thing since it would mean the value of their stocks would be more accurately defined, and it's definitely better to have lower but more accurate stock valuations, it's even worth reducing the actual value of the stocks somewhat.
- mihaic 2y ago
  If the author would have emphasized your conclusion, that taxing wealth would actually normalize asset values and bring them closer to reality, I would have agreed he wasn't against taxing wealth. But when this conclusion is somewhat implied but ignored, I'm assuming it's on purpose.
kkfx 2y ago
The world is complex but... Why taxes exists? Try to answer. In a working Democracy taxes are a mean to redistribute wealth to ensure that those who do more have more, because hey, we need incentives to work, but those who do less still have enough to avoid a too big delta between the poorest and the richest witch create deep social fractures. Taxes "to pay public services" are a nonsense. In a Democracy we should pay civil servant, those who work for the public, creating money because there is no "public debt" in a Democracy, "public debt" is a nonsense invented as a way to rule a democracy like a cleptocracy making people think they decide while they do not. A soft power of few on the many. Money creation in a Democracy happen through public investments, witch are constrained by physical resources (natural, manpower etc of a State) so they can't create inflation. There is no fractional reserve seigniorage and so on in Democracy. The central bank in a Democracy is a State owned institution. Of course we are not in Democracies so money are not such tool to help exchanging goods, services with something we all agree to barter for. In this models taxes are a way to impoverish the people so it's normal anyone try to pay less and of course those who understand better, who typically tend to be wealthy, do their best to being impoverished less. Because that's the anti-taxes point: taxes are not used to ensure not too much difference between the poorest and the richest to keep a society united but are used to makes the 2030 agenda "you'll own nothing", where the you means that the speaker, the WEF, count to own anything. The modern soft form of slavery.
- mihaic 2y ago
  I tried but failed to follow what you're arguing for, since you're mixing too many concepts. To respond on your main question though, I simply can't see a world where states that don't collect taxes to raise an army don't simply get dominated by those that do.
  - kkfx 2y ago
    I see them, simply: who makes the money? If it's the State than the State made the money it's economy need period. Money are just units of measure of a substrate. An army is not made with money but with humans, foods, buildings, vehicles, ... they are in turn built by the country people, industries, agriculture and via commerce. The fact you can't understand (beside my poor English, sorry) is a proof you live so much in a society POISONED by the current economical cleptocracy that you can't imaging something else, but actually most countries in the world in the past and various in the present do own their own money. China is an example, Russia is another. Why they are so powerful and remain powerful and gain ground against the west? Because of that. Because they run on industries, natural resources, etc not on finance. We was the most powerful when we have done the very same. It's not a matter of pseudo-democracies, it's a matter of who rule the State. Bankers who rule the west are very effective in PRs, but fails in the real world. They flourish out of a functional industrial system, then they demolish it and they can't recover because themselves fails to distinguish the unit of measure and the things they measure with. BTW it's an old adage "a State try to resolve a crisis with taxes is like a man putting his feet in a bucket try to lift himself lifting the handle".
    - mihaic 2y ago
      I'm trying to give honest feedback here: it's not that I can't understand your English, the structure of your comment is confusing. You seem to mix your main points with your arguments in a way where it's not clear which is which for instance. And just to make it clear, I also think the economy is absurdly out of touch with reality, and we do seem to live in a plutocracy, but what can we do with "taxes are an invention"? I agree with many of the things you said, but it's honestly too abstract to be of any use.

by mihaic 2y ago

bryanlarsen 2y ago

I didn't get "taxing wealth is bad" from the article at all.

lukeschlather 2y ago

The author doesn't actually say taxing wealth is bad, just that it's not the panacea some might imagine it to be. I think there's something of a missing point in this article - the author points out that much of the richest people's wealth is illusory, but the corollary here is that if taxing wealth reduced their apparent wealth, that would probably be a good thing since it would mean the value of their stocks would be more accurately defined, and it's definitely better to have lower but more accurate stock valuations, it's even worth reducing the actual value of the stocks somewhat.

mihaic 2y ago
If the author would have emphasized your conclusion, that taxing wealth would actually normalize asset values and bring them closer to reality, I would have agreed he wasn't against taxing wealth. But when this conclusion is somewhat implied but ignored, I'm assuming it's on purpose.

kkfx 2y ago

The world is complex but... Why taxes exists? Try to answer. In a working Democracy taxes are a mean to redistribute wealth to ensure that those who do more have more, because hey, we need incentives to work, but those who do less still have enough to avoid a too big delta between the poorest and the richest witch create deep social fractures. Taxes "to pay public services" are a nonsense. In a Democracy we should pay civil servant, those who work for the public, creating money because there is no "public debt" in a Democracy, "public debt" is a nonsense invented as a way to rule a democracy like a cleptocracy making people think they decide while they do not. A soft power of few on the many. Money creation in a Democracy happen through public investments, witch are constrained by physical resources (natural, manpower etc of a State) so they can't create inflation. There is no fractional reserve seigniorage and so on in Democracy. The central bank in a Democracy is a State owned institution. Of course we are not in Democracies so money are not such tool to help exchanging goods, services with something we all agree to barter for. In this models taxes are a way to impoverish the people so it's normal anyone try to pay less and of course those who understand better, who typically tend to be wealthy, do their best to being impoverished less. Because that's the anti-taxes point: taxes are not used to ensure not too much difference between the poorest and the richest to keep a society united but are used to makes the 2030 agenda "you'll own nothing", where the you means that the speaker, the WEF, count to own anything. The modern soft form of slavery.

mihaic 2y ago
I tried but failed to follow what you're arguing for, since you're mixing too many concepts. To respond on your main question though, I simply can't see a world where states that don't collect taxes to raise an army don't simply get dominated by those that do.
- kkfx 2y ago
  I see them, simply: who makes the money? If it's the State than the State made the money it's economy need period. Money are just units of measure of a substrate. An army is not made with money but with humans, foods, buildings, vehicles, ... they are in turn built by the country people, industries, agriculture and via commerce. The fact you can't understand (beside my poor English, sorry) is a proof you live so much in a society POISONED by the current economical cleptocracy that you can't imaging something else, but actually most countries in the world in the past and various in the present do own their own money. China is an example, Russia is another. Why they are so powerful and remain powerful and gain ground against the west? Because of that. Because they run on industries, natural resources, etc not on finance. We was the most powerful when we have done the very same. It's not a matter of pseudo-democracies, it's a matter of who rule the State. Bankers who rule the west are very effective in PRs, but fails in the real world. They flourish out of a functional industrial system, then they demolish it and they can't recover because themselves fails to distinguish the unit of measure and the things they measure with. BTW it's an old adage "a State try to resolve a crisis with taxes is like a man putting his feet in a bucket try to lift himself lifting the handle".
  - mihaic 2y ago
    I'm trying to give honest feedback here: it's not that I can't understand your English, the structure of your comment is confusing. You seem to mix your main points with your arguments in a way where it's not clear which is which for instance. And just to make it clear, I also think the economy is absurdly out of touch with reality, and we do seem to live in a plutocracy, but what can we do with "taxes are an invention"? I agree with many of the things you said, but it's honestly too abstract to be of any use.