[Truth To Power]

You have been captured by Capitalist propaganda which makes you unable to take an objective view of how the economy works.

FYI I'm not a capitalist, and I've proved I know far better than you how the economy works. You have offered no facts whatsoever, just proved-false claims.

You are unable to objectively consider anything the clashes with this world view you have accepted without question.

I came to my views by questioning everything you have been brainwashed to accept without question.

You have no renegaded with my post but preceded with the preconceived notions capitalists like Musk have imprinted on you.

Thanks for proving you have no facts or logic to offer, nothing but anti-rational Marxist bigotry.

[late]

Indeed. Which makes it all the more odd, then, that you have not cited even one of them in support of your false claims, and never will.

I cited a metastudy... so not only did you forget that, you don't seem to know what a metastudy is.

You are a caricature of an intellectual.

[Truth To Power]

I cited a metastudy...

That neither supported your claims nor disputed the facts I identified. So, no, you have not cited even one paper that supported your claims.

so not only did you forget that,

No. You forgot that the paper did not support your "argument."

you don't seem to know what a metastudy is.

Whereas you don't seem to know that for a paper to be cited in support of your argument, the paper has to actually support your argument.

You are a caricature of an intellectual.

Whereas you are a caricature of an anti-intellectual....?

[pugsville]

FYI I'm not a capitalist, and I've proved I know far better than you how the economy works. You have offered no facts whatsoever, just proved-false claims.

I came to my views by questioning everything you have been brainwashed to accept without question.

Thanks for proving you have no facts or logic to offer, nothing but anti-rational Marxist bigotry.

You prooved nothing and offered no evidence what so ever but all your arguments are irrelevant nonsense.



Should the tax system be reformed so that rich people pay income tax is the question,


Yo offered arguments like they work hard, or that Musk is saving the planet. How is either these arguments rational in a argument about tzx law?

Are you saying that people who "work hard" should be exempt form paying tax? How doe sit work how is judged in easier objective way that doe snot make the tax code more convoluted?

You said Musk is saving the planet m so he should not have to pay Tex. How can that be easily measured objectively as part of the tax code.?


You have offered nothing about how these exremeley dubious and subjective measures can be reasonably incorporated in the tax code.


What yo have offered is propaganda about how the rich are better people and should just be allowed to avoid paying tax that they contribute so much it;s unreasonable;e for them to held to the same standards as the rest of us,.


It;s just subjective propaganda that rich people should pay least tax because well their better than us.

How isn't that just swallowing whole the propaganda Musk and others put out. The only information about Musk working hard is propaganda originating form Musk.

yeah, you question everything.....

but you parrot the lines they taught you so well.

[Rancid]

The rich are better than us in every imaginable way.

[late]

That neither supported your claims nor disputed the facts I identified. So, no, you have not cited even one paper that supported your claims.

I'm not making claims. It's your idea, and from what I've seen so far, it's a fantasy almost entirely divorced from reality.

I do object to your religious fervor for a proposal that simply does not have support from the majority of economists.

But, since my opinion is now a topic, increasing taxation on the rich through land taxes MIGHT make sense. The tough part is avoiding ways to dodge that tax. There is a guy in NYC that's a genius at dealing with the tax code to reduce or eliminate taxes for the rich.

He's your enemy, dingbat.

[Truth To Power]

You prooved nothing and offered no evidence what so ever

That claim is objectively false.

but all your arguments are irrelevant nonsense.

Denial ain't just a river in Africa...

Should the tax system be reformed so that rich people pay income tax is the question,

If that is the question, it is a thoroughly stupid question because rich people don't necessarily have any income to tax. What they have are assets, which are what I would propose to tax. You just don't know enough about taxation, economics, accounting, or rich people to understand the difference.

Yo offered arguments like they work hard, or that Musk is saving the planet.

No I didn't. I identified the fact that many -- probably not even most -- rich people work hard at getting something for nothing, and a modest number actually work hard at productive endeavors. I never said one word about Musk saving the planet, you simply made that up, like pretty much everything else you have had to say on this topic.

How is either these arguments rational in a argument about tzx law?

I explained exactly how the facts I have identified are relevant and rational, and why they prove you wrong and me right: the two most fundamental and widely accepted principles of sound taxation policy are, "ability to pay" and "beneficiary pay," neither of which is reflected in either income tax or other commonly levied taxes like sales tax, corporate profits tax, or VAT.

Are you saying that people who "work hard" should be exempt form paying tax?

No, I am saying that how hard someone works is completely irrelevant to how much tax they should pay, which should be based on their ability to pay and how much they benefit from government spending and the opportunities and amenities the community provides -- but mostly how much they take from everyone else.

How doe sit work how is judged in easier objective way that doe snot make the tax code more convoluted?

If you could find a way to say that in English, I might be able to respond.

You said Musk is saving the planet m

I said no such thing. You simply made it up.

so he should not have to pay Tex.

I said no such thing. You simply made it up.

How can that be easily measured objectively as part of the tax code.?

You made it up. You tell me.

You have offered nothing about how these exremeley dubious and subjective measures can be reasonably incorporated in the tax code.

Right, because I have never suggested them as a basis for taxation.

What yo have offered is propaganda about how the rich are better people and should just be allowed to avoid paying tax that they contribute so much it;s unreasonable;e for them to held to the same standards as the rest of us,.

I said no such thing. You simply made it up, like pretty much everything else you have had to say on this topic.

It;s just subjective propaganda that rich people should pay least tax because well their better than us.

You made that up. The reforms I advocate would make the rich pay far MORE in tax not only than they do now, but than they would under ANY proposed income tax reform.

How isn't that just swallowing whole the propaganda Musk and others put out. The only information about Musk working hard is propaganda originating form Musk.

No, there are the FACTS that he is observed by everyone he knows to be working almost constantly, and that the companies he created are achieving things no other company or government has ever come close to achieving.

yeah, you question everything.....

Yep.

but you parrot the lines they taught you so well.

No, YOU parrot them and falsely attribute them to me. There's a difference.

[Truth To Power]

I'm not making claims.

That is false. You claimed it is "insane," that I "have half a solution and no way to close the gap," that it is, "castle in the sky wishful thinking," "no one is going to support it," "sounds like religion," "your support from the academic community is nonexistent," "divorced from reality," blah, blah, blah. In every case, those claims are false, and you offered no factual or logical -- let alone peer-reviewed -- evidence to support them. Watch:

It's your idea, and from what I've seen so far, it's a fantasy almost entirely divorced from reality.

See?

First, it's not my idea, it is an idea that has been around for nearly 300 years and has been advocated by most great economists, including Francois Quesnay, Jacques Turgot, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, Leon Walras, and Nobel laureates James Tobin, Milton Friedman, William Vickrey, Paul Samuelson and Franco Modigliani.

Second, it has worked beautifully everywhere it has ever been tried in practice, to the exact extent that it has been tried.

Third, land taxation is so simple and practical, it worked well even in ancient societies where hardly anyone could read.

I do object to your religious fervor for a proposal that simply does not have support from the majority of economists.

It's difficult to say what fraction of economists "support" it, but it would be difficult to find a competent economist who would dare to oppose it on economic grounds. The fact that it is economically efficient has been known for over 200 years, and is not disputed by any competent economist.

But, since my opinion is now a topic, increasing taxation on the rich through land taxes MIGHT make sense. The tough part is avoiding ways to dodge that tax.

A land value tax is virtually impossible to avoid because land can't move, and it can't hide. That is why the rich oppose such a tax with maniacal ferocity -- and why you have been suckered into spewing disingenuous tripe on their side.

There is a guy in NYC that's a genius at dealing with the tax code to reduce or eliminate taxes for the rich.

And he succeeds because our current taxes, especially personal income tax, are intrinsically evil, and therefore have to be made complex to be made tolerable. The more complex the tax code, the easier it is to find ways to avoid paying taxes.

He's your enemy, dingbat.

Nonsense. He is just an employee doing a job, which he would likely be doing no matter what the tax code said. Liars are my enemy. Evil must always be justified, and the only way to justify it is with lies. The most extensive and ingenious edifice of lies ever assembled is the edifice concocted to prevent ordinary people from understanding and supporting land value taxation.

[pugsville]

That claim is objectively false.

No, I am saying that how hard someone works is completely irrelevant to how much tax they should pay, which should be based on their ability to pay and how much they benefit from government spending and the opportunities and amenities the community provides -- but mostly how much they take from everyone else.

So in what way was YOUR bring this up in any way relevant?

[pugsville]

That claim is objectively false.
No, there are the FACTS that he is observed by everyone he knows to be working almost constantly, and that the companies he created are achieving things no other company or government has ever come close to achieving.

Produce the evidence.

[Truth To Power]

So in what way was YOUR bring this up in any way relevant?

It explained what the real issues are, and why Warren's comments were red herrings.

[pugsville]

It explained what the real issues are, and why Warren's comments were red herrings.

Is is relevant to how much taxes people pay? You just said it was not,


Take a position that is at least logically consistent.

[Truth To Power]

Produce the evidence.

There are many sources that confirm the accuracy of my statement. Here's just one on Musk's work ethic:

https://www.quora.com/How-did-Elon-Musk ... n-15-years

Here's what Tesla has achieved, and no other car maker has come close to:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/715 ... roduction/

Here's what SpaceX has achieved, and no other launch facility has come close to:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/12 ... -manifest/

[pugsville]

:roll: There are many sources that confirm the accuracy of my statement. Here's just one on Musk's work ethic:

https://www.quora.com/How-did-Elon-Musk ... n-15-years

Random internet posting are not evidence of any kind.

[Truth To Power]

Is is relevant to how much taxes people pay? You just said it was not,

How much taxes people pay is entirely determined by the current system, not a reformed one. Duh.

So all proposed tax reforms are irrelevant to ho much taxes people pay. Duh.

Take a position that is at least logically consistent.

I have. It just isn't a position you are able to argue against.

[Truth To Power]

Random internet posting are not evidence of any kind.

They are not random, and they are most certainly evidence of exactly what you asked for evidence of. If they are not evidence, what on earth do you incorrectly imagine would be evidence, hmmmm? A peer-reviewed journal article on Elon Musk's work hours?? A congressional deposition by his law firm? What?

[late]

That is false.

You really don't know how to do this. I'm not supporting your fantasy, or the status quo. My opinion didn't enter the discussion until quite recently. My comments reflect your failure to adequately support your case. They also reveal an abyssal ignorance of the politics surrounding tax reform, and the inherent difficulties of doing tax reform.

[Truth To Power]

You really don't know how to do this.

Do what? Pretend you are saying anything interesting, informative, or honest?

I'm not supporting your fantasy,

It's not a fantasy, stop makin' $#!+ up.

or the status quo.

You are supporting the status quo by making consistently false and disingenuous claims about the necessary principles for successful reform and the best alternative as determined by those principles.

My opinion didn't enter the discussion until quite recently.

False. See above. You -- quite absurdly -- characterized justice in taxation and land tenure institutions as "insane" at the earliest opportunity.

My comments reflect your failure to adequately support your case.

That is merely another bald falsehood from you. You haven't addressed anything I've said in support of my case, just made false, absurd, and disingenuous accusations.

They also reveal an abyssal ignorance of the politics surrounding tax reform, and the inherent difficulties of doing tax reform.

Political difficulties are a matter of place and time. The point here is to establish the relevant principles that must govern any effective and beneficial reform -- principles which you have declined to address in any way.

[late]

It's not a fantasy

There are a ton of hurdles to jump over, and you don't seem to know they are there.

You would need the majority of economists supporting this, but esp. the ones that focus on taxation. I don't mean in a general sense, I mean a specific series of proposals to do it, which will inevitably be controversial.

You would need a Progressive era (OK, let's stop right there for a second. The gulf between you and Progressives make Alpha Centauri look like it's right next door)

You would need to get the public excited about it, but esp. the Progressives. You need millions willing to bug Congress to push them to do it.

You'll need a really good information campaign to counter the propaganda of the rich.

Translating a radical change like this into a bill borders on insane. You have to do a dozen different things at the same time, and some of them are really, really tough to pull off. Example, there are guys that do nothing but help the rich dodge taxes. The top dog is a genius. He's magic, he can find loopholes where none exist.

You would then need to have a plan to deal with the transition. The very idea gives me a headache. Most people, and most of Congress, would run screaming once they found out what that entails. Every detail has to be nailed down, and there must be a million of them.

Lastly, there is the inherent conservatism in the American people, the Senate, and any Congressperson facing a dramatic and risky change.

The odds of pulling that off are worse than winning Powerball, MegaMillions and Megabucks in the same week.

As I pointed out earlier, incorporating a land tax into the current system, that applies only to the rich, might make sense. It would also be a few million times easier than what you are proposing.

[Truth To Power]

There are a ton of hurdles to jump over, and you don't seem to know they are there.

Is that supposed to be a retraction of your false and disingenuous claim that a system that historically has worked well many times is a fantasy?

You would need the majority of economists supporting this,

Garbage with no basis in fact. When did the majority of economists ever support the personal income tax?

but esp. the ones that focus on taxation.

The ones that focus on taxation are almost always in the pay of the super-duper uber-rich, who don't mind spending money to corrupt economics in their favor.

I don't mean in a general sense, I mean a specific series of proposals to do it, which will inevitably be controversial.

Is that supposed to be a retraction of your false and disingenuous claim that a system that historically has worked well many times is a fantasy?

You would need a Progressive era (OK, let's stop right there for a second. The gulf between you and Progressives make Alpha Centauri look like it's right next door)

Is that supposed to be a retraction of your false and disingenuous claim that a system that historically has worked well many times is a fantasy?

You would need to get the public excited about it, but esp. the Progressives. You need millions willing to bug Congress to push them to do it.

You aren't listening. I am not a politician. I am just identifying the relevant facts of economics.

You'll need a really good information campaign to counter the propaganda of the rich.

That's not my job. I am just telling the truth. If you have a factual or logical argument to offer in refutation of anything I have said, I'm waiting. So far, you have come up completely empty.

Translating a radical change like this into a bill borders on insane.

Is that supposed to be a retraction of your false and disingenuous claim that a system that historically has worked well many times is insane?

You have to do a dozen different things at the same time, and some of them are really, really tough to pull off.

I already told you: no worthwhile project is easy.

Example, there are guys that do nothing but help the rich dodge taxes. The top dog is a genius. He's magic, he can find loopholes where none exist.

Can he move land to a more tax-subservient jurisdiction? Can he hide it?

You would then need to have a plan to deal with the transition.

I do; but different jurisdictions would obviously need different plans appropriate to local conditions.

The very idea gives me a headache.

Your lack of imagination -- not to mention commitment to liberty, justice and truth -- is not my problem.

Most people, and most of Congress, would run screaming once they found out what that entails.

I don't think most people would run screaming from liberty, justice and prosperity -- though most of Congress probably would.

Every detail has to be nailed down, and there must be a million of them.

You mean like every detail of the personal income tax was nailed down before it was enacted...?

Lastly, there is the inherent conservatism in the American people, the Senate, and any Congressperson facing a dramatic and risky change.

It may be too late for the USA. But there are people reading this forum who are not Americans, and whose governments are not as corrupt and subservient to the narrow financial interests of the super-duper uber-rich.

The odds of pulling that off are worse than winning Powerball, MegaMillions and Megabucks in the same week.

It's going to happen. It's just a matter of how many millions the current evil system will kill before it does.

As I pointed out earlier, incorporating a land tax into the current system, that applies only to the rich, might make sense. It would also be a few million times easier than what you are proposing.

You appear to have very little understanding of, and certainly cannot accurately describe, what I am proposing.