Why Austerity doesn't work in the modern world. - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Everything from personal credit card debt to government borrowing debt.

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

#14923302
One Degree wrote:
Got me. :)
I don’t deny that is a problem. It is also a problem I don’t have a solution to. Inheritance tax strikes me wrong also.

Edit: Actually that is not true but the solution is in my ideal world of only allowing local ownership. The wealthy then become an asset to the community because they can’t invest their money anywhere else.

This edit and your signature marks you as an idealist.
For example, with no investment except local ones, it will make it much harder for poor nations to get ahead.
Of course, capitalism doesn't seem much better because it takes a large cut off the top. This sucks all the benefit out of the poor nation. If capitalists took less it might be better. However, to have no foreign investment at all seems worse to me. Does your rule also keep one from lending except locally?
. . . Your dream seems unlikely also. For example, at the sea coast some of your nations will be very small. And what about small islands like Toga. How do you keep nations from invading their neighbors? Etc.
#14923305
One Degree wrote:
Got me. :)
I don’t deny that [that = no taxes on wealth, only income] is a problem. It is also a problem I don’t have a solution to. Inheritance tax strikes me wrong also.

...snip the edit ...

One Degree, if I read you right then substance farmers will pay no tax. They own land and domestic animals but you can't tax that.
Also, you do realize the just about no nation I have heard of taxed income before 1850. Are you saying that all nations in history taxed the wrong thing? That is were immorally taxing wealth?
#14923398
Steve_American wrote:This edit and your signature marks you as an idealist.
For example, with no investment except local ones, it will make it much harder for poor nations to get ahead.
Of course, capitalism doesn't seem much better because it takes a large cut off the top. This sucks all the benefit out of the poor nation. If capitalists took less it might be better. However, to have no foreign investment at all seems worse to me. Does your rule also keep one from lending except locally?
. . . Your dream seems unlikely also. For example, at the sea coast some of your nations will be very small. And what about small islands like Toga. How do you keep nations from invading their neighbors? Etc.


I have answered these questions before and got in trouble for being off topic when I did. I will have to decline answering them in this thread. Just think a small country is no different than a large country.
#14923405
Steve_American wrote:One Degree, if I read you right then substance farmers will pay no tax. They own land and domestic animals but you can't tax that.
Also, you do realize the just about no nation I have heard of taxed income before 1850. Are you saying that all nations in history taxed the wrong thing? That is were immorally taxing wealth?


I don’t understand your question. There is no right or wrong just my version of it. What people chose to do in the past was up to them. I don’t choose the same things. It also matters who the taxing authority is. A federal income tax in the US is wrong. A state income tax is less wrong. A local income tax is fine because it reflects more directly the wishes of the people.
Politics and vaccines

Very few are epistemically righteous, most people […]

The Evolution Fraud

I understand what evidence I should have and I ha[…]

And more complex regional and local identities. […]

I think any extradition would set a bad precedent[…]