Jack vile Ripper
The swellest guy in Creation.
- Location
- Indonesia
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Aaaand Sig'd.
I'm actually fairly interested in that sort of thing, so if you could shoot me a link later that would be great.There are in favor of flat taxes, I can elaborate qhen not at work. It is too technical though
I'm actually fairly interested in that sort of thing, so if you could shoot me a link later that would be great.
I've heard arguments saying that it's morally better than progressive taxation (the thread clearly doesn't agree), arguments that boil down to "don't tax the rich, it's bad for the economy and it disincentivizes personal effort" (I don't agree, which is why I didn't count it as valid criticism in my comment), and arguments saying that the ease of collection makes flat taxes bring in more money and limits fraud. Is that it? Or is there something else I've missed all along?
No need to bother if you're busy. I get the general idea, and now that you've said it I just searched Jstor and found some papers on it.It limits the distortion of relarive prices, thus ensuring a supposedly more efficient economy. I will pull graphs later
Is it really a disincentive enough to not put in the effort, and only be kinda-sorta well-off, compared to putting in the effort and only being 'kinda-sorta rich'?don't tax the rich, it's bad for the economy and it disincentivizes personal effort
After the 2nd billion, the numbers tend to blend together. All I know is that bigger is better, no matter the fact that I have no clue how to spend anywhere near a billion dollars.Is it really a disincentive enough to not put in the effort, and only be kinda-sorta well-off, compared to putting in the effort and only being 'kinda-sorta rich'?
Rich people seem to think so, but well, don't the people doing research on this think they might be a little biased?
Fortified Doomsday Bunker.After the 2nd billion, the numbers tend to blend together. All I know is that bigger is better, no matter the fact that I have no clue how to spend anywhere near a billion dollars.
Yeah, that's like the first 100-300 million. Now what?Fortified Doomsday Bunker.
Preferably one located on a difficult to reach non-volcanically active island far from the areas where tropical storms normally form and with no major nearby oceanic fault lines.
Give them to the leaders of a tiny communist party (say, the Dutch one) and laugh as they struggle between personal gain and refusing to become one of the bourgeois they wish to oppose?After the 2nd billion, the numbers tend to blend together. All I know is that bigger is better, no matter the fact that I have no clue how to spend anywhere near a billion dollars.
Well I'm uncertain what a rich billionaire would use their money on, but I'm fairly certain you can argue a larger percentage of their tax can do better good for the public.Give them to the leaders of a tiny communist party (say, the Dutch one) and laugh as they struggle between personal gain and refusing to become one of the bourgeois they wish to oppose?
Use that money to buy the national debt of racist countries until you can make yourself the CEO of racism?
Pick an old but underfunded university and fund its researchers, but put pressure on them to "prove" that GDP is a valid measure of political stability. Then that economic stability is correlated to Garfield comics. Then that Garfield comics cause said instability...
Just tell your coworkers that you just love your job.I love y'all, you always make me chuckle at inappropriate junctures during work.
You underestimate how much money I'm willing to sink into my Fortified Doomsday Bunker. If the bunker runs out of things to throw money at, I could spend the rest on a fleet of armed aerial drones. Gotta make sure there's enough left over for the staff, too, of course.Yeah, that's like the first 100-300 million. Now what?
There's really no way to spend money to benefit your life in any way after a certain amount of money. Other then getting more money.
[X] Progressive Tax
One argument I have come across regarding high progressive taxation is that it runs the risk of high net worth individuals moving to other countries/states and taking jobs with them. The argument I think is that it's better to get a smaller amount of tax revenue than none at all.I've heard arguments saying that it's morally better than progressive taxation (the thread clearly doesn't agree), arguments that boil down to "don't tax the rich, it's bad for the economy and it disincentivizes personal effort" (I don't agree, which is why I didn't count it as valid criticism in my comment)
That's only a problem if they have good options to move to, which is the case in real life, but there aren't many good places for our rich citizens to move their business to.One argument I have come across regarding high progressive taxation is that it runs the risk of high net worth individuals moving to other countries/states and taking jobs with them. The argument I think is that it's better to get a smaller amount of tax revenue than none at all.
That's more of a "high taxes vs low taxes" debate : it's entirely possible to have progressive taxation that doesn't go that high. That's the situation in most developed countries IRL right now, actually.One argument I have come across regarding high progressive taxation is that it runs the risk of high net worth individuals moving to other countries/states and taking jobs with them. The argument I think is that it's better to get a smaller amount of tax revenue than none at all.