55% Of Europeans Agree With Trump: "muslim Immigration Should Be Banned"

[SmoothSailing]

Yeah it sounds 'fair' on paper but it's not in reality.

You can research and read some economists if you want to keep it more factual.

You can't compare a person in our modern day cost of living making $40 grand to someone who makes $500 grand a year.

Now i don't agree with lower personal income taxes for wealthy.
I DO think corporate taxes should be lowered.

Firstly, I actually agree with you, but will give you the libertarian argument that I find hard to argue against.

OK so how do you define what's fair? How much, of someone elses money, are you fairly owed?

I agree that in this society the rich should pay more. I think it not only makes sense for society as a whole, but it also makes sense for the rich people (to a point). But it's largely greed and jealousy that fuels this 'taxing the rich' in western countries. I don't think that it's fair that they are required, under threat of law, to pay more simply because they have earned more. But I understand that that's the case, I understand why people want that to be the case, and will likely always be the case in a democracy.

That person making 40K a year is living a vastly more wealthy life than most people on this planet, and most people that have ever lived on this planet. We are all selfish and greedy, we always want more, but if this guy talks about fairness only pointing his finger at people richer than him, then how can he justify spending his money on himself when there are billions of people making a fraction of what he makes? Is it not hypocritical to say "the rich should pay more" when you are vastly richer than the majority of people but spend that money on yourself rather than giving it away?

 

[hairblues]

Firstly, I actually agree with you, but will give you the libertarian argument that I find hard to argue against.

OK so how do you define what's fair? How much, of someone elses money, are you fairly owed?

I agree that in this society the rich should pay more. I think it not only makes sense for society as a whole, but it also makes sense for the rich people (to a point). But it's largely greed and jealousy that fuels this 'taxing the rich' in western countries. I don't think that it's fair that they are required, under threat of law, to pay more simply because they have earned more. But I understand that that's the case, I understand why people want that to be the case, and will likely always be the case in a democracy.

That person making 40K a year is living a vastly more wealthy life than most people on this planet, and most people that have ever lived on this planet. We are all selfish and greedy, we always want more, but if this guy talks about fairness only pointing his finger at people richer than him, then how can he justify spending his money on himself when there are billions of people making a fraction of what he makes? Is it not hypocritical to say "the rich should pay more" when you are vastly richer than the majority of people but spend that money on yourself rather than giving it away?

I don't see the connection at all.

we are not a united planet

 

[SmoothSailing]

I don't see the connection at all.

we are not a united planet

True, and a valid point. But how do you define fairness here? "How much, of someone elses money, are you fairly owed?"

Seriously, I agree with you, the rich should pay more. But I have not been able to articulate any fair reasoning on this point to libertarians. The only way I've been able to justify it, is that I am greedy, and want to live a more wealthy life when I see others in my country are doing so. And will use whatever bargaining chips that I have to achieve this greedy goal (my vote in democracy, my voice to persuade others). But other than that I cannot convince myself that it's somehow fairer than the alternative.

 

[hairblues]

True, and a valid point. But how do you define fairness here? "How much, of someone elses money, are you fairly owed?"

Seriously, I agree with you, the rich should pay more. But I have not been able to articulate any fair reasoning on this point to libertarians. The only way I've been able to justify it, is that I am greedy, and want to live a more wealthy life when I see others in my country are doing so. And will use whatever bargaining chips that I have to achieve this greedy goal (my vote in democracy, my voice to persuade others). But other than that I cannot convince myself that it's somehow fairer than the alternative.

well my opinion you have trouble explaining it is because libertarianism for a society as a whole is a flawed idea...it's not for 'communities' Society is communities. We effect one another.

I mean what you describe is another version of "Let Them Eat Cake"

It may be a different way of getting there but it's still the same end result.

Two class system.

Let me put this in perspective.

If someone earns $500 million dollars a year just their income from mostly owning assests that make money--which probably inherited..
what is wrong with them paying $100 million in taxes that goes to help their country (this country not talking about other GOVT) where they were able to make that kind of money?

I mean how much is enough?

What is the amount where it just starts to be about empires.

Money in USA is power.
The 400 richest Americans now have more wealth than the bottom 61 percent of the population.

That seems like a democracy to you?

That seems like the idea of the USA that was founded? To escape the classism of Europe--where the system was rigged against them?


edit
If individuals hole such vast wealth--then its not longer USA ideas it was built on...it becomes something different then what founding Fathers created...You cant get ahead if the freedom of individuals is curtailed by the influence of financial empires who are I think 4 families.

 

[SmoothSailing]

Right, I agree with a lot of what you are saying, living in the US is a society, and anyone in that society should agree to follow what it considers as a good way to live as a society (eg. not having the top 1% being vastly more wealthy than the bottom 50%.

If someone earns $500 million dollars a year just their income from mostly owning assests that make money--which probably inherited..
what is wrong with them paying $100 million in taxes that goes to help their country (this country not talking about other GOVT) where they were able to make that kind of money?

Just know that libertarians don't think that these rich people shouldn't pay 100 million towards the society, in fact many would probably consider it wrong that they don't. What they believe is that they shouldn't be coerced to pay this money with threat of being locked in a cage if they don't.

Being a US citizen is not voluntary. And that's why they believe this taxation of the rich is wrong. What if you don't have the same views of a fair share of money you should be paying, compared to what the majority thinks? This is the point I fail to argue with them. But I agree, I don't see society working with these principles put in action. Like you say it would be like empires, like a game of monopoly, more and more wealth would just go to the top. I just don't know how to justify this logically, and you didn't really answer the question that I also failed to answer.

"How much of other people's money do you think is fair for you to be owed?".

 

[rclark]

I strongly disagree.

he has always been a crazy person...when i say 'crazy' i think he has narsasistic personalty disorder. And I have been saying that based on sh*t he did going back to 80s.

he is unfit to make decision for USA.

Queen Victoria wire tapped him! Those damn Brits!



He got elected via honest means.LOL!!

 

[rclark]

55%???

So we're excluding Germany and England? Correct?

 

[hairblues]

"How much of other people's money do you think is fair for you to be owed?".

the problem is the question is flawed.

Thats not what i believe. Thats a libertarians view point of what i believe.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

the problem is the question is flawed.

Thats not what i believe. Thats a libertarians view point of what i believe.

Didn't read the rest of the thread, and am not going to, but I agree with this.

The notion of "other people's money" is spurious, as we are all broke cavemen living meal to meal in the state of nature. Society is what allows rich people to exist, and a rich society is a prerequisite to there being a lot of rich people.

 

[SmoothSailing]

the problem is the question is flawed.

Thats not what i believe. Thats a libertarians view point of what i believe.

Didn't read the rest of the thread, and am not going to, but I agree with this.

The notion of "other people's money" is spurious, as we are all broke cavemen living meal to meal in the state of nature. Society is what allows rich people to exist, and a rich society is a prerequisite to there being a lot of rich people.

So how would you answer this question? How do you define what is the right amount to tax rich people? You must have a number that you think is correct. Where did that number come from?

 

[rclark]

So how would you answer this question? How do you define what is the right amount to tax rich people? You must have a number that you think is correct. Where did that number come from?

200% is a fair tax for them. f*** rich people.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

So how would you answer this question? How do you define what is the right amount to tax rich people? You must have a number that you think is correct. Where did that number come from?

Whatever number is estimated as maximizing the social good. It could be 20%, 40%, 60%, or 80% depending on the socioeconomic context.

Right now the number is higher than the current tax rates, given that there is an excess of savings over investments, and room for fiscal expansion.

 

[SmoothSailing]

Whatever number is estimated as maximizing the social good. It could be 20%, 40%, 60%, or 80% depending on the socioeconomic context.

Right now the number is higher than the current tax rates, given that there is an excess of savings over investments, and room for fiscal expansion.

Good answer, I will try this next time I argue on libertarian forums lol.