China's social credit system

[lauriandres]

I'd put it at closer to 20%, not too unevenly divided between people who think insulting the less favored should be criminalized and those that think insulting the powerful, or the symbols of power, should be criminalized. We have a strong tradition of not using the government to penalize speech that is central to what both large political parties believe, and many of the smaller ones.

I was more generic with my thoughts; i.e the government is not some kind of external mystical alien power, but group of people who were popular enough to get enough votes to have law on their side to create more laws until the next election. A la you should blame your neighbor or friend or coworker or some random guy who voted for somebody who is now spying on you . Also, only government is not enough to spy on you. In real life the ISP-s, hardware and software manufacturers and even energy providers must agree with that.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Joe Bagadonuts,

Doesn't the sentence "government will penalize you for having wrong political opinions" mean, that at least in USA about half the people will like that law? As long as the government is formed using the votes of the US citizens. Of course, on a city level it is possible and easier to form a political party (at least in my country), which for example promises, that poor people will get 500 euros per month. As long as the poor are united and rich people are divided (currently the situation in our capital, Tallinn), the good-for-poor-but-high-taxes-for-rich party promises something good for poor, they get enough votes to have 51% in the city parliament and of course enforce some laws so the rich people pay more fees, usually related to the stuff which are easier for the rich people to obtain.

I disagree with virtually everything you said in your post. I believe it is wrong to suppress political opinion, even if it is only held by a fraction of the population. I think that overtaxing the rich has been repeatedly proven to be a pathway to economic ruin. Can you show me a country (or even the past instance of a country) that is flourishing economically by loading high taxes onto the rich? The unfortunate reality is that rich people are smart, so when you shackle them with high taxes they move their money to a country where they can earn a higher return. These investments tend to drive innovation and create employment. Earning a wage tends to make people much happier and more fulfilled than collecting welfare.

 

[lauriandres]

I disagree with virtually everything you said in your post. I believe it is wrong to suppress political opinion, even if it is only held by a fraction of the population. I think that overtaxing the rich has been repeatedly proven to be a pathway to economic ruin. Can you show me a country (or even the past instance of a country) that is flourishing economically by loading high taxes onto the rich? The unfortunate reality is that rich people are smart, so when you shackle them with high taxes they move their money to a country where they can earn a higher return. These investments tend to drive innovation and create employment. Earning a wage tends to make people much happier and more fulfilled than collecting welfare.

I was just explaining my thoughts and technical part, not my preferences (i.e the wish of the POTUS is not enough in real world to spy on you). Of course, i was taught at the university, that power will ruin the person. I guess that is true. Of course, i depends on the specific person, but i presume, that the only difference is the price . I.e even the most honest person can be bribed, but whether it is cost effective or not, is another matter.

For example, in my country in my capital, the party who won the city election, got their majority votes from those who earn mostly less than average salary or are russians who dislike the political parties which are mostly favoured by Estonias. However, as the Estonians are somewhat divided (some are leftists, some are centric, some are righties, some are something in between, some are dumb i.e do not know what or who is Ohm's law ). So they only need to promise something a la free local public transport in Tallinn and they got the power. Later they increase the local land tax . For example, i paid for a 1600 m2 land in the suburb of Tallinn around 150 euros per year until 2008. After that it was increased by the city to almost 600 euros. The caveat is that the those who like public transport, live in big apartment buildings and those who do not live in a private house. Regarding the taxes, if you are over 65, then your land tax is quite small, a la the same land would be about 100 euros. Thankfully, the goverment of the country passed a law around 2010, that up to 1500 m2 of your primary private property land is free assuming you do not have registered any business entity to it.

 

[One Brow]

Can you show me a country (or even the past instance of a country) that is flourishing economically by loading high taxes onto the rich?

The US in the 1950s? Has any country taxed the wealthy more than that? Which countries are the ones that failed by taxing the wealthy?

The unfortunate reality is that rich people are smart, so when you shackle them with high taxes they move their money to a country where they can earn a higher return. These investments tend to drive innovation and create employment. Earning a wage tends to make people much happier and more fulfilled than collecting welfare.

However, the reality of diminishing returns also begins to apply. If you invest a billion dollars in Monaco, you won't get close to the same return as investing the same amount in the US, even after higher taxes are considered.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I was just explaining my thoughts and technical part, not my preferences (i.e the wish of the POTUS is not enough in real world to spy on you). Of course, i was taught at the university, that power will ruin the person. I guess that is true. Of course, i depends on the specific person, but i presume, that the only difference is the price . I.e even the most honest person can be bribed, but whether it is cost effective or not, is another matter.

For example, in my country in my capital, the party who won the city election, got their majority votes from those who earn mostly less than average salary or are russians who dislike the political parties which are mostly favoured by Estonias. However, as the Estonians are somewhat divided (some are leftists, some are centric, some are righties, some are something in between, some are dumb i.e do not know what or who is Ohm's law ). So they only need to promise something a la free local public transport in Tallinn and they got the power. Later they increase the local land tax . For example, i paid for a 1600 m2 land in the suburb of Tallinn around 150 euros per year until 2008. After that it was increased by the city to almost 600 euros. The caveat is that the those who like public transport, live in big apartment buildings and those who do not live in a private house. Regarding the taxes, if you are over 65, then your land tax is quite small, a la the same land would be about 100 euros. Thankfully, the goverment of the country passed a law around 2010, that up to 1500 m2 of your primary private property land is free assuming you do not have registered any business entity to it.

I have no idea what you are talking about as it relates to this discussion.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

The US in the 1950s? Has any country taxed the wealthy more than that? Which countries are the ones that failed by taxing the wealthy?



However, the reality of diminishing returns also begins to apply. If you invest a billion dollars in Monaco, you won't get close to the same return as investing the same amount in the US, even after higher taxes are considered.

You are such a One Brow.

 

[yamers]

Havent seen ron in a long tome, bet hes locked up in chinas

 

[framer]

The US in the 1950s? Has any country taxed the wealthy more than that? Which countries are the ones that failed by taxing the wealthy?



However, the reality of diminishing returns also begins to apply. If you invest a billion dollars in Monaco, you won't get close to the same return as investing the same amount in the US, even after higher taxes are considered.

You do understand that there were loopholes big enough to drive a yacht through when those rates were being used, right? That rate applied to about 10,000 families and each one of them used other methods to not pay that rate, chief among them were switching income to dividends which were hardly taxed at all.

Of course you know this, you are just throwing that garbage out there because you think the rest of us are stupid.

 

[Harambe]

You do understand that there were loopholes big enough to drive a yacht through when those rates were being used, right? That rate applied to about 10,000 families and each one of them used other methods to not pay that rate, chief among them were switching income to dividends which were hardly taxed at all.

Of course you know this, you are just throwing that garbage out there because you think the rest of us are stupid.

Would you like to provide is with some numbers on that? I'm sure someone out there's done a deep dive into effective tax rates... right? You wouldn't just be saying that because a talking head told you so?

 

[framer]

 

[framer]

I assume that you will accept Thomas Piketty as a source?

 

[Harambe]

I assume that you will accept Thomas Piketty as a source?

It's a great source. So good, it's like I'd seen it before.

Unfortunately, I have seen it before. The sources are credible, but it really isn't illustrating an effective measure of the difference between 1/.1% then and now. Is it? Who had 300M in 1950 compared to now? If there wasn't anyone in the $30M-$300M range in 1950, isn't the sample provided kinda... selective?

 

[fishonjazz]

According to that chart they paid quite a bit more. 6% of hundreds of millions times 10,000 people = hella dough I bet.
And from what I have seen in 2018 they pay way less than 2014 (the mid 20's)

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[One Brow]

Of course you know this, you are just throwing that garbage out there because you think the rest of us are stupid.

Maybe they're all so stupid that they missed how you didn't provide an example of a country that failed by taxing the wealthy?

 

[One Brow]

You are such a One Brow.

Damn right I am! The magic brow does it all!

 

[One Brow]

So, the tax rates were about an additional 7% above the average of the 2000s, and some additional 25% higher than today? This is the evidence that disproves my point?

 

[framer]

It's a great source. So good, it's like I'd seen it before.

Unfortunately, I have seen it before. The sources are credible, but it really isn't illustrating an effective measure of the difference between 1/.1% then and now. Is it? Who had 300M in 1950 compared to now? If there wasn't anyone in the $30M-$300M range in 1950, isn't the sample provided kinda... selective?

It goes by the top percentage of income earners, not by dollar amount. Additionally, there would be a higher number of households contained in 2010. The top tax rates in 1950 was $200,000 with only about 10,000 families getting there. The measured difference is about 6%, which is a difference, but it is not the ridiculous "We taxed at 90%" talking point.

 

[framer]

So, the tax rates were about an additional 7% above the average of the 2000s, and some additional 25% higher than today? This is the evidence that disproves my point?

You were touting the 90% tax rate as a true thing, when it wasn't that. If you want to make the case that a 7% tax rate increase on the 1% of wage earners will pay for all of the socialism you want, go ahead and knock yourself out, but a straight 90% of all income was never a thing.

 

[fishonjazz]

You were touting the 90% tax rate as a true thing, when it wasn't that. If you want to make the case that a 7% tax rate increase on the 1% of wage earners will pay for all of the socialism you want, go ahead and knock yourself out, but a straight 90% of all income was never a thing.

**** socialism
Let's just make the ultra rich pay more in taxes regardless.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[One Brow]

You were touting the 90% tax rate as a true thing, when it wasn't that.

Check again. What I said was, "The US in the 1950s? Has any country taxed the wealthy more than that? Which countries are the ones that failed by taxing the wealthy?"

So, which countries had had higher effective tax rate (your standard) on the wealthy and failed?

If you want to make the case that a 7% tax rate increase on the 1% of wage earners will pay for all of the socialism you want, go ahead and knock yourself out, but a straight 90% of all income was never a thing.

I think increasing the effective income tax rate on the wealthy by 25% would pay for a lot.