Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Income inequality "solutions"
- Thread starter two fingers
- Start date
- Status
This is absolutely true, but there are ways around it. For one, do not tax certain types of groceries (basically the "perimeter" items- produce, meat, dairy), or provide tax credits for school supplies, clothing for children, etc. on a means tested basis.
Do you believe that the only standing between you and wealth is hard work? The meritocracy is dead, if it ever existed at all.
The issue with most taxes are loopholes.
A simple VAT eliminates loopholes. No loopholes good. Simple good.
I thought grocery items were already exempt from sales tax? At least in California they are.
Some states they are, some aren't. There is no federal sales tax, at least not yet, which is what was being discussed here.
Depends what you mean by "wealth". More than 99% of the people on this planet? Hard work, being born in one of the "right" countries, and avoiding bad luck should be enough. More than 99.99%? You'll need some very good luck.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
I hope it isn't an athletic shoe luxury tax. That will definitely be considered regressive.:|
It is if you tax the rich people for air. They really shouldn't need so much of it.
Kinda like the guy who went to the Air and Space museum and was surprised that it was filled with planes and spacecraft.
Fixed it. At least, that's one of the reasons.
The solution to that is to dismantle the ability of the corporate and financial sector lobbying interests and remove their manipulation of the "rules of the game" away from their favor.
The 10 Cannots by Rev. J. H.William Boetcker
1.You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
2.You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
3.You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
4.You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
5.You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
6.You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
7.You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
8.You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
9.You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.
10. And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.
1.You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
2.You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
3.You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
4.You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
5.You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
6.You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
7.You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
8.You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
9.You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.
10. And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.
Every item on Boetker's list represents a false dichotomy. The misconception that (for instance) that social programs amount to helping the poor by hurting the rich is referred to as the "zero sum game." In a successful economy, helping the poor can also help the rich by causing the overall economy to be more prosperous, secure, etc.
Well OK, maybe some of them are veiled straw man arguments instead.
Edit: To be fair, he wrote the pamphlet in 1916.
- Status
