Jump to content

A frustrated loser


Cardboard
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-11-14/france-s-wealth-tax-should-be-a-warning-for-warren-and-sanders

 

"The revenue it raised was rather paltry; only a few billion euros at its peak, or about 1% of France’s total revenue from all taxes. At least 10,000 wealthy people left the country to avoid paying the tax; most moved to neighboring Belgium, which has a large French-speaking population. When these individuals left, France lost not only their wealth tax revenue but their income taxes and other taxes as well. French economist Eric Pichet estimates that this ended up costing the French government almost twice as much revenue as the total yielded by the wealth tax. When President Emmanuel Macron ended the wealth tax in 2017, it was viewed mostly as a symbolic move.

 

Another French experiment was the so-called supertax, a 75% levy on incomes of more than 1 million euros. Introduced by socialist President François Hollande in 2012, the supertax added to the exodus of wealthy individuals, most notably actor Gerard Depardieu and Bernard Arnault, chairman of LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton. Star soccer players threatened to go on strike, and there was fear that France would become a wasteland for entrepreneurs. Meanwhile, the supertax raised much less money than even the wealth tax had -- only 160 million euros in 2014. The unpopular tax was repealed two years after its adoption.

 

France’s experiments with taxing the wealthy at very high rates didn’t raise much money and didn’t prove politically sustainable. The flight of wealthy individuals from the country probably helped reduce inequality on paper, but it's not clear that their departure left France better off."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Piketty, Saez and Zucman are all French economists thriving on stoking envy and entitlement just like AOC and Liz.

 

France is full of envious people, tried all sorts of taxes, didn't work. Then they foisted their unwanted and unemployable economists on the CA taxpayer who generated a whole bunch of lies as pointed out by Larry Summers.

 

The rise of China is a great thing for the virtues of hard work. Europe falls further and further behind, still relying on 100-year old technology for their exports. I hope China continues to rise and all the Western biotech companies move there.

 

Why don't AOC, Saez, Zucman, Piketty try to earn an honest living like farmers. Produce something useful, don't leech taxpayers for your salaries and pensions.

 

Their formula - stoke envy and get a life-long pension in return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rise of China is a great thing for the virtues of hard work. Europe falls further and further behind, still relying on 100-year old technology for their exports. I hope China continues to rise and all the Western biotech companies move there.

 

Be careful what you wish for.

 

prd8u7jee9z31.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rise of China is a great thing for the virtues of hard work. Europe falls further and further behind, still relying on 100-year old technology for their exports. I hope China continues to rise and all the Western biotech companies move there.

 

Be careful what you wish for.

 

prd8u7jee9z31.jpg

 

lc, these guys share your worldview so you should be all for it! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet I'm seemingly the only one consistently calling it out, whereas you bury your head in the sand, and others here actually encourage it!

 

Then again, I guess you're consistent with the only historically constant Christian value: hypocrisy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet I'm seemingly the only one consistently calling it out, whereas you bury your head in the sand, and others here actually encourage it!

 

Then again, I guess you're consistent with the only historically constant Christian value: hypocrisy

 

But this is, logically, what your worldview leads to. I don't see why you have a problem with it? It seems like you believe there is some moral standard we should all strive for but that makes no sense if your worldview is accurate.

 

Plenty (maybe most!) Christians are hypocrites. That doesn't affect whether or not Jesus rose from the dead or not. It does show why we need a Savior though.  ;)

 

For what it's worth, I support Hong Kong. And I'm glad you bring some of these things to light that I'm not familiar with. I will say that if atheism is accurate, it's silly to worry about those types of things though.

 

As the left keep chopping away at the West's religious foundations, what do you think the ultimate outcome will be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the left keep chopping away at the West's religious foundations, what do you think the ultimate outcome will be?

 

Most progress throughout centuries and millennia of human society has been accomplished with the tools of logic and reason, the scientific method, democratic decision making... i.e. secular humanism, in some form or another (or with some label or another).

 

I'd personally say that is a much more preferable outcome than a religious apocalypse, of which all the monotheisms believe is the "ultimate outcome". You know the one: god comes to earth, takes the "chosen people" to paradise, and then, of course, completely annihilates everyone else  :o

 

Now in that context, why should anyone expect the religious to care about Hong Kong or the Uyghurs? They believe in a 2000-year old story which promises a global, species-wide genocide. I mean if they can't even condemn an imaginary genocide, what hope do they have for these problems in real life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet another thread on the politics section where two sides are arguing and I read through it and disagree with everyone.  One side thinks that everything would be better if we just give more money and power to the government, despite the fact that socialism has never worked and has lead to mass deaths, starvation, and misery every time its been tried we will make it work this time.    And the other side thinks that the major problem with socialism is that it doesn't pay enough respect to their bronze-age religion.  Jeez.  where do you even start?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's ironic in this whole thing is that everyone seems to be missing the biggest picture item of them all. Unfair taxation to begin with.

 

We currently have Ed Reid and Colon Kapernick running around like clowns crying about "oppression" and racist NFL owners...calling themselves and the rest of the players...

"modern day slaves" for no reason other than the color of the skin of the people who own the teams that pay them outrageous sums of money to play a game.... however...

 

the real "modern day slaves" are all of us. How ridiculous, insulting, and unjust is it, that for zero reason, other than the dirt upon which I happened to be located when I was born, does the US government own a perpetual royalty on at minimum, 25%(with higher tiered payouts!) of my value as an individual???! You talk about what our country what founded upon? The idea of taxation without representation? Not even did I have the option of a negative consent or legal opt out! What is my representation? Asshats like Trump, Pence, Pelosi, Nadler, McConnell? Down do pedo's like Bob Menendez? None of these people are by consent my "representation"...yet if I object to these shackles and metaphorical chains, what happens? They come after my family and I and harm us through incarceration of confiscation of our belongings...

 

and yet, many people dont even realize this, and want to authorize and encourage ho bags like AOC and Warren to take more!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg, you have the option to leave - why don't you?

 

It's a bit of an unfair question I'll admit, but I think we've all beaten the government debate to death, so might as get right down to it: Why stick around if the value proposition isn't there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Greg, you have the option to leave - why don't you?

 

It's a bit of an unfair question I'll admit, but I think we've all beaten the government debate to death, so might as get right down to it: Why stick around if the value proposition isn't there? "

 

A better option would be to incarcerate the leftists and re-educate or deport them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And since that isn’t happening, I’d pose the question again.

 

LOL you really know very little about this country LC. Even if I "leave" which accomplishes what exactly? These scumbags still stake claim to 25%+ of my skillset and value creation.

 

The issue, as others have pointed out, is the abuses of the system and constant hands in the cookie jar. So while you and your homies keep searching for "high crimes and misdemeanors", fraudulent and oppressive tactics are being used to enslave Americans and fund the witch hunts and welfare programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg, you have the option to leave - why don't you?

 

It's a bit of an unfair question I'll admit, but I think we've all beaten the government debate to death, so might as get right down to it: Why stick around if the value proposition isn't there?

 

And go where?  Mars?  We are trapped on a planet where every square inch of habitable land is claimed by warlords of one stripe or another.  Here sucks, but it is pretty much the best there is. 

 

You could try to go live on the sea, but the violent gangs will probably still come after you there.

 

https://qz.com/1600609/seasteading-cabin-could-bring-bitcoin-couple-death-penalty/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be cool with current tax rates if the following conditions were met: 1) government had to run a balanced budget 2) the government/fed couldn't act to save the economy when things get ugly 3) interest were set and could only be changed with something like 80% approval by the fed - and stay within certain bands. 

 

The big reason the wealth are so wealthy is that the government keeps on bailing out a broken economy and system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the left keep chopping away at the West's religious foundations, what do you think the ultimate outcome will be?

 

Most progress throughout centuries and millennia of human society has been accomplished with the tools of logic and reason, the scientific method, democratic decision making... i.e. secular humanism, in some form or another (or with some label or another).

 

I'd personally say that is a much more preferable outcome than a religious apocalypse, of which all the monotheisms believe is the "ultimate outcome". You know the one: god comes to earth, takes the "chosen people" to paradise, and then, of course, completely annihilates everyone else  :o

 

Now in that context, why should anyone expect the religious to care about Hong Kong or the Uyghurs? They believe in a 2000-year old story which promises a global, species-wide genocide. I mean if they can't even condemn an imaginary genocide, what hope do they have for these problems in real life?

 

Logic and reason are arguments for God, lc! ;)

 

Secular humanism basically tries to steal morality from religion. If there is no God, there is no true version of good - just our desires. Perhaps China is right about what is "good" or perhaps you are? I do think that once secularism takes over (and I think it will) it will allow all sorts of immoral things to occur. That stone age book even talks about that!

 

A true standard of morality exists or it doesn't. Let's not act like abortion is okay and genocide isn't. Either both are or both aren't. It makes no sense otherwise. Either it's okay to kill humans that you're more powerful than or it doesn't. People try to rationalize it based on what's convenient to them.

 

I could be completely off base here but I think the "true believers" are the ones who follow their conscience. When we violate that (Epstein, for instance) we are rejecting God. When we go with it, we are following God. But we need to be vigilant, pray and try to make sure God is guiding us and not our own desires.

 

Religious folks should care about Hong Kong and the Uyghurs for many reasons. We are all made in the image of God and we all have inalienable rights given to us, not by a government, by our Creator. This is a big reason why the East (poor in human rights) and the Christian influenced West (big on human rights) have such a disagreement about the value of humans.

 

I fail to see a logical reason why secular humanists would care though. The government decides what rights a human has (or doesn't have). They are just being tricked by their evolutionary coding (so much for "free thinking") if they think there's more to it than that.  It makes more sense to be out enjoying themselves instead of worrying about this stuff. Do secular humanists get upset if two animals fight and kill each other? Nope. Why the irrational emotional attachment to the human variety?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logic and reason are arguments for God, lc! ;)

No, it's called faith

 

Secular humanism basically tries to steal morality from religion

Nonsense. Non-religious tribes have practiced the same moral behaviour as religious ones. It's almost as if religion doesn't play a factor at all!

 

I do think that once secularism takes over (and I think it will) it will allow all sorts of immoral things to occur.

Ah yes, if god doesn't exist then we'll all be murdering and whoring in the streets. What a low opinion of humanity.

 

I think if we found conclusive evidence that god doesn't exist, well then life would go on exactly the same as it already does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the left keep chopping away at the West's religious foundations, what do you think the ultimate outcome will be?

 

Most progress throughout centuries and millennia of human society has been accomplished with the tools of logic and reason, the scientific method, democratic decision making... i.e. secular humanism, in some form or another (or with some label or another).

 

I'd personally say that is a much more preferable outcome than a religious apocalypse, of which all the monotheisms believe is the "ultimate outcome". You know the one: god comes to earth, takes the "chosen people" to paradise, and then, of course, completely annihilates everyone else  :o

 

Now in that context, why should anyone expect the religious to care about Hong Kong or the Uyghurs? They believe in a 2000-year old story which promises a global, species-wide genocide. I mean if they can't even condemn an imaginary genocide, what hope do they have for these problems in real life?

 

Logic and reason are arguments for God, lc! ;)

 

Secular humanism basically tries to steal morality from religion. If there is no God, there is no true version of good - just our desires. Perhaps China is right about what is "good" or perhaps you are? I do think that once secularism takes over (and I think it will) it will allow all sorts of immoral things to occur. That stone age book even talks about that!

 

A true standard of morality exists or it doesn't. Let's not act like abortion is okay and genocide isn't. Either both are or both aren't. It makes no sense otherwise. Either it's okay to kill humans that you're more powerful than or it doesn't. People try to rationalize it based on what's convenient to them.

 

I could be completely off base here but I think the "true believers" are the ones who follow their conscience. When we violate that (Epstein, for instance) we are rejecting God. When we go with it, we are following God. But we need to be vigilant, pray and try to make sure God is guiding us and not our own desires.

 

Religious folks should care about Hong Kong and the Uyghurs for many reasons. We are all made in the image of God and we all have inalienable rights given to us, not by a government, by our Creator. This is a big reason why the East (poor in human rights) and the Christian influenced West (big on human rights) have such a disagreement about the value of humans.

 

I fail to see a logical reason why secular humanists would care though. The government decides what rights a human has (or doesn't have). They are just being tricked by their evolutionary coding (so much for "free thinking") if they think there's more to it than that.  It makes more sense to be out enjoying themselves instead of worrying about this stuff. Do secular humanists get upset if two animals fight and kill each other? Nope. Why the irrational emotional attachment to the human variety?

 

Oh god, not this again.  We've had this entire argument before.... a few times.  You can't imagine where morality comes from if not from god, so your lack of imagination trumps everything else and you win!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...