Re: Tax failure to consume
1. Above what figure should be taxed extremely high?
This is the misrepresentation of my argument. I said more, I said nothing about "extremely high". You are using my argument "more" and misrepresenting it to an extreme to suggest "more" is also invalid. That is a logical fallacy. Stop trying to twist my argument.
You talk of taking the money but why? Is it to punish the success (remove what they dont need) or for a purpose?
All I talk of is the affordability of taxes. I personally have made no representation as to what I think should be done about that fact. That was an argument made earlier. However, yes the money should be taken for a purpose, that purpose being to support the needs of society. Funding things society deems nessacary. Health care, education, law enforcement, etc. The things that the very wealthy will absolutely HAVE to pay for one way or another. Either we have a society that imposes taxes, or society does not and the very wealthy have to fund these things in order to avoid full scale revolt, as used to be the case under feudalism. Either way the Rich are paying something. I find taxes to be more amicable than feudalism. How about you?
I am not invalidating your point, as I keep saying I look forward to you guys giving away voluntarily such amounts to the governments of poor people globally. That you think it absurd that you are the rich is stunning as either blind unwillingness to accept the fact or you wish to redefine rich to people other than you.
This is extending my argument far beyond itself to a fundamentally absurd place. It's a logical fallacy. I never argued everything should be redistributed from rich to poor, on any scale. Stop trying to suggest that is the only possible conclusion from my argument. It is not, and it doesn't invalidate my argument.
Actually poorer not poor (in absolute terms. Relatively they could be made poor). You cannot take what people earn without making them poorer.
Yes taxes make people poorer than they would be without taxes, if you entirely ignore the benefits those taxes fund. But you are suggesting that my argument isn't just that the rich should be made poorer than they would otherwise be without taxes, but that they would be reduced to the same level as the poorest in society. That is again, not my argument.
And why would we want to dumb everyone down to low pay in the name of equality instead of having everyones wages rising?
I don't argue to dumb everyone down to low pay. This is a misrepresentation of my argument. I don't argue everyone should be equal. That is also a misrepresentation of my argument.
The outcome of that being more tax money collected from actual growth instead of robbery.
Except if we refuse to take tax from those that can afford to pay it we either have to tax those who can't afford to pay it, or the exchequer gets no tax. So which do you prefer? Taxing those who can't afford the tax burden (in the name of fairness of course), or not taxing anyone?
Sorry if you feel that way, it was not my intention. You talk about people having more than they need (from your perspective) should be taxed more because they can afford it.
They can afford it. I can afford it. It is a fact. It may not be a nice fact, it may not be fair, but it remains a fact.
You might think it is misrepresenting your argument to point out that you are that very person and if we are to tax highly the top wealthiest then we in the developed world would be made poor to do so.
I Never said "highly". I said "more". I also never said how much more. I haven't expressed an opinion on if the current system is too onerous on the wealthy, or not onerous enough. I have simply stated the fact that the wealthy can afford more taxes than the less wealthy. I have certainly never argued that taxes should make the taxed poor.
You may wish to keep your view to only a national limit, but by applying it globally I am pointing out the problems in your argument-
> Your perspective of wealthy is different to others (as we are all different in our view of wealthy)
My perspective of wealthy is, in my opinion, quite healthy. I know how lucky I am simply to live in a first world country, with a system of social welfare, universal healthcare, law enforcement, and justice, among other things I get that are unavailable in poorer countries.
> You cannot tax the more off people without making them poorer
True, but "poorer" does not mean "poor" as you have consistently represented my position to be.
> Disposable income isnt money doing nothing, but in fact what makes everyones lives better (globally)
I never said it was doing nothing. My initial argument includes the point that survival without any luxuries is undesirable. And I have never said that all disposable income should be forfeit, I have simply stated that those with more of it can afford to give more of it away while still having more left over than those with less of it
> Taking that money and giving it to government doesnt improve lives
Yes, it demonstrably does, at the very least in more developed countries with advanced systems of government, in more corrupt regimes certainly less so, but that is a problem that is far more complex than taxation.
> The way out of poverty (globally and nationally) is for people to earn more not less
I have never suggested otherwise.
> What you see as a national problem has global impact
I don't deny it's a global problem. But international politics are outside the scope of my argument, and far more complex than simple taxation, and still don't change the relative affordability of taxation in relation to relative income.