Hmm Justhink, your post is mightily incoherent, and I’m not sure if you are saying that you can’t find an ethical way to become middle class for yourself or in general?
If it’s in general, the answer is fairly simple, and there are many ways: think of an idea no one else has thought of, work harder than those around you, provide a service people need, and so on and so on.
Life is not some magical game where other people hold the cards and you are stuck with what you are dealt. The longer you go on believing that, the more self-defeating you become. Hang in there man.
zwaldd:I agree with that somewhat…considering the potential for waste of a lot of a rich person’s tax money, maybe after a certain amount…say a half mil (maybe more)…the person still has to pay his fair percent, but he gets to say exactly what it will go for. Not the whole thing, just the amount over the limit.
I don’t understand why this type of control should be available only to people paying large amounts of tax, instead of (as erl seems to be suggesting) all taxpayers. Sounds more like plutocracy than democratic fairness.
The thing about taxes is that it’s effectively impossible to assign an accurate numerical value to the cost of each individual’s share of government services. Poor people are more dependent on certain services than rich people—e.g., Medicaid, TANF, etc.—but rich people are more dependent than poor people on, say, federal financial agencies like the SEC and FDIC that help safeguard investments. Certain geographical regions rely more than others on programs like FEMA and the Coast Guard. Executives of big companies may create more wealth than the average person, but they’re also more heavily dependent than the average person on the government infrastructure, educational services, etc. that provide access to markets and literate employees and so forth.
Since there’s no way of really determining how much any one individual is getting from government services, tax contributions are determined on the basis not of what we owe, but what we can afford. This may be unfair in some ways, but as I said, I don’t know of any fairer way of doing it. And I don’t really see how throwing in exceptions in the form of absolute tax caps or special directed-contribution privileges for the wealthy would increase the fairness of the system.
[Any taxpayer paying over half a million dollars in income tax] gets the list of social programs, grants, agencies, military, etc. that tax money goes to, and he gets to say which ones get his dough, and is entitled to documentation proving his money went where he wanted it to go.
Even if this somehow made the tax system more fair—and as I noted, I don’t see how it would—aren’t there at least thousands of taxpayers that fall into this category? That’s a good deal of money to keep track of and a good deal of “documentation” to collect, isn’t it? Is “documenting” the use of these revenues really a worthwhile and necessary use of government resources?
Yet this,
Both words, OWE and AFFORD are ambiguous terms. I think it is easier to determine what one “owes” to use your term, than it is to determine what one can “afford” to use your other term. That is why I still think a cutoff is necessary. We would not be determining what a person “owes” or can “afford”, rather we would be determining what is a fair maximum value for even the richest people. That cut-off can be debated according to a consensual agreement as to what is fair, rather than what each thinks they owe or can afford. (The consentual agreement taking place in the political and legislative arenas.)< as where most tax laws originate)
wf:Both words, OWE and AFFORD are ambiguous terms.
True, which is why nobody agrees on what’s a fair tax policy.
I think it is easier to determine what one “owes” to use your term, than it is to determine what one can “afford” to use your other term.
Both can be approximated in some more or less arbitrary way, of course, but I think the latter is simpler: I know how much money I have, but I don’t really know which government services benefit me or to what extent. How much government money went to protect my investments, to defend my person and property from invasion, to assist my education, to develop my medicines, to inspect my foods? I just don’t know of any reliable way to figure the cost of the services that I as an individual received.
That is why I still think a cutoff is necessary. We would not be determining what a person “owes” or can “afford”, rather we would be determining what is a fair maximum value for even the richest people.
I’m still not understanding this, I guess. Seems to me that if it’s unfair to set a cap on income, it’s unfair to set a cap on income tax. If only income under the first gajillion dollars is taxed, than a person making ten gajillion dollars has no more share of the tax burden than someone making only one gajillion, so his effective total tax rate is much lower. So not only could he afford to be taxed at a higher rate, he’s actually being taxed at a lower rate. Doesn’t sound particularly fair to me.
In general. Since I am part of the general system, you could certainly say “both”. It’s not possible without proving for suicide first (I can’t solve for it). The mechanisms are easy, actually going through with them is where the inefficiency of purpose is.
There are so many corruptions and contradictions within those words.
The corruption comes in the form of encrypting the service with your own identity or name into it, so as to indenture people with an idea to which this corruption of ego is necessarily superfluous by simply modifying it, by removing your own encryption from it.
People are forcing the existence of slavery by doing this, and in the process, necessarily destroying their capacity to make a dream come true. They’re cannibalizing themselves to create wealth against everyones interest. Wealth cannot be concentrated unless this corruption is occurring; and the corruption contradicts the purpose to live. It requires a form of ‘brain damage’ with which this knowledge is automated and discarded from the conscious mind. Those with the greatest capacity to develop wealth always take the process a step further by collapsing the need for wealth within a certain feild so that they actually don’t become wealthy in the process.
A huge problem here is national security and the application of patents to make the collapse illegal until the process is encrypted.
Anyone who gripes about the rich being “too” rich and seriously uses the phrase “redistribution of wealth” should consider the simple fact that the world’s GDP per capita is approximately $5,700.
That means that if everybody in the world - from Bill Gates to a Somali peasant - put all the money they earned this year into a big pot then divided it equally, everybody would walk away with $5,700.
Yeah. Forget about buying a house, a computer, a car or going to college with your fair share. Hopefully you’ll have enough to afford food once a day.
Try to remember that any socialist economic plan will almost always end up screwing over YOU, the person rich enough to have a PC and the electricity to run it.
It’s not simply about individual encryption, it’s about individual encryption into a collective process. So Tesla comes along and uses all of his Westinghouse money to build a central global communications grid by abstracting a low level magnetic field over the surface of the earth; generating the power from solar wind in the upper atmosphere. Behind the patent fold; some moron decides that they can simply encrypt the process into their own name by making Tesla’s process illegal, and corrupting the process with their own stamp. Tesla collapsed resources by abstracting them out making sure that his name wasn’t encrypted into the process. He was deselected by those more cognitively defunct because they cannot grasp long term benefits for themselves by following this route.
These encryptions are utilized in the very personality structure which cannot abstract how to collapse resources and make them collectively ‘perpetually’ usable. There is something literally damaged in the brains which cause individuals to move in this direction, as the wealth is uninherent given a mere choice of not contradicting themselves existentially. That the entire process is being simulated from automation, forces society to enforce rles in the code of law; as people are necessarily banking on ‘ignorance’ (I didn’t know any better though) to run the ‘sincerity’ of their process through.
With regards to that $5700.00:
The most valuable creative genuises society is ever given are individuals who slowly make money worth less and less with regards to survival and desire fulfillment. To the degree that one persons consent is ignored in this process, you’re ability to determine yourself in a sense of consent is necessarily being compromised as well! Just because you believe that you have to work for a living, or eat to survive or die… does not make it true.
People need to stop working against progressions we can all equally use to the benefit of observing life and helping establish our collective consent with regards to those ‘hidden’ variables which are preventing us from expressing it.
People shouldn’t have to think “WOW!! JUSTHINK is the MAN!!”, when I provide something. They should be given the opportunity to exersize their own ego’s and their own consent in this regards. The delusion comes in the form of believing that violating consent is a necessity; this system is circular in logic, superfluous and feeds itself with no actual point or goal to exist.
The last thing a person needs to do is to think of Bill Gates permission with regards to using a computer. Not everybody knows this stuff, but we all do have the same collective goals… to deny this in a circular means by encrypting your process is ‘absurd’ in the most insane application of the word. It contradicts the logic being used to gather the resource in the first place.
There is no doubt in my mind that Tesla consciusly knew exactly what I am talking about here. He understood that encrypting consent affected HIS consent, and also his ability to abstract things whichj are affecting his consent. The damage of encrypting consent is a two pronged weapon being used on the purpose to live. I know that he knew this. I also know that he was aware of how difficult the task of circumventing the retardation of wealth horders was. You see, if Tesla isn’t gaining consent in an existential sense (and currency disproves it by necessarily needing encryption to horde), then he knows that the abstraction itself will have that corruption imbedded into the process; no matter how much he delusionally manages to convince himself later that it is correct. This process cannot work with the logical form “The ends justify the means”… yes, we do have greater technology, but it doesn’t mean anything, it’s just needless, superfluous repetition if the process is always opted for encryption by the fear of not having your dreams fulfilled before death. “I can take this right now and nobody can stop me, I can violate this trust right now and indenture people to me and this will reward me right now for sure, right now at this moment, and I will be set for life.”
What life?!! We’ve already had those lives, they are easy to procure, there is no challenge here. You can convince yourself that you work, but you’re not… not in a human sense of the word.
You’re just a scared, impotent human with regards to abstraction doing what most humans who believe in death would do, or who encrypt reward as necessarily being beyond life… these people get scared when the pressure is on, they lose their confidence in their rationality and cannibalize the purpose for even existing.
flusters his hands It’s … not hard to become wealthy. That is not the issue, and it never has been. It is impossible IMO to become wealthy without acting logically in a means which renders suicide as a more efficient application of the desire supposedly being sought through the behavior in accordance with ones belief of what that behavior is actually granting them.
I’d go a little further than kimstu here in justifying the fairness. Namely, I think we can say something here about how much different people benefit from our collective enterprise of society: Clearly, those that make the most money benefit a lot more than those who make the least.
The reason I say this is simply that “in the state of nature” I really don’t see how any one person can build up massive amounts of wealth (short of conquest and then setting up some sort of quasi-governmental system to enforce these conquests but then we have eliminated the “state of nature”). I mean, is there really any freakin’ way that Bill Gates could amass even 1/1000 of the wealth he has amassed without all of the trappings of our society!?!
Therefore, to cap people’s contributions back to the maintenance of that society at some maximum value seems especially ludicrous to me…It is some sort of reverse Robinhood scheme.
Another issue with the encryption process is within the code of law. People have used the ability to violate consent by encrypting the code of law for their specific advantage or benefit (at the expense of relying upon the sense that rationality exists and co-operation will grant these to everyone if the process isn’t encrypted). The problem is; these people are long dead! We’re here now. It’s absurd to follow laws which a person used to encrypt security of theft for their long passed life-time, in our age right here right now. America has had wonderful opportunities to reach out over the centuries and yield an environment where the types of vulnerabilites we see could have long been collapsed into purposelessness with regards to economic vulnerability without the necessary violation of consent.
What we’re seeing is that other individuals are using this long departed persons encryption coding because it’s still there, and is still usable, and still grants phenomenal delusion of power in that regard - for the few people which can crowd into these crafted pockets of deception within the law. Part of the encryption process origionally was to ensure that not many people could squeeze into this little resource vaccuum - spacially. The walls can be knocked down, and the ability to exersize what only they could do in that little room can be abstracted to all individuals, if we stop devoting energy to the protection of these walls.
The entire process, from those standing at the apex to those being rewarded with pittance for spacially protecting their corruption is pointless with regards to what we can do, should do and must to in order to live life in a means which is rational, or with a purpose. Hmm…
I see. And then by juxtaposizing the encryption schematic sense upon our own UNMITIGATED superfluosity, the class value restructures itself, thereby limiting resources to my colostomy bag.
I think basing it on what we owe as a percentage of income is more fair. What we can afford can be based on our lifestyle and choices, right or wrong. I’m not paying for someone else’s mistakes. And by mistake, I mean a decision that causes you to not be able to live within your after-tax income. Call me cold-heardeted, but you make a mistake, don’t expect strangers to pay for it. What we owe is objective. If you make x amount of money, you know what you have to pay in taxes, subtract it, and live within your adjusted income. And obviously you don’t tax income on people who are just going to recollect it in welfare.
Which is how the current system is structured. Taxing Bill Gates doesn’t do anything to Bill Gates, because the welfare system is designed to give it right back. Wealthy individuals subsist as such off of a welfare system. To compare crack mothers having 13 kids to recieve welfare checks to what the ultra-wealthy are experiencing is not comperable in sheer amount. The re-imbrsement for even one of these individuals accounts for all the welfare programs in the nation combined (minus them).
The only ‘rich’ who gripe about taxes are those ding-dongs who think they’re losing their money to the poor. The poor are pittance regardless of how they manipulate the system. It’s simply a spacial problem - two people cannot stand in a barrier encrypted through law to only hold one person. The difference between ‘poor’ and ‘rich’ is not their personalities to this regard, but simply the spacial limitation imposed by the law - which was crafted as such to protect long-dead wealthy people during their own life-spans. There is a logical corruption here which spans the entire spectrum, yet is found at the 100% mark when the wealthy are taken by themselves. They’re only there because of spacial encryption which does not need to be there. That’s the only reason one person is wealthy and another is poor when both have the same logical corruption… one person ‘got’ there sooner. Then they pretend that it has to do with them, that they are a better human being.
People who have half a brain along this point, know that they can walk into that space and also recognize that the whole process is pointless and necessarily prohibitive of any purpose for living.
Actually its the amount PRODUCED by the economy. So it really means that if you put everything produced that year into a big-ass pot and split it among everyone, we would all get about $5,700 worth of stuff.
And the economy is produced by morons. You’re assuming we need to assure that an economy always exists.
What do you want with more money?
Do you want to be smarter?
Do you want to look anyway you want?
Do you want to experience whatever you want?
Do you want to have more fun?
Are you working to give yourself and your beneficiaries a better life?
Do you want to live longer?
Do you want certainty?
Do you want purpose?
I would ask anyone who thinks that they are earning money in a proper means with accordance to how they percieve truth in existence…
“Do you believe that wealth concentration in small pockets would be possible if a mechanical painless suicide machine was located on every corner of a 100 yard square grid on this earth?”
I’m positive that the answer is no.
So I’d ask you, “Where do you think your money is coming from?”
Do you really think that you’re earning it, or that there is something special about you that entitles you to it? Do you actually think that you have contributed in any way to society, or even necessarily your own life?
This money is coming from abusing suicidal tension with regards to landing upon the ability to shoot people who seek to collapse the necessity to protect yourself and still have your desires fulfilled.
The only way tthat these problems are solved is by ignoring money and solving for consent. The equations are right there in front of us, they just require attention. There will be ‘saviors’ so to speak who can do much of this themselves; however society offers them a huge backlash of silencing when they attempt to do so. It is an issue of fear and envy. Fear that their belief of value can be decrypted and made accessible to everybody, fear that they’ve been delusional and necessarily forcing harm upon others against their consent to have been born and to experience pain and/or suffering.
After we abstract these issues of consent, feel free to simulate a world where you are the master of a bunch of slaves because you’re retarded - when you do it in the real one, you’re shooting yourself in the foot with regards to the proof your believe you have found with regards to a few peices of paper and some works of art which can be replicated en mass.
Wealthy individuals are behaviorally, right down to the very core of what they believe to be a personality, who they are that is special…
Anyways, they are behaviorally mamking sure that the values which ‘disprove’ them are not to see the light of day. Everyone else is standing on the sidelines… there are only these few individuals who just don’t get it. They need to cut in line, they need to believe this, they need to do this to make it seem true to them.
If we abstract eating for example, so that people no longer need to eat to live (although they can if they want)… a wealthy person is the equivilent of the person who states: “We need to eat to live, we need to, we need to.”
That’s fine in their encrypted environment (which they actively maintain without realizing their own dementia along this line)…
Allow someone to decrypt the environment and they can no longer DO DAMAGE TO OTHERS WITH THIER DELUSION.
The resource has been decrypted and collapsed. Your wealth is coming from DOING DAMAGE TO OTHERS. That’s it. By doing this damage, you are necessarily damaging yourself by preventing consent to be abstracted.
Technology by the way (what you shoot them with) which only these individuals create. You’re contradicting yourself by shooting the process which allowed your power to exist. That logically proves as suicide. If one continues to live, it processes as DELUSION.
I just don’t know of any reliable way to figure the cost of the services that I as an individual received.