The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Is it feasible to switch from an income-based tax system to a wealth-based tax system
Get rid half of the Government waste and corruption and
taxes would drop so much that you wouldn't care about
some minimum wager abusing an extra $50 to buy a pair of shoes.
Silly silly person. Several things-- The minimum wager is WORKING and often gets less money/ benefits that the person who does not work. I would support a system that would reward this person but often what happens is going to work disqualifies people from so many benefits that they end up losing out and then quitting work in frustration
UI abuse is epidemic in some places. There are whole towns were people get laid off upon attaining minimum qualification periods so others can qualify. An employer was suprised to get zero applications for full time work in a town that had an unemployment rate of around 50%. On our street, the only kid that had a mini bike was the kid on social assistance. His parents worked a number of jobs but it was ALL unreported.
Don't take me wrong-- there a large number of people who legitimately need what they get-- In nmany cases I wish there was more that could be done. But there are also far too many crooks and abusers in the system.
Finally, whenever anyone talks about paying less taxes, someone will always retort with comments about not wanting to help the needy, or healthcare or education. Well guess what, the Canadian government has been runnning surpluses despite much waste so more funds were already there for those needs-- Take the money the libs wasted on cancelled helicopters, government porkbarreling and the latest gun registry and there was even more money available. So don't tell me my tax dollars went to feed the needy.
You don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto Luongo
Originally posted by Flubber
An employer was suprised to get zero applications for full time work in a town that had an unemployment rate of around 50%.
So don't tell me my tax dollars went to feed the needy.
Silly Cranklyhead
You said it, the employer pays SO low he can't complete with welfare. I don't feel sorry for him at all, bastard.
No, your tax dollars went to feed the greedy.
Welfare/UIC fraud is a minor economic problem compared with the Federal government's corruption and
mismangement.
a wealth tax would penlize investment, which also drives the economy. It would be a lot better of a deal to by an annuity or get a pension (which would be untaxed, as they're income) than to own stocks (wealth). It also brings in big problems: you'd be persuading the enitre population to go deeply into debt, since that would presumably count against networth, thus making the economy ridiculously unstable in case of a market collapse (housing or equity).
Or worse, if you taxes assets but ignored liabilities, then suddenly nobody couls own a house - you'd be paying tax on the whole value of the house while still paying interest on the part of it that you don't own.
I refute it thus!
"Destiny! Destiny! No escaping that for me!"
You can't have a fair tax system. That's one big reason that capitalism sucks.
A wealth tax would encourage the wealthy to invest their capital were it would be the most productive. I forget the economist name who was big in this area, George Somebody (not Bush of course). He was big in the 19th century. I'll get back with the name and more details.
I tend to agree with what idea that the US would not be so strong with this wealth tax because people would take their wealth elsewhere. Its just a hypothetical thing (assuming that the level of wealth remained constant). Another reason that capitalism sucks is that the wealthy can take their capital all over the world until they find a government who will cater to their wishes.
"When you ride alone, you ride with Bin Ladin"-Bill Maher
"All capital is dripping with blood."-Karl Marx
"Of course, my response to your Marx quote is 'So?'"-Imran Siddiqui
"When you ride alone, you ride with Bin Ladin"-Bill Maher
"All capital is dripping with blood."-Karl Marx
"Of course, my response to your Marx quote is 'So?'"-Imran Siddiqui
Originally posted by Goingonit
Back to the original topic...
a wealth tax would penlize investment, which also drives the economy. It would be a lot better of a deal to by an annuity or get a pension (which would be untaxed, as they're income) than to own stocks (wealth). It also brings in big problems: you'd be persuading the enitre population to go deeply into debt, since that would presumably count against networth, thus making the economy ridiculously unstable in case of a market collapse (housing or equity).
Or worse, if you taxes assets but ignored liabilities, then suddenly nobody couls own a house - you'd be paying tax on the whole value of the house while still paying interest on the part of it that you don't own.
Wealth doesn't drive the economy. Income drives the economy. Are you familiar with the Paradox of Thrift by John Maynard Keynes. When people save their money it causes economic downfall.
"When you ride alone, you ride with Bin Ladin"-Bill Maher
"All capital is dripping with blood."-Karl Marx
"Of course, my response to your Marx quote is 'So?'"-Imran Siddiqui
"Wealth doesn't drive the economy. Income drives the economy. Are you familiar with the Paradox of Thrift by John Maynard Keynes. When people save their money it causes economic downfall."
Which, of course, explains the "Japanese Miracle" of the 50s-80s.
Keynes was right and wrong, btw. It just depends upon what Economy A needs at the moment - sometimes saving is more beneficial, sometimes spending is. Keynes should've realized that.
Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Ozz: Cromwell's revolution did lead to those things. A bloodbath occured in Ireland and a fundamentalist regime was imposed on England.
Ah, Regardless of who was running England Ireland
would have been put down, again and again until
1930. This was nothing to do with Cromwell.
Yes, fundamentalist regime was imposed on England. But an intolerent regime existed prior to Cromwell, against the Purtians, Quakers etc. The Purtians did
not impose a terror like the French or Russians. It
was the Non-Puritians turn to emigrate.
The Republic didn't last and wasn't passed to Chrisopher Cromwell. The King returned to a very differient England.
All revolutions impose regimes that force their fellow
countrymen to flee. Ask any United Empire Loyalist
in Canada about the Successful American Revolution.
Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Ozz - source?
Have to wait, I'm at work
I just remember the number from Churchill's History of the Second World War when India and Pakistan split.
He blamed Gandi's impatience for the bloodbath.
I source from written texts rather than web pages.
Originally posted by JohnT
"Wealth doesn't drive the economy. Income drives the economy. Are you familiar with the Paradox of Thrift by John Maynard Keynes. When people save their money it causes economic downfall."
Which, of course, explains the "Japanese Miracle" of the 50s-80s.
Keynes was right and wrong, btw. It just depends upon what Economy A needs at the moment - sometimes saving is more beneficial, sometimes spending is. Keynes should've realized that.
Investment doesn't even come from wealth. Investment is part of income and spending. Saving is a drain on the economy. No economist disagrees with this.
"When you ride alone, you ride with Bin Ladin"-Bill Maher
"All capital is dripping with blood."-Karl Marx
"Of course, my response to your Marx quote is 'So?'"-Imran Siddiqui
You can't have a fair tax system. That's one big reason that capitalism sucks
Another reason that capitalism sucks is that the wealthy can take their capital all over the world until they find a government who will cater to their wishes.
What bold statements.
One could establish a "fair tax" system within a capitalist society. All one has to do is to establish what is "fair".
I agree that the tax rates for those who make less should not have to pay higher rates (so I am pretty much against a flat tax). I also agree that those that make more should also have to return more. Yet, 40%?
I think that the way taxes are set-up now were more or less considered fair at the time they were established. Since, they have mutated into something that is unfair.
It would not be a fair world if everything one worked hard for would vanish the minute they obtained it. Raising taxes on the rich (high income) and wealthy (high net worth) would only make it harder for the little man to get ahead, or to become rich or wealthy. Think about who pays your salary, or were your precious income comes from.
As for that second statement. If one is American they must pay on everything they make regardless of where they make it...correct? I am not sure.
Even if not, If they are not operating within a captialist society then it really isn't a fault with capitalism, but a fault with the other country/region. I see that second statement as an advantage of capitalism and not a reason it sucks.
The reason it sucks is because it generates greed by ingrates who wish to make the salary of a doctor while sitting on their rear watching Opera all day. You want to talk "fair"?!
You can't have a society were everyone is paid what they are worth. That is the problem with all other economic systems but capitalism.
Tweet
Comment