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.
I should pay more tax, says US billionaire Warren Buffett
Thats not why I have the problem with it. Why does citizen $1M have a responsibility/obligation that citizen $90K does not have in a government of our type?
Its not about disposible incomes, it is about what you, as equal citizens, are on the hook for.
It is not about the person's responsibility to the government. It is about the government's responsibility to the people. Our government is obligated in its very creation to provide for the general welfare. The two ways that it can do that is by not taxing the first X of peoples income and providing required and desired services.
This responsibility is extended to both those with incomes above and below the X threshold. The people earning over X would still not pay any taxes on X amount of income. Only the amount above that is taxed.
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003
The reason that the wealthy should pay more taxes and why the government shouldn't answer to only those who pay the most taxes is simple.
Try to understand where the wealthy persons money comes from.
It doesn't matter how smart or wealthy someone is, if you take that person, and a very non-wealthy person, and put them both alone on desert islands, they will not produce a significantly different amount of wealth during their time on the island.
The wealthy person's wealth comes from interconnectedness. They are VERY dependent on other people for their wealth, you can call this what you will, but you can't deny it - look at the desert island, a highly productive person will not be a million times wealthier than a person who only manages to barely survive.
The wealthy do not make their money in isolation by working a million times harder. I could say something anarchist, but I'm not going to.
If the super wealthy truly worked a million times harder than the super poor, then maybe equal taxation could be justified, maybe the wealthy should even be taxed less since they work so hard. But the fact is, they don't. They just work "more smartly" within the system, in some sense they exploit it - I don't necessarily mean in an anarchist sense, but just like exploiting gameplay mechanics in a computer game. That's where their wealth comes from.
I would favor a society which is resilient to such exploitation (I guess, in an anarchist sense but anarchism is naive), failing that I would prefer taxes which create real actual incentive against being very wealthy, to kind of close the loophole which allows people to make all that money without doing a lot of extra work. People who understand how to extract money from the system don't necessarily provide a disproportional amount of benefit to the system than people who are just hard working, like builders and stuff.
If you take another hypothetical example, where all people are created equally (like say androids) and have equal oppurtunity.
You're STILL going to need janitors, builders, clerks, plumbers, etc etc.
So all people are created equally, but there's only so many positions available for the "Wealthy", if everyone earned their money through investment, zero actual work would be done - they'd be nothing to invest in. You can see in an "All people are created equally" system that those who get to fulfill the "Wealthy" position is simple luck of the draw - why SHOULD they be so much more privileged?
In real life, people are not created equally, but exactly the same principle applies, to a pretty large extent it's luck of the draw, being in the right place at the right time, etc etc, regardless of skill, there is an element of luck, because only a small percentage of the population can be wealthy - some have to miss out.
Fairness dictates that the super wealthy not be super privileged, the fact that they get to have larger TV's and faster cars should be privilege enough, without having more power in the government too.
Originally posted by PLATO
Approximately 50% of the population had no federal tax liability at all last year.
Here is my thought on taxes:
-First $100,000 in income is exempt.
-Tax rate set annually on all amounts above $100,000 to ensure balanced budget.
$100,000 line should allow everybody to have at least a chance to have a living. Beyond that is where taxes should come from.
Simple.
Not a bad idea, but the number's too high. $40,000 (the approximate median personal income for a full-time wokers over age 25) is more like it. From a civic responsibility and engagement point-of-view, exempting 80+% of the citizenry from income tax seems like a bad idea.
"I have as much authority as the pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it." — George Carlin
Buffet seems like a pretty decent guy. He's earmarked most of his fortune already to charity, and given his annualized return rate... keeping it in his hands is the best bet for the future. So in his particular case, we're probably better off letting him keep as much of his money as possible. If only that were as true of the rest of the rich guys out there. (A few decent apples in the bunch)
I think I should be taxed more, as almost none of my income goes towards essentials. But most people in my income range definitely shouldn't be, as most of the time almost all their income goes towards essentials. I think a good method to address this would be to switch over to a sales tax on non-essential luxury items.
From a civic responsibility and engagement point-of-view, exempting 80+% of the citizenry from income tax seems like a bad idea.
Exactly.
"The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.
From a civic responsibility and engagement point-of-view, having the bottom 80% of the citizenry with only ~10% of the financial wealth of the country isn't a great idea either...
I think you may have the cart and horse the wrong way there. If everyone had as much money and assets as everyone else it wouldn't last long, you would eventually end back up in an 80:20 - 90:10 scenario.
One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.
Originally posted by Kuciwalker
From an economic point of view, having the bottom 80% of the citizenry with only ~10% of the financial wealth of the country is a fantastic idea...
quote:
From a civic responsibility and engagement point-of-view, exempting 80+% of the citizenry from income tax seems like a bad idea.
Exactly.
We are already exempting 50% with the current system. If $40K is the line to stay at 50% then okay. I believe that the government does not have the right to tax a decent living. Beyond that, taxes should be bourne equally by all income brackets.
*********
Blake says that the wealthy should bear a higher burden because they don't work a million times harder, just that they work smarter. To me, this is a reason why they should not pay a higher rate. Labor and intelligence are both required ingredients to a successful society. As intelligence is the rarer of these two commodities, it should be paid a premium.
"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003
When did we become comunists? I willingly and happily pay my taxes because for the most part they go to things that benefit everyone equally, or could. Roads, defense, law enforcement, ets. I think you will find more people of that mind set
Then you don't understand why you pay tax. You really have no business in such a discussion, since you are ignorant of why you and everyone else actually pays tax. Most right wingers are, so this is quite normal. Unfortunately, societies haven't managed to find a way to stop you voting, which is why so many societies are messed up. And you all wonder why the liberals think you are stupid.
Taxation in modern liberal democracies has very little to do with redistribution of income for its own sake. Rather, it has to do with supplying goods that markets either won't supply at all or supply inefficiently (like health care). Welfare isn't much different. Most people dislike the idea of their fellow citizens living in squalor, and the other consequences of rampant poverty. And, people generally want to have some security if everything goes pear shaped. Welfare provides that for everyone.
It so happens that private charity is subject to market failure (since every dollar I give benefits everyone else who didn't just as much as me), so a non market mechanism is the way it is done. Welfare is what we pay for in order to have a society that we can stand living in. The people who oppose it really don't understand how bad things would be without it, and how much it benefits them.
Welfare isn't really that much different from the police, the roads and the fire department. You've just been brainwashed into thinking that it is. When people pay tax to support welfare programs, it benefits them, even if they never draw a welfare check.
Buffet is right here. He himself gives a lot to charity, but would probably prefer to give it in compulsory taxation, since the other rich people would have to pay and the result would be more efficient. It makes no appreciable difference to Buffet's bankbook whether he pays it in tax or out of his pocket, but it does make a difference to society at large, since other rich people get to free ride on Buffet's generosity.
Not that much will be done about this. The aspirational-pig class would rather die than forgo their conspicuous consumption.
We are already exempting 50% with the current system. If $40K is the line to stay at 50% then okay. I believe that the government does not have the right to tax a decent living. Beyond that, taxes should be bourne equally by all income brackets.
You are so far off it is unbelievable. The income tax thresh hold is $8750 so even if you count tax credits (earned income tax credit, deductions for children, etc) then I just don't see how you can say 50% don't pay taxes. Even if someone gets out of income tax there are still a whole host of taxes like Sales Tax, value added taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes, sin taxes (cigs & alcohol), tv & telephone taxes, poll taxes (in countries other then US), etc... And we haven't even mentioned state taxes yet.
I'd contend that if someone has a job but makes under the income tax thresh hold they're likely still paying a higher percentage of income in taxes then even the highest tax bracket. This is because they make so little thus the regressive taxes end up taking a huge bite.
Tweet
Comment