What's new

China's social credit system

If they start tracking internet usage here and holding it against us, I’m ****ed. Every porn star will take out God damn restraining orders against me I frequent that **** so much.

stalking online is what pays the porn freight.

Considering the morals of our general elites, you'd be more likely to get invitations to their parties.

It doesn't work like that in China, though. They send their kids to BYU for schooling and encourage them to attend LDS meetings and take notes on how to smile and shake hands and conduct meetings.

Xi probably has his pleasure palaces in every province, but he will not be pleased if his kids, any of the hundreds or so, isn't a model picture of Chinese master race superiority.
 
I'm still here! Just moved to a beautiful island called nan'ao. I'm living in a beautiful apartment across the street from the ocean. I work about 8 hours a week and have a lot of fun here. I'm really enjoying how few restrictions there are in my day to day life here. China has many issues but the government is far less controlling of your day to day life here compared to USA. Also I make jokes about China almost every day even on my phone with friends. No one cares.

Your score just went up 20 points.

good boy.
 
So, still no example of these states that failed through high income taxes.

The definition of "tax" you quoted does not support calling asset seizure a tax, but I have no desire to argue about that.
The fact that you keep arguing the point says otherwise.
 
The fact that you keep arguing the point says otherwise.

Still no example of one of these high-income-tax countries failing.

You know that if I were going to make an argument about the appropriateness of your definition, I'd have done a paragraph or two. A comment is not an argument.
 
Still no example of one of these high-income-tax countries failing.

You know that if I were going to make an argument about the appropriateness of your definition, I'd have done a paragraph or two. A comment is not an argument.
USSR (https://www.quora.com/What-were-the-tax-rates-in-the-USSR)
Satisfied? I could probably find the same info on many other high tax countries but since I already know that you are going to squiggle out an imaginary loophole of your own creation I'm not going to bother any more with your stupid games.
 
Your score just went up 20 points.

good boy.
That's good! I plan to stick around here awhile since I enjoy it a lot. Plus good is generally much better here! Good thing there is pretty much nothing I do that is going to hurt my pretend score. I walked around drinking beers here the first night and met the mayor who has been showing me around. He gave me some walking beers tonight.
 
USSR (https://www.quora.com/What-were-the-tax-rates-in-the-USSR)
Satisfied? I could probably find the same info on many other high tax countries but since I already know that you are going to squiggle out an imaginary loophole of your own creation I'm not going to bother any more with your stupid games.

Your source (presumably Victor Volkov?) is some random guy who acknowledges up front he did not understand the Soviet tax system, and links to a page on (according to the Google translator version) agricultural taxes, none of which were withing 40% of the "81%" figure? Meanwhile, the very next answer, from Anix Orov, sayd the tax rate capped out at 10%. Looking at their graphic, they top out at 10.6% before 1989.

It's funny, your using agricultural taxes instead of income taxes and accusing me of "going to squiggle out an imaginary loophole of your own creation". The Soviet Union was messed up in many, many ways, and no one is using it a model, but it didn't have high income taxes.

The real truth is that you believe high income taxes hurt a country based on faith, not evidence. I won't try to change your economic religion, I'll just point out you have no evidence for it.
 
Your source (presumably Victor Volkov?) is some random guy who acknowledges up front he did not understand the Soviet tax system, and links to a page on (according to the Google translator version) agricultural taxes, none of which were withing 40% of the "81%" figure? Meanwhile, the very next answer, from Anix Orov, sayd the tax rate capped out at 10%. Looking at their graphic, they top out at 10.6% before 1989.

It's funny, your using agricultural taxes instead of income taxes and accusing me of "going to squiggle out an imaginary loophole of your own creation". The Soviet Union was messed up in many, many ways, and no one is using it a model, but it didn't have high income taxes.

The real truth is that you believe high income taxes hurt a country based on faith, not evidence. I won't try to change your economic religion, I'll just point out you have no evidence for it.
The real truth is that when a government takes over someone's company you think it's just a thing that governments do and I think it's an exorbitant tax wherein the government collects all future profits of the company until they drive it into the ground. There is widely agreed upon tax theory that demonstrates that as you increase rates there is a point where revenue begins to go down. I do not feel that I'm going out on a limb at all to say that taxing the wealthy in the manner that Warren (for example) has proposed would be a foolproof recipe for economic disaster.
 
Your source (presumably Victor Volkov?) is some random guy who acknowledges up front he did not understand the Soviet tax system, and links to a page on (according to the Google translator version) agricultural taxes, none of which were withing 40% of the "81%" figure? Meanwhile, the very next answer, from Anix Orov, sayd the tax rate capped out at 10%. Looking at their graphic, they top out at 10.6% before 1989.

It's funny, your using agricultural taxes instead of income taxes and accusing me of "going to squiggle out an imaginary loophole of your own creation". The Soviet Union was messed up in many, many ways, and no one is using it a model, but it didn't have high income taxes.

The real truth is that you believe high income taxes hurt a country based on faith, not evidence. I won't try to change your economic religion, I'll just point out you have no evidence for it.


Milton Friedman is a better economist than Keynes.

Money in any hands which did not do any work to obtain it is inefficient money. It is spent recklessly, irresponsibly.... for stuff that it not actually needed. Money in the hands of producers goes in a straighter line to other effective producers, and as a result significantly benefits society through efficient use.

It is true that faux money people will attach a value to can induce some to get outta bed and go to work, and make stuff rather than sit in a muddle in their cave, but such "money" is less efficient than barter goods and services in the first place.

Gold nuggets in a stream bed will dazzle the goldbug into hitching up a wagon, buying a pan and a shovel and maybe some rubber waders, but Keynes didn't invent or imagine that kind of money. And, sorry, some printed cash is nowhere near as efficient as gold or a bushel of wheat.

progressive fantasy land is a head buried in sand.
 
The real truth is that when a government takes over someone's company you think it's just a thing that governments do ...

1) It's a thing that some governments do,
2) it's almost always a bad idea, and
3) asset seizure doe not meet the definition of tax you posted.

and I think it's an exorbitant tax wherein the government collects all future profits of the company until they drive it into the ground.

Since the government at that point owns the company, it's not a tax.

There is widely agreed upon tax theory that demonstrates that as you increase rates there is a point where revenue begins to go down.

That point being somewhere over 80% of income at the highest margins.

I do not feel that I'm going out on a limb at all to say that taxing the wealthy in the manner that Warren (for example) has proposed would be a foolproof recipe for economic disaster.

I know that's how you feel. What you lack is facts to back up your feelings.
 
Money in any hands which did not do any work to obtain it is inefficient money. It is spent recklessly, irresponsibly.... for stuff that it not actually needed. Money in the hands of producers goes in a straighter line to other effective producers, and as a result significantly benefits society through efficient use.

That depends upon whose hands, and what their actual needs are. Money put in the hands of impoverished people overwhelmingly goes to things like rent, food, clothing, etc.
 
Speaking of taxes....





This is fundamentally an ideological argument that evades actual understanding of ownership. While there are quite a few privately-held corporations, the ones you generally recognize as "huge" are not owned by a few rich dudes/dudettes, but by millions of ordinary Americans including 401(k) and other retirement plans. Furthermore, they are large employers with some of the more competitive compensation packages.

Realities like this essentially make the Corporate Tax Evasion bogeyman a hoax. Business taxes are always...... always..... paid by the consumers in the form of higher prices and whatever retained profits increase shareholder equity, which is generally quite spread out among ordinary people.

Stock Market performance is often bragged about by Presidents, though few have had so much to brag about than Trump, though it's mostly due to him just not being such a damn Marxist as Obama, Hillary, or the delusional dems of today. But even Obama was not a genuine Marxist. He was overtly hypocritical on that claim. He was a fascist, he did everything to control everyone in the picture and make damn sure nobody told the truth about him. He threatened journalists, and actually set his agenicies, including regulatory agencies and the intelligence agencies to make sure he was the big damn rooster in the coop.

He was corrupt as hell. He bragged about how he was going to kill King Coal. While he was overtly acting to destroy coal mines and coal power plants, and everyone was in a panic to sell, he and his insider clique were buying huge quantities of the stock. This is a time-honored tactic in government officials, one of their many cash cow operations that enrich the powerful and powerfully-connected politicos. In investor terms is a version of reverse "Pump and Dump", where market manipulation is the key to insider wealth.

Our congressmen...... our Representatives and Senators..... get very rich on their bills that unevenly affect markets of all kinds. Everyone goes out to buy stocks that will be favorably impacted by upcoming legislation, and they short the stocks that look to be losers. Of course, most of them use family members to do the buying and selling so it doesn't show on their own tax records....

And besides that, we have scores of Bidens with their gunnysack boys Hunter who clean up the payola everywhere they go in this damn world, winking and nodding at the interested folks who can slip them some cash somehow.

And then we get shitass lawyers who go around explaining how legal and honorable it is for every corporation to have some politically-connected boys on their boards, like Hunter and Burisma, while dropping names in our bureaucracies doing some investigation about their corrupt practices. Of course our agencies always look the other way after the investigators get a little consideration.

This is how fascism works, at it's finest...... before the honchos actually get the power to stuff deplorable and troublesome folks into some damn gas ovens.

China is today our least accountable fascist states, where the few honchos actually have the greatest control and the greatest power to profit from people's bone-grinding labor. Russia is the second most concentrated political manipulation zone. Places like Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela are very bad too, as is Iran.

Not even funny we have people who don't understand where the socialist/fascist do-gooders are really going to take us.
 
1) It's a thing that some governments do,
2) it's almost always a bad idea, and
3) asset seizure doe not meet the definition of tax you posted.



Since the government at that point owns the company, it's not a tax.



That point being somewhere over 80% of income at the highest margins.



I know that's how you feel. What you lack is facts to back up your feelings.
We completely disagree on point #3 which makes the rest of the conversation an exercise in futility. I don't know where you're getting your 80% number but the Wall Street Journal recently published an analysis that shows Warren's proposals result in a total tax over 100% at the highest margins.
 
That depends upon whose hands, and what their actual needs are. Money put in the hands of impoverished people overwhelmingly goes to things like rent, food, clothing, etc.

Money collected by government and put in the hands of "impoverished" people never really solves their problems. It is like the Indian Reservation system when we rounded up the horsemen of the Plains who could kill some buffalo and make a fine winter of it, with skins for tents and clothes. First of all we promoted the slaughter of the vast buffalo herds to destroy their way of life. Then we put them up in little shacks on the praires, and gave them starvation on little barrels of moldy corn. You should really read some Sonnie Johnson on how "progressives" broke the backs of black businessmen and broke up black families, and made people miserably dependent on guvmint handouts, broke down their education and their pride.

The claim stands. When people work for what they have, they have power. The power to negotiate prices for their goods, the power of choice in what they buy. And they always do a helluva lot better than any bureaucrat "caring" for them.

Socialism is inherently evil. It is a social evil, but it is a greater evil than greed. Blackstone wrote that the right to property is the fundamental human right all other rights are derived from. A man who can own a cow has a chance to care for it, and benefit from it, and can sustain his own life. Ownership is basically the essence of the Right to Life. Anyone who claims the "moral" authority to take property from a human is claiming the right to kill that human.

Nobody on God's green earth has that kind of real "moral authority". And, well, that's why "God" can't be allowed as a placeholder for some kind of absolute higher authority. The socialist has to claim all the authority there is..... along with all the property there is.... for himself. And it always will slide downhill to reveal the socialist/fascist as the murdering thug he really is. Of course, the evil among us have used "God" to claim the same absolute authority for themselves. Which is why freedom of belief, freedom of conscience, and the other human rights in our constitutional system are essential to maintain our freedom.

I don't care if anyone else can be greedy, so long as I have the right to do what I can with my own time, energy, and stuff. I will see that I live well enough.
 
Money collected by government and put in the hands of "impoverished" people never really solves their problems.

It solved a lot of problems for my mother, and for me, when we needed it.

It is like the Indian Reservation system when we rounded up the horsemen of the Plains...

I'm impressed by your ability to simultaneously insult and diminish both the poor and First Nation's people while blathering on ignorantly about what government assistance can do. Truly horrible.

You should really read some Sonnie Johnson ...

You forget, I already read her. Yes, she does tell you what you want to hear. No, I'm neither persuaded nor impressed.
 
We completely disagree on point #3 which makes the rest of the conversation an exercise in futility.

Fine. Please point to a country that, through high income taxes on the wealthy that were not in the form of asset seizures, thereby failed.

I don't know where you're getting your 80% number but the Wall Street Journal recently published an analysis that shows Warren's proposals result in a total tax over 100% at the highest margins.

Sure it did. The article is behind a paywall, so I have no idea what they base this on. Care to provide some proof?
 
Fine. Please point to a country that, through high income taxes on the wealthy that were not in the form of asset seizures, thereby failed.



Sure it did. The article is behind a paywall, so I have no idea what they base this on. Care to provide some proof?
You could have easily found this yourself if you had wanted to. There are numerous sources available. Here's one:
https://taxfoundation.org/elizabeth-warrens-tax-plans-could-bring-rates-over-100-percent/

If Warren were to institute her plans there would be a mass exodus of American capital, the revenues she is projecting would fall far, far short of plans, and the economy would go into the tank. None of this is difficult to predict. If Warren is the nominee I predict that a lot of people who despise Trump will find themselves voting for him.
 
You could have easily found this yourself if you had wanted to. There are numerous sources available. Here's one:
https://taxfoundation.org/elizabeth-warrens-tax-plans-could-bring-rates-over-100-percent/

If Warren were to institute her plans there would be a mass exodus of American capital, the revenues she is projecting would fall far, far short of plans, and the economy would go into the tank. None of this is difficult to predict. If Warren is the nominee I predict that a lot of people who despise Trump will find themselves voting for him.
If Warren were elected do you believe that she would be able to enact all her plans into law? Do you think Congress would do her bidding?

I don't.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
You could have easily found this yourself if you had wanted to. There are numerous sources available. Here's one:
https://taxfoundation.org/elizabeth-warrens-tax-plans-could-bring-rates-over-100-percent/
https://taxfoundation.org/elizabeth-warrens-tax-plans-could-bring-rates-over-100-percent/

I read it. While it claims Rihard Rubin found a way to push the tax rate over 100%, this article did not present those numbers.

Also, the phrase "Let’s assume over the next 10 years that the $48.7 million in income grows at an annual rate of 7 percent." was dishonest, because was not income, it was the amount that remained after taxes.

Further, there was no discussion at all of the foundations, company shells, tax-reducing opportunities, and various other ways that billionaires use today to shelter their taxes. None of them will even be paying 60%, much less over 90%.

If Warren were to institute her plans there would be a mass exodus of American capital,

Because there are so many other places in the world where you could earn that $150 million, safely, to begin with? Money follows opportunity.

None of this is difficult to predict. If Warren is the nominee I predict that a lot of people who despise Trump will find themselves voting for him.

People do love their money.
 
Top