China's social credit system

[babe]

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.

 

[babe]

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.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

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.

 

[One Brow]

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.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

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.

 

[Ron Mexico]

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.

 

[One Brow]

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.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

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.

 

[babe]

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.

 

[One Brow]

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.

 

[One Brow]

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.

 

[Red]

Speaking of taxes....