Sociopath Community

AliceInWonderland said: 

Inquirer said: 

Anthropogenic global warming is beyond dispute today and the overwhelming majority of scientists back it. There are several ways of addressing it and both carbon taxes and various deductions/subsidies for climate neutral energy sources should be (and are!) used.

I will say this topic is more contentious than a lot of people lead on, and I mean it as a scientific topic purely.

Contentious in what way?

This difficulty with this subject is that we've seen, at least in free market societies, that as taxes go up returns decrease after a certain point. The simple reason for this is that the rich and middle class are more likely to use loopholes and right offs in extreme ways while the poor are less likely to work (as seen with correlations between taxes, returns, and unemployment). 

I can't tell you what the proper percentage is nor the structure but I know that merely raising taxes on the rich or whoever does not meet the desired goal - at least historically it doesn't-. 

A better question is "How do we optimize returns from taxes" given that's the desired result. 

I completely agree that we should focus on optimizing tax returns instead of simply hiking taxes, but as it stands I believe we're far below the Laffer tipping point and that the rich will use the loopholes available to them regardless.

The lower taxes are, the more revenue is generated in the grand scheme.

Tax the rich 68% !?

Bruh.

A lot of companies will let go of 50% of their staff simply because they will be stretched too thin and cannot afford to be as expanded. In other cases people will have to settle for less pay, plus their taxes goes up too. Even if their taxes never went up, they will still be laid off or see a reduction in their pay.

Most rich people are incorporated. The company's money.

Go ahead and take over half their income, and see what happens to the employed. And most working people are employees.

This is common sense. 

Spatial Mind said: 

Inquirer said: 

Anthropogenic global warming is beyond dispute today and the overwhelming majority of scientists back it. There are several ways of addressing it and both carbon taxes and various deductions/subsidies for climate neutral energy sources should be (and are!) used.

The majority of scientists back it ? Who told you that ?

Again. Earth isn't the only planet in the solar system that's warming. Science knows the Sun gets excited.

Nasa, for instance.

Xadem's response explains what the consensus on the sun's affect on global warming is.

Everyone got tax cuts. Including the rich.

And don't come at me about "wealth inequality" bullshit because I believe in earning wealth, not every ass be paid like a star.

Lol. So you wouldn't think it's a problem if, hypothetically, a handful of families in the US basically controlled its entire economy (and thus politics) because you "believe in earning wealth"?

What tax rate would you impose on the rich if you were President?

 Um no. Everyone. Because Biden WILL repeal Trump's 4 tax cut brackets.

No politician is bound to what they told you. Once in office they'll do what they want.

.

.

.

You never read Alice's findings on the effects of tax cuts. It's on par with what I've been telling you for years.

Have a source on Biden's Tax Plan repealing the tax cuts for the middle and low income classes?

I did read Alice's post and all it really explains is that raising taxes doesn't automatically mean you get increased revenue. Figuring out at what point on the Laffer curve we are is far from trivial though.

AliceInWonderland said: 

Inquirer said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Earth isn't the only planet in the solar system warming. Us being the cause of global warming is a heated debate among scientists. Carbon tax is a cash grab. It doesn't stop global warming. If they are so concerned about this, then they should expand hydro electric technology.

Anthropogenic global warming is beyond dispute today and the overwhelming majority of scientists back it. There are several ways of addressing it and both carbon taxes and various deductions/subsidies for climate neutral energy sources should be (and are!) used.

I will say this topic is more contentious than a lot of people lead on, and I mean it as a scientific topic purely. 

Inquirer said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

Earth isn't the only planet in the solar system warming. Us being the cause of global warming is a heated debate among scientists. Carbon tax is a cash grab. It doesn't stop global warming. If they are so concerned about this, then they should expand hydro electric technology.

Anthropogenic global warming is beyond dispute today and the overwhelming majority of scientists back it. There are several ways of addressing it and both carbon taxes and various deductions/subsidies for climate neutral energy sources should be (and are!) used.

This is kind of an aside but... The science is no longer debatable and there's an urgent impetus for change right now, which I don't think is going to happen. But, ignoring all of the ramifications of a warming planet, and the mitigation strategies government's will be forced to develop to deal with them, addressing climate change is just economically smart. 

The renewable energy industry has become a major U.S. employer. ... Nearly 335,000 people work in the solar industry and more than 111,000 work in the wind industry, compared to 211,000 working in coal mining or other fossil fuel extraction.

Big oil and the fossil fuel industry are the most corrupt actors on the planet and they've been the ones undermining climate science. Although, what's pretty interesting in Canada is that in the last 3 years some big producers have been divesting from oil extraction and putting more new capital into renewables. Last year at this time people were saying oil would peak in 2050. Three months ago many economists were saying big oil may have peaked now. 

Spatial Mind said: 

The lower taxes are, the more revenue is generated in the grand scheme.

Perfect, let's stop collecting taxes altogether.

Tax the rich 68% !?

Bruh.

A lot of companies will let go of 50% of their staff simply because they will be stretched too thin and cannot afford to be as expanded. In other cases people will have to settle for less pay, plus their taxes goes up too. Even if their taxes never went up, they will still be laid off or see a reduction in their pay.

Most rich people are incorporated. The company's money.

Go ahead and take over half their income, and see what happens to the employed. And most working people are employees.

This is common sense. 

Businesses will not be taxed at over 50%... Besides we're talking about the marginal tax rate, not the effective tax rate. It's the money made after they've already earned $400k during a year that will be taxed more heavily.

I can see why you're so eager to one up me Inq.

The things I say shatter your perspective, then you're stuck scoffing at evidence that support my claim. Then it probably frustrates you how this stuff comes to me so easily.

I'm sorry, but if you're going to tax the rich, you're talking that much away from corporations, and the job market becomes congested as fuck. People then have less incentive to spend money they aren't making.

Not spending = tax avoidance.

If you and society but less things, the government makes less money. 

Yes. Giving the rich tax breaks, is good for any nation.

But you can't accept that. No no no. Not after what the mainstream media did to your thought process. I know it upsets you when you're told Trump is just enriching himself and hus rich friends. 

This stuff is very simple.

Inquirer said: 

Spatial Mind said: 

The lower taxes are, the more revenue is generated in the grand scheme.

Perfect, let's stop collecting taxes altogether.

Tax the rich 68% !?

Bruh.

A lot of companies will let go of 50% of their staff simply because they will be stretched too thin and cannot afford to be as expanded. In other cases people will have to settle for less pay, plus their taxes goes up too. Even if their taxes never went up, they will still be laid off or see a reduction in their pay.

Most rich people are incorporated. The company's money.

Go ahead and take over half their income, and see what happens to the employed. And most working people are employees.

This is common sense. 

Businesses will not be taxed at over 50%... Besides we're talking about the marginal tax rate, not the effective tax rate. It's the money made after they've already earned $400k during a year that will be taxed more heavily.

 You want this eh ?

Okay.

I'm so happy Spatial is back lol

And yes businesses will be taxed. It was the democrats that passed a law that corporations are people too. Rich people don't recieve paychecks, they are incorporated.

Inquirer said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

Inquirer said: 

Anthropogenic global warming is beyond dispute today and the overwhelming majority of scientists back it. There are several ways of addressing it and both carbon taxes and various deductions/subsidies for climate neutral energy sources should be (and are!) used.

I will say this topic is more contentious than a lot of people lead on, and I mean it as a scientific topic purely.

Contentious in what way?

The inference one should make from the fact that anthropological climate change is, imo, factually real. 

For instance, I suggesting reading into the debate between Dr.Karoly and Dr.Happer, both respected scientists in this realm of study, whom disagree on the effects of climate change. I have found many respectable physicists, chemists, and climatologists in both camps so it's really an interesting debate. Both do not deny the reality of climate change, they merely disagree about the inferences one can make about that reality. 

This difficulty with this subject is that we've seen, at least in free market societies, that as taxes go up returns decrease after a certain point. The simple reason for this is that the rich and middle class are more likely to use loopholes and right offs in extreme ways while the poor are less likely to work (as seen with correlations between taxes, returns, and unemployment). 

I can't tell you what the proper percentage is nor the structure but I know that merely raising taxes on the rich or whoever does not meet the desired goal - at least historically it doesn't-. 

A better question is "How do we optimize returns from taxes" given that's the desired result. 

I completely agree that we should focus on optimizing tax returns instead of simply hiking taxes, but as it stands I believe we're far below the Laffer tipping point and that the rich will use the loopholes available to them regardless.

 I would like to dig more into this in fact, I really have now idea where the Laffer tipping point logically stands   at this point. 

It could be substantially higher or lower, plus it'd be interesting to see how the variation between economic systems found across multiple nations effect the variability of that point.