(Saying you have an economic scheme but no numbers to back it up is like saying you have a philosophical scheme but no rational basis to support it.) — Baden

Economics is psychological.

Psychology first, economy follows. That is the rationale. In fact it is essentially philosophically based.

More hot air. Show us the numbers. Data. Presumably you've calculated all this and are not just making it up as you go along, right? So, show us your calculations. — Baden

You need to merely go about your day and imagine the plan. Imagine paying an extra 40% on a new laptop and paying half the price for your food and electricity.

What you save on no tax on income you can also easily pay the extra 40% on the new laptop while the workers who brought that laptop to the store, + plus the store workers, are not paying tax on their income.

You will enjoy work more without income tax. You may become more productive as a consequence of work satisfaction.

This might make you more happy.

More happy may make you feel more charitable - may feel like helping your neighbor out more.

What do control bodies such as governments and politicians want for humanity? Well, politicians are usually lawyers. They are inherently adversarial.

They want people to form tribes. They want insecurity so that people seek them for security - which gives them more control over citizens.

It's psychology, in the final analysis.

That federal government is expensive to run. It mostly exists to control private citizens and private business.

My scheme would help eliminate the need for such expensive control.

This would be the reason a government would not want my plan.

They do not want people to be more free. Their control makes them personally rich and tyrannical along with it.

Government's idea is for larger government. And who pays for that?

My scheme reduces amount of government agencies - reduces government control of work.

No, they wouldn't. They pay about 35% of their income in income tax. There is no way your increased consumer taxes on some goods would more than counterbalance that. You're making stuff up again. Or, if you think it would, provide evidence. Show us the number — Baden

They would buy the most stuff therefore must pay the greater tax.

Yes of course I am making this up. No nation has implemented my plan.

Think of farmers. Farmers growing essentials. Essentials that are not taxed. Farmers that are not taxed on their income.

Essential farm based food is not crap. Cheaper good food for poorer people.

On the other hand, lots of poor people work their asses off. — Erik

Under my scheme the working class will have more income from paying no tax on it.

Most of the rich people I know have been the beneficiaries of wealth accumulated by their families. These same people, in my admittedly limited experience, are far more likely to buy up properties and extract rents from working people than open businesses and create jobs — Erik

Under my scheme they would pay the greater tax......because they buy new stuff + want to flash their symbols of status.

We can exploit their unresolved childhood neurosis, and they won't even mind. Let them feel above. Letting them feel above keeps them exploitable.

So the poor will be even more worse off? Because below a certain threshold they don't pay taxes anyway. Instead they pay more on anything that isn't basic food and second-hand crap — Michael

The "poor" require incentive IF they desire new stuff.

Second-hand "crap"? That's elitism right there. Second hand does not mean crap. People are so fickle and narcissistic that they go for the latest thing just to have the latest thing.

I exploit those narcissists by picking up second hand bargains while enjoying the good life on the cheap.

Such narcissists deserve to pay higher tax for their status symbols (merely a consequence of their unresolved childhood issues).

No. The rich provide jobs. Jobs for those that would not even want to do what the rich do to get rich.

Many crazy rich people work ridiculous hours to get rich. Someone like me just likes working as a craftsman because it is pleasurable. Don't like office environments and don't like office work hours.

Most people just want more free time, even if the pay is less, and play around with their kids + make stuff at home, and also enjoy a more intimate community.

Let those mad crazy people work those crazy office hours or crazy hours related to running a business enterprise and therefore let them get rich in the way they consider wealth to mean.

It does not make sense to make those types resentful by taxing them for their ingenuity.

My tax plan is;

Not tax on income.

High tax (could be 30 to 40%) on non necessities. E.g, Mac pro, beer, new cars, new furniture, new tv's etc.

No tax on essential food items.

What could this also create? Not only cheaper food but recycling (buying 2nd hand goods, making things yourself).

At least taxes should be a flat tax. The big problem with current tax regs is Monopoly companies, or just super large international companies, paying zero tax particularly in countries other than where they are geographically based and registered.

There should be no taxes on income, ideally.

Interesting that it was on Strzok's computer where the change was made for Hillary Clinton's verdict from "Grossly negligent" to "extremely careless".

"Grossly negligent" attracts a criminal prosecution.

Now match that with Strzok's txts: "Trump's an idiot, a bleeping idiot, Hillary Clinton should win 100 million to one,"

and

Lisa Page. ‘Trump’s not ever going to be president, right?’ Srzok replied, ‘No, no, he’s not. We’ll stop it.’


Yeah sure, of course not only was he apparently not biased but also did not act from his bias.

This guy seamlessly transitioned from investigation of Hillary, and henceforth her exoneration, and onto the Russia/Trump conspiracy theory investigation.

Strzok wrote, “I was one of a handful of people who knew the details of Russian election interference and its possible connections with members of the Trump campaign. This information had the potential to derail, and quite possibly, defeat Mr. Trump. But the thought of exposing that information never crossed my mind.”

Of course. The obvious point being he had nothing to derail him with, in regard to Russia/Trump collusion theory.

And still not.

Strzok wrote, “I was one of a handful of people who knew the details of Russian election interference and its possible connections with members of the Trump campaign. This information had the potential to derail, and quite possibly, defeat Mr. Trump. But the thought of exposing that information never crossed my mind.”

Of course. The obvious point being he had nothing to derail him with, in regard to Russia/Trump collusion theory.

And still not.

Yes, but that matters little when he's serving the elites by putting them in his cabinet and giving them massive tax breaks — Baden

All workers got the tax break. This upset his political opponents because they want to keep their supporters on the plantation.

Another non-sequitur. People who fix roads may be low class in your view. In mine they're working class. Trump is low class. Learn the difference. And if you think Trump is not the elite, you're deluded — Baden

He's rich but not a snob. Compare that with British political elites and Obama and the Clinton/Bush cartel.

If you knew anything about the UK you wouldn't even need a poll to know that a low class moron like Trump would have little to no support. Get over it, the sycophancy isn't worth it — Baden

You allude to a class system. Elitism. This is why Trump succeeds. He appeals to those who are the actual backbone of nations. The one's who grow your food and fix your roads.

Trump isn't positive by any reasonable measure — Michael

US economy is a more than reasonable measure.

Well that's ambiguous. More people voted for Clinton than Trum — Michael

The US has a proportional system to prevent a small number of states from dominating the rest.

Other countries, such as NZ, use proportional systems.

What the UK have become accustomed to, with regard to leadership, is constant instability.

They have a steep learning curve. Someone like Trump will eventually impact in the positive, but maybe only when the UK gain their own independence from the EU.

Approving of his visit isn't the same as approving of him — Michael

He isn't their president so tough titties.

Americans voted him in however.

And Strzok was a senior investigator. It says enough.

50% of UK polled, vs 37%, approved of Trumps UK visit.

Snowflakes across the board, though, find him a bit raw. Snowflakes want to hear niceties from the same ones who, while sounding nice, bomb the s#!t out of countries.

Follow the link. Trump's UK approval is about 20% — Baden

From the article you linked:
"According to the survey, conducted in December, 23 percent of Europeans approve of Trump’s performance."

It was not a survey of the UK.

Trump polls well among Britons. May does not.

The evidence of conspiracy with regard to intelligence agencies are readily accessible. I provided an interview link only one page back. The Guardian will not be conducting such interviews.

UK government is a mess and has been for quite some time.

We already know that Farage is being paid by Russians — Michael

Place evidence here > ...

How does that relate to what I said? — Benkei

The US president has an independent voice and uses it. It's refreshing.

Trump visits England. Insults May. Praises Boris Johnson. Suggests the UK has to choose either the USA or EU in trade. — Benkei

The US won their independence from England quite some time ago.

Ah right. So you attribute different words to what I said and then say your own attributions lack comprehension.

And I'm not sure what "wut" is. It must be my comprehension at fault there.

Why are you misquoting?

You say you are interested in my philosophy. Is this not the same thing as asking me what my philosophy is?

Above interview recorded 2 hours ago.

Bill Binney, former high ranking NSA official turned whistleblower: “Intelligence agencies are the Stasi of today”.


https://youtu.be/mPqDmTftW94

If suffering was merely a concept it would be at the lowest end of the suffering scale.

It is clear to my mind that the Mueller investigation phenomenon is about a determination to protect long standing corruption.

I think Mueller himself will eventually be under investigation.

Absolutely not offended, but more interested in your Philosophy? — Marcus de Brun

My philosophy? What do you mean by “philosophy” when you apply it as being a thing of someone’s?

Are you able to answer as to whether you have a particular philosophy?

Offended?

What does it matter ...left wing or right wing. — Marcus de Brun

Matter? Wings? It is merely an observation combined with a joke.

The greater threat to culture than the cartoon character that is Kim Kardashian is the character Lib Tard-ashian.

Some of Lib's family are evident on philosophy forums.