Should an airline ticket be priced on your income?

[HitRed]

AOC is on the move

[KoolBak]

It would be nice if EVERYTHING was based on your income (for the not-rich). I'd also like free cocktails everywhere I go.

[2dimes]

Socialist tax paid Cocktails good. Ryan-Air not so good.

[waauw]

For this to work, income information would need to be passed on to private corporations. This would be a breach of privacy laws.

[HitRed]

It the Gov passed a law. The IRS has all your W-2, bank interest, TDAmerictrade account gains & dividends, social security. Maybe even if you have health insurance or not. They almost can do your taxes WITHOUT you. Just deductions are left.

[armati]

Yupper, the gov can do ur taxes without you.

Services based on income?

The nation would crumble in record time.


This is what people that like the idea of "tax the rich" dont understand, the reason a person goes into a business is to make a profit.
If the gov takes that away(tax) they close the doors, no more jobs.
The other thing capital does, is it moves to where it is treated best, money has no boarders.

A business person calculates, "is the tax worth doing business in that country? What do I get for the tax?"
When the cost outweighs the advantage, bye bye business.

The issue with socialism is eventually you run out of other peoples money.

The reason people put money "offshore" is specifically so the gov cant touch it, this happens in all countries not just the states.

Even with gold, the standard for wealthy people is to vault it in multiple places, Singapore,Canada,Switzerland,London all over the world, thats done specifically so no one gov can take it all.

Just outa interest, people have lost trust in London, by not returning the Venezuelan gold they are putting themselves out of business.
Holding gold in the U.S. is considered risky as well since Germany can only get a few of their tons a year as well.

[mrswdk]

All things should be priced proportionate to a person's income. If they earn 50k a year, a banana costs $1. If they earn 100k a year, it costs $2. If they are unemployed, it is free.

[HitRed]

Life isn't fair

[waauw]

This is what people that like the idea of "tax the rich" dont understand, the reason a person goes into a business is to make a profit.
If the gov takes that away(tax) they close the doors, no more jobs.
The other thing capital does, is it moves to where it is treated best, money has no boarders.

A business person calculates, "is the tax worth doing business in that country? What do I get for the tax?"
When the cost outweighs the advantage, bye bye business.

The issue with socialism is eventually you run out of other peoples money.

There are downsides to trying to tax the rich, no doubt about it, but the downside to taxing the middle class is even worse. The majority of all consumption is driven by the middle class. Weaken them too much and the whole economy will suffer.

Personally, I think large markets like the USA can tax the rich and mitigate the consequences, the same way the EU is taking hits at certain multinational corporations without much consequences.

In the past decade or so the EU has been imposing billions of euros worth of fines on multinationals in an effort to weaken their oversized power over their respective markets. And guess what? It works! The entirity of the european market is simply too big and too profitable for these corporations to miss out on. In the end conceding to demands is more profitable than missing out on the entire market.

This same technique could be applied to taxes on the rich. Large economies like those of the USA or China, or large blocs like the EU could impose taxes on the rich without much consequences. If you tell the rich you're going to tax them more, and you attach strong consequences to those trying to flee towards tax havens, you can bet your ass most of them will end up staying.

Minor economies don't have that luxury. If they try to pull something like this, the rich can simply move away and make an example of them. The financial hit would be bearable. Sweden and France tried taxing the rich. It didn't work. They were simply too small. They didn't have enough power individually. But if the big boys were to try something, or if large groups of smaller nations were to band together, that would change the story entirely. A country like the USA could easily bring almost every single tax haven in the world to its knees if it really wanted to.

note: I'm of course talking about ordinary tax risings, not full blown communism. That would not work.

[armati]

mrswdk wow. How long is the banana man going to stay in business when all the unemployed find out bananas are free?

[mrswdk]

Some people might abuse the system but most will eat only a reasonable amount of bananas.

Besides as I mentioned above the rich people will be paying an extra large banana fee that will help the businessperson with their cash flow.

[Bernie Sanders]

Let them have cake.....

[2dimes]

And it's fine to provide everyone with the bare essentials for free, clean water, doctors, housing, milk, bananas, broccoli, carrots, peas, potatoes, a small portion of meat/tofu and the least expensive beer/liquor.

I agree it is especially important to look after people that are genuinely unable to carry a full bunch of bananas.

As armati eludes to. You need to draw a line quite a way before letting the willfully unemployed in an airplane, to go to Tokyo, rent a girlfriend and take her for steak for free.

Two reasons. There needs to be incentive to bother getting a job, let alone doing it well or starting a decent business. The bread line will get so long they will run out before every bum gets a loaf.

Cuba and the CCCP show that humans are unable to utilize an entire population to be productive. Some people will accidentally start diverting the very few decent products to friends and family.

You see the exact same corruption creeping ever more into the governments of Canader and the US&A. Giant pensions and perks, often far disproportionate to the value their services are adding.

If you want McDonalds every day? Get a job. You want to ride an airplane? Save up until you can afford the fair.

Refuse to work? Take the train...

[HitRed]

Looks like the Dems are getting traction on this. We'll see who wins the nomination.

[2dimes]

I'm out before those bimbos start accounts here to tell you you're a racist, because you believe in working harder to to buy a bottle of premium whisky.

[armati]

"fine to provide everyone with the bare essentials for free" no such thing as free, someone pays for it.
With socialism, eventually you will run out of other peoples money.

waauw I agree with you about the middle class.

The idea of nations have to be large enuff for taxing the rich to work, I cant agree with.
Money leaves where ever it is when it is mistreated. The system doesnt matter, it just leaves.

Preventing money from leaving is capital control, we have a bit of that now.

In the states, if police find a bunch of cash on a person they can take it on suspicion of being illegal gains.
Its called civil forfeiture.
At boarders a person has to declare anything over 10k.

Those are capital controls and that happens in police states, in time they will become more restrictive.

[2dimes]

That's the same Bologna as claiming electricity will be cheaper once you privatize it. Then again maybe my wife makes too much money so her bill is the only one that is jacked up.

Of course, it's not free but the value of feeding poor people is less petty crime like theft.

No one is setting up a luxury goods shop in Rwanda to take advantage of the low taxes.

[mrswdk]

As armati eludes to. You need to draw a line quite a way before letting the willfully unemployed in an airplane, to go to Tokyo, rent a girlfriend and take her for steak for free.

Two reasons. There needs to be incentive to bother getting a job, let alone doing it well or starting a decent business. The bread line will get so long they will run out before every bum gets a loaf.

Cuba and the CCCP show that humans are unable to utilize an entire population to be productive. Some people will accidentally start diverting the very few decent products to friends and family.

You see the exact same corruption creeping ever more into the governments of Canader and the US&A. Giant pensions and perks, often far disproportionate to the value their services are adding.

If you want McDonalds every day? Get a job. You want to ride an airplane? Save up until you can afford the fair.

In parts of the post above you are talking about how to balance then need to incentivize people to work with ensuring people have a reasonable quality of life. In other parts you are talking about the misuse of public resources by those in public office. In the bolded sentence, you seem to have conflated the two. I'm not sure the two are as dependent on each other as you seem to be suggesting they are.

[tzor]

If things are priced based on your income.
Then isn't a minimum wage theft?

(Sorry, you can't have the banana for less money because your employer has to give you more pay so that you can afford that banana that has been just priced out of your reach again.)

[Symmetry]

If things are priced based on your income.
Then isn't a minimum wage theft?

(Sorry, you can't have the banana for less money because your employer has to give you more pay so that you can afford that banana that has been just priced out of your reach again.)

I think the idea behind it is certain key commodities should be based on income, rather than all. It's an interesting idea, and it works on a small scale sometimes. Scaling it up is a big problem.

[2dimes]

I am saying corruption always happens in communist society because there is a lack of incentive to work harder, since everyone would get to ride in an airplane free... In theory.

Now the corruption in Russia is so bad they may never be able to operate a decent partial capitalism.

Problem is it's not the only place. Corruption is getting bad enough in the free world I am getting worried.

The best way to get wealth is by taking more than your share. That's just how it is. I would suggest it's easier to achieve by having underlings happy to do the work for you.

If I keep my population happy by providing the basics. There can still be incentive to other people wanting to engage in capitalism in the form of providing other things everyone wants in addition to their needs.

If armati wants to make a better smart phone, then gouge you so bad it hurts, fine. I tax him fairly to provide bananas. But... I don't bleed him dry until he packs up and goes to Europe.

I have no problem with Apple making better products, then getting more market share.

I have a problem with Tyson making it so families can't operate a farm and provide us with decent chickens.

Just because you were born to bad parents should not mean you starve. However it does not mean you don't need to get a job later and save up if you want to buy a plane ticket to Ibiza.

I am in favour of providing bananas but we also need some of that capitalism so people work for luxuries.

[Symmetry]

I am saying corruption always happens in communist society because there is a lack of incentive to work harder, since everyone would get to ride in an airplane free... In theory.

Now the corruption in Russia is so bad they may never be able to operate a decent partial capitalism.

Problem is it's not the only place. Corruption is getting bad enough in the free world I am getting worried.

The best way to get wealth is by taking more than your share. That's just how it is. I would suggest it's easier to achieve by having underlings happy to do the work for you.

If I keep my population happy by providing the basics. There can still be incentive to other people wanting to engage in capitalism in the form of providing other things everyone wants in addition to their needs.

If armati wants to make a better smart phone, then gouge you so bad it hurts, fine. I tax him fairly to provide bananas. But... I don't bleed him dry until he packs up and goes to Europe.

I have no problem with Apple making better products, then getting more market share.

I have a problem with Tyson making it so families can't operate a farm and provide us with decent chickens.

Just because you were born to bad parents should not mean you starve. However it does not mean you don't need to get a job later and save up if you want to buy a plane ticket to Ibiza.

I am in favour of providing bananas but we also need some of that capitalism so people work for luxuries.

Interesting, although I would disagree on some points- obviously you're wrong about the lack of incentive to work harder. China and Russia worked people to death in their earlier stages of Communist gov't, as did Capitalist societies.

I also disagree on the "bread and game" theory of a happy society- you phrase it more as bananas and luxuries. The problem, as I see it, is more one of fairness when it comes to legitimacy of government. When the billionaires rule, and they either rule by a kleptocracy, or by a mandate so outdated that the majority voted for someone else? That's a crisis that's systematic.

[2dimes]

You're saying people worked themselves to death because they had some terrific incentives? Doubt it.

[Symmetry]

You're saying people worked themselves to death because they had some terrific incentives? Doubt it.

Considering that they were terrified, and the alternative was immediate death? Yeah- the incentives were terrific. Work or die.

Not much more of a terrific incentive than that.

[armati]

Not sure how sym figures I want to make a better phone? and gouge people.
Samsung's foldable phone is the $1,980 Galaxy Fold - The Verge.
Maybe thats gouging but I bet lots of the gotta have the new phone addicts buy it.

Some people for some reason think there is such a thing as free.
Free does'nt exist, someone somewhere pays for it whatever it is.

Like debt, debt ALWAYS gets paid, either by the debtor or the lender, but it gets paid.

The corruption is everywhere, recall the Clinton foundation, all that cash that went to Haiti (one example) geez, where did it go?
None of the dead people that seem to happen around them got the chance to say anything, might be some kinda clue, i dunno.

HSBC is one of the biggest drug money "cleaners" on the planet, the cia funds many of their activities with heroin from Afghanistan(gasp)

Police kill with impunity and they invade at will, freeze the assets of nations on whims manipulate libor, and have broken just about every agreement they ever made with anyone.

Yup, there is corruption in Nigeria,China,Britain and Russia but the U.S. is just about the most corrupt there is.

Eritria is something else, as far as Im concerned they use slaves, the courts in Canada were going to hear a case about it, and surprise, we dont hear anything anymore about it. Couldnt be because we have mining companies there could it?

Corruption is everywhere, its kinda part of being human.

One thing I noticed, saying the ussr was communist, it wasnt communist, it was a dictatorship.

China on the other hand is probably more capitalist than we are at this point, which is why their economy has grown so massive in such a short time.

Capitalism grows economies big time, its just too bad it does so much damage to our living space.

Another 30-50 years everything will be robotics and AI, wonder what people will do for work.