home.social

#flattax — Public Fediverse posts

Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #flattax, aggregated by home.social.

  1. 🔴 En 10 ans de Macron, la France est devenue plus inégalitaire que ses voisins européens.

    En 2017, l’indice de Gini, qui mesure les inégalités de revenus, était inférieur à la moyenne de l’UE. En hausse depuis 2018, il la dépasse désormais.

    #Inégalités #ISF #FlatTax
    #CoefficientGini

  2. 🔴 En 10 ans de Macron, la France est devenue plus inégalitaire que ses voisins européens.

    En 2017, l’indice de Gini, qui mesure les inégalités de revenus, était inférieur à la moyenne de l’UE. En hausse depuis 2018, il la dépasse désormais.

    #Inégalités #ISF #FlatTax
    #CoefficientGini

  3. 🔴 En 10 ans de Macron, la France est devenue plus inégalitaire que ses voisins européens.

    En 2017, l’indice de Gini, qui mesure les inégalités de revenus, était inférieur à la moyenne de l’UE. En hausse depuis 2018, il la dépasse désormais.

    #Inégalités #ISF #FlatTax
    #CoefficientGini

  4. 🔴 En 10 ans de Macron, la France est devenue plus inégalitaire que ses voisins européens.

    En 2017, l’indice de Gini, qui mesure les inégalités de revenus, était inférieur à la moyenne de l’UE. En hausse depuis 2018, il la dépasse désormais.

    #Inégalités #ISF #FlatTax
    #CoefficientGini

  5. 🔴 En 10 ans de Macron, la France est devenue plus inégalitaire que ses voisins européens.

    En 2017, l’indice de Gini, qui mesure les inégalités de revenus, était inférieur à la moyenne de l’UE. En hausse depuis 2018, il la dépasse désormais.

    #Inégalités #ISF #FlatTax
    #CoefficientGini

  6. @Lilith #BGE ist kein linkes Projekt. Es ist eine Nebelkerze, auf die viele Linke hereinfallen.

    Wir hatten eine ähnliche Debatte schon einmal: hieß damals #FlatTax (#Merz' Bierdeckel und so).

    Knackpunkt: komplexe Strukturen schleifen, um sie durch einfachere Systeme zu ersetzen, klappt selbst in der Technik so gut wie nie. Meistens gibt es Gründe für die Komplexität.

    Im Bereich der sozialen Absicherungen heißen die: Brüderlichkeit, Einigkeit, Freiheit, Gerechtigkeit, usw. usf.

  7. @Lilith #BGE ist kein linkes Projekt. Es ist eine Nebelkerze, auf die viele Linke hereinfallen.

    Wir hatten eine ähnliche Debatte schon einmal: hieß damals #FlatTax (#Merz' Bierdeckel und so).

    Knackpunkt: komplexe Strukturen schleifen, um sie durch einfachere Systeme zu ersetzen, klappt selbst in der Technik so gut wie nie. Meistens gibt es Gründe für die Komplexität.

    Im Bereich der sozialen Absicherungen heißen die: Brüderlichkeit, Einigkeit, Freiheit, Gerechtigkeit, usw. usf.

  8. @Lilith #BGE ist kein linkes Projekt. Es ist eine Nebelkerze, auf die viele Linke hereinfallen.

    Wir hatten eine ähnliche Debatte schon einmal: hieß damals #FlatTax (#Merz' Bierdeckel und so).

    Knackpunkt: komplexe Strukturen schleifen, um sie durch einfachere Systeme zu ersetzen, klappt selbst in der Technik so gut wie nie. Meistens gibt es Gründe für die Komplexität.

    Im Bereich der sozialen Absicherungen heißen die: Brüderlichkeit, Einigkeit, Freiheit, Gerechtigkeit, usw. usf.

  9. @Lilith #BGE ist kein linkes Projekt. Es ist eine Nebelkerze, auf die viele Linke hereinfallen.

    Wir hatten eine ähnliche Debatte schon einmal: hieß damals #FlatTax (#Merz' Bierdeckel und so).

    Knackpunkt: komplexe Strukturen schleifen, um sie durch einfachere Systeme zu ersetzen, klappt selbst in der Technik so gut wie nie. Meistens gibt es Gründe für die Komplexität.

    Im Bereich der sozialen Absicherungen heißen die: Brüderlichkeit, Einigkeit, Freiheit, Gerechtigkeit, usw. usf.

  10. @Lilith #BGE ist kein linkes Projekt. Es ist eine Nebelkerze, auf die viele Linke hereinfallen.

    Wir hatten eine ähnliche Debatte schon einmal: hieß damals #FlatTax (#Merz' Bierdeckel und so).

    Knackpunkt: komplexe Strukturen schleifen, um sie durch einfachere Systeme zu ersetzen, klappt selbst in der Technik so gut wie nie. Meistens gibt es Gründe für die Komplexität.

    Im Bereich der sozialen Absicherungen heißen die: Brüderlichkeit, Einigkeit, Freiheit, Gerechtigkeit, usw. usf.

  11. Wenn durch Freibeträge und Verrechenbarkeit eine effektive Vermögensbesteuerung erst ab 5 Mio.€ stattfinden würde (↑), könnte #DieLinke Widerstände vermeiden, wenn sie die Steuer gleich als fällig ab 5 Mio.€ gestalten und kommunizieren würde.

    Auch die Konstruktion einer Progression von 1 bis 50 Mio.€, einer nachfolgenden #Flattax und dem willkürlichen Sprung auf 12% ab 1 Mrd.€ lässt mich ratlos zurück. Warum streckt man die Progression nicht weiter (ggf. logarithmisch) bis zu 12% bei 1 Mrd.€? 🤷

  12. Wenn durch Freibeträge und Verrechenbarkeit eine effektive Vermögensbesteuerung erst ab 5 Mio.€ stattfinden würde (↑), könnte Widerstände vermeiden, wenn sie die Steuer gleich als fällig ab 5 Mio.€ gestalten und kommunizieren würde.

    Auch die Konstruktion einer Progression von 1 bis 50 Mio.€, einer nachfolgenden und dem willkürlichen Sprung auf 12% ab 1 Mrd.€ lässt mich ratlos zurück. Warum streckt man die Progression nicht weiter (ggf. logarithmisch) bis zu 12% bei 1 Mrd.€? 🤷

  13. Wenn durch Freibeträge und Verrechenbarkeit eine effektive Vermögensbesteuerung erst ab 5 Mio.€ stattfinden würde (↑), könnte #DieLinke Widerstände vermeiden, wenn sie die Steuer gleich als fällig ab 5 Mio.€ gestalten und kommunizieren würde.

    Auch die Konstruktion einer Progression von 1 bis 50 Mio.€, einer nachfolgenden #Flattax und dem willkürlichen Sprung auf 12% ab 1 Mrd.€ lässt mich ratlos zurück. Warum streckt man die Progression nicht weiter (ggf. logarithmisch) bis zu 12% bei 1 Mrd.€? 🤷

  14. Wenn durch Freibeträge und Verrechenbarkeit eine effektive Vermögensbesteuerung erst ab 5 Mio.€ stattfinden würde (↑), könnte #DieLinke Widerstände vermeiden, wenn sie die Steuer gleich als fällig ab 5 Mio.€ gestalten und kommunizieren würde.

    Auch die Konstruktion einer Progression von 1 bis 50 Mio.€, einer nachfolgenden #Flattax und dem willkürlichen Sprung auf 12% ab 1 Mrd.€ lässt mich ratlos zurück. Warum streckt man die Progression nicht weiter (ggf. logarithmisch) bis zu 12% bei 1 Mrd.€? 🤷

  15. Et si vous construisez le budget de l'État vous-même ?
    Testez à quoi pourrait servir un impôt plus juste avec notre simulateur de budget.
    fsu.fr/a-quoi-pourrait-servir-
    #Budget2026 #TaxeZucman #FlatTax

  16. Selon les rapports du comité d'évaluation des réformes de la fiscalité du capital, la flat tax n'a eu aucun effet sur l'emploi et l'investissement mais a creusé les inégalités en faveur des ultra-riches.

    #JusticeFiscale #FlatTax

  17. Selon les rapports du comité d'évaluation des réformes de la fiscalité du capital, la flat tax n'a eu aucun effet sur l'emploi et l'investissement mais a creusé les inégalités en faveur des ultra-riches.

    #JusticeFiscale #FlatTax

  18. Selon les rapports du comité d'évaluation des réformes de la fiscalité du capital, la flat tax n'a eu aucun effet sur l'emploi et l'investissement mais a creusé les inégalités en faveur des ultra-riches.

    #JusticeFiscale #FlatTax

  19. Selon les rapports du comité d'évaluation des réformes de la fiscalité du capital, la flat tax n'a eu aucun effet sur l'emploi et l'investissement mais a creusé les inégalités en faveur des ultra-riches.

    #JusticeFiscale #FlatTax

  20. Selon les rapports du comité d'évaluation des réformes de la fiscalité du capital, la flat tax n'a eu aucun effet sur l'emploi et l'investissement mais a creusé les inégalités en faveur des ultra-riches.

    #JusticeFiscale #FlatTax

  21. Il faut rétablir la progressivité de l'imposition des revenus financiers en supprimant la flat tax

    Cela permettrait de mieux taxer les dividendes, qui ont explosé ces dernières années, et de faire en sorte que les revenus du capital cessent d'être moins taxés que ceux du travail

    #JusticeFiscale #FlatTax

  22. Il faut rétablir la progressivité de l'imposition des revenus financiers en supprimant la flat tax

    Cela permettrait de mieux taxer les dividendes, qui ont explosé ces dernières années, et de faire en sorte que les revenus du capital cessent d'être moins taxés que ceux du travail

    #JusticeFiscale #FlatTax

  23. Il faut rétablir la progressivité de l'imposition des revenus financiers en supprimant la flat tax

    Cela permettrait de mieux taxer les dividendes, qui ont explosé ces dernières années, et de faire en sorte que les revenus du capital cessent d'être moins taxés que ceux du travail

    #JusticeFiscale #FlatTax

  24. Il faut rétablir la progressivité de l'imposition des revenus financiers en supprimant la flat tax

    Cela permettrait de mieux taxer les dividendes, qui ont explosé ces dernières années, et de faire en sorte que les revenus du capital cessent d'être moins taxés que ceux du travail

    #JusticeFiscale #FlatTax

  25. Il faut rétablir la progressivité de l'imposition des revenus financiers en supprimant la flat tax

    Cela permettrait de mieux taxer les dividendes, qui ont explosé ces dernières années, et de faire en sorte que les revenus du capital cessent d'être moins taxés que ceux du travail

    #JusticeFiscale #FlatTax

  26. Firenze e Milano, capitali della rendita urbana
    La rendita è spesso definita come reddito “parassitario”. Infatti – a differenza del salario e del profitto (derivante dallo scambio commerciale) – essa rappresenta una forma di reddito no
    perunaltracitta.org/homepage/2
    #Apertura #FirenzeEDintorni #finanza #finanziarizzazione #firenze #FlatTax #MercatoImmobiliare #mercificazione #Milano #ModelloFirenze #renzi #urbansitica

  27. Italy’s Flat Tax Is Quietly Reshaping Its Real Estate Market

    Aerial photo shooting with drone on Milan Center, the central business area of the city with new ……
    #Italy #Europe #Europa #EU #flattax #hnwi #italy #propertyinvestment #realestate
    europesays.com/2252529/

  28. I'm peeking in on Booker's filibuster, realizing I wish I'd listened all night. Quite inspiring.

    He's speaking about who needs help in this nation. That seems to be a recurring theme.

    One of the underlying themes of all these cuts is that people shouldn't be "charged" ("taxed") for services they don't use. It sounds good in isolation, but on closer inspection, it's utterly preposterous. What they're saying is...

    ... that the only people who pay for very expensive diseases are those who get them.

    ... that the only people who pay for disaster recovery are those hit by disasters.

    ... that the only people who pay for police protection are those who violated -- or perhaps the only people who can afford police patrols.

    ... that the only people who pay for fire departments are those whose houses burn down.

    I could go on, but the point is that pay-per-service makes no sense for these. Instead...

    ... the only people who can afford to help people who are sick are those who can.

    ... the only people who can afford to help people who have lost everything in disasters are those who are not victims.

    ... the only time it makes sense to most of us to have the police patrol is BEFORE we are violated, robbed, or killed, and that we should not have to be rich to be protected.

    ... the only time it makes sense to have a fire department is BEFORE our homes burn, and our poor, who can barely afford to eat, should not have to shrug off protection of the fire department because they more needed food.

    Most of us WANT COMMUNITY, where the strong help the weak so that we can all survive. It's easy for the mega-rich to pay focus groups to come up with tricky messaging, or to pay Facebook to use The Algorithm to evolve and promote messaging that seduces people into thinking community just sucks out of us, giving nothing back. You CAN spin it that way, but it won't make it true.

    Even abroad, which is how this all started, where we were (and hopefully still are) helping others who could not help themselves, we are enriched by a world in which the overall standards of human existence are improved.

    Even if we had no religious or moral reason to just be kind, and we were totally mercenary and sociopathic (as the co-presidents are), being kind to other people makes them less likely to attack us and more likely to trade fairly with us. Ending kindness, behaving belligerently, invites bullets instead. Where is the ECONOMY in that? The SAFETY? Kindness, even to a sociopath (if they had a brain in their head) should be seen as BUYING us something.

    And our sociopathic oligarchic leaders, after gutting all of this stuff THEY feel the could buy off-the-shelf if they cared, will then turn to payment and suggest a flat tax because they hope poor people will demand a low tax hope that means they'll get one, too. There is NO justice in that, only regressive effect.

    "But it's our money," the rich will say. "Taxes are a taking, a robbing. You're just robbing me," they'll say. Not so. These people did not make this money in a vacuum. They're in denial about how...

    ... they benefited from having a fire department and police department to have a customer base and even their own factories that were safe to visit or work at.

    ... they have benefited from working in a country where they, their employees, and their customers were not routinely seeing bombs flying overhead.

    ... they have benefited from having a country where customers were basically healthy.

    ... they have benefited from the availability of many well-educated candidates for employment.

    ... they have benefited from having a population of customers who were healthy and had enough surplus of cash to buy their products.

    ... they have benefited from people being able to count on a dignified retirement. SO MUCH could be said about that, and perhaps I will on another day, but let me here just say that the availability of a safety net lets employees and their families focus on work rather than their own and their family's retirement.

    I could go on. but they have benefited from a society that was a COMMUNITY, where we pitched in together to make it a good place. And so to later say they did it on their own is, at minimum, the height of INGRATITUDE, and also really an outright, self-serving LIE.

    Taxation is NOT robbery. It is INVESTMENT, and an acknowledgment of the obvious: That in order to have a society where all can aspire to a decent life, we need to acknowledge that some people will pay a little more because they can afford more AND because they have benefited more.

    Here, if you're not already tired of reading my ramblings, I reference my 2011 essay "Enough", which I wrote in response to proposals at that time for a flat tax. It takes more about that.

    netsettlement.blogspot.com/201

    #BookerSolidarity #BookerFilibuster #SenatorBooker #SenatorCoryBooker #Booker #SocialSecurity #SS #Fascism #Oligarchy #GoodTrouble #USPolitics #politics #taxation #FlatTax

  29. I'm peeking in on Booker's filibuster, realizing I wish I'd listened all night. Quite inspiring.

    He's speaking about who needs help in this nation. That seems to be a recurring theme.

    One of the underlying themes of all these cuts is that people shouldn't be "charged" ("taxed") for services they don't use. It sounds good in isolation, but on closer inspection, it's utterly preposterous. What they're saying is...

    ... that the only people who pay for very expensive diseases are those who get them.

    ... that the only people who pay for disaster recovery are those hit by disasters.

    ... that the only people who pay for police protection are those who violated -- or perhaps the only people who can afford police patrols.

    ... that the only people who pay for fire departments are those whose houses burn down.

    I could go on, but the point is that pay-per-service makes no sense for these. Instead...

    ... the only people who can afford to help people who are sick are those who can.

    ... the only people who can afford to help people who have lost everything in disasters are those who are not victims.

    ... the only time it makes sense to most of us to have the police patrol is BEFORE we are violated, robbed, or killed, and that we should not have to be rich to be protected.

    ... the only time it makes sense to have a fire department is BEFORE our homes burn, and our poor, who can barely afford to eat, should not have to shrug off protection of the fire department because they more needed food.

    Most of us WANT COMMUNITY, where the strong help the weak so that we can all survive. It's easy for the mega-rich to pay focus groups to come up with tricky messaging, or to pay Facebook to use The Algorithm to evolve and promote messaging that seduces people into thinking community just sucks out of us, giving nothing back. You CAN spin it that way, but it won't make it true.

    Even abroad, which is how this all started, where we were (and hopefully still are) helping others who could not help themselves, we are enriched by a world in which the overall standards of human existence are improved.

    Even if we had no religious or moral reason to just be kind, and we were totally mercenary and sociopathic (as the co-presidents are), being kind to other people makes them less likely to attack us and more likely to trade fairly with us. Ending kindness, behaving belligerently, invites bullets instead. Where is the ECONOMY in that? The SAFETY? Kindness, even to a sociopath (if they had a brain in their head) should be seen as BUYING us something.

    And our sociopathic oligarchic leaders, after gutting all of this stuff THEY feel the could buy off-the-shelf if they cared, will then turn to payment and suggest a flat tax because they hope poor people will demand a low tax hope that means they'll get one, too. There is NO justice in that, only regressive effect.

    "But it's our money," the rich will say. "Taxes are a taking, a robbing. You're just robbing me," they'll say. Not so. These people did not make this money in a vacuum. They're in denial about how...

    ... they benefited from having a fire department and police department to have a customer base and even their own factories that were safe to visit or work at.

    ... they have benefited from working in a country where they, their employees, and their customers were not routinely seeing bombs flying overhead.

    ... they have benefited from having a country where customers were basically healthy.

    ... they have benefited from the availability of many well-educated candidates for employment.

    ... they have benefited from having a population of customers who were healthy and had enough surplus of cash to buy their products.

    ... they have benefited from people being able to count on a dignified retirement. SO MUCH could be said about that, and perhaps I will on another day, but let me here just say that the availability of a safety net lets employees and their families focus on work rather than their own and their family's retirement.

    I could go on. but they have benefited from a society that was a COMMUNITY, where we pitched in together to make it a good place. And so to later say they did it on their own is, at minimum, the height of INGRATITUDE, and also really an outright, self-serving LIE.

    Taxation is NOT robbery. It is INVESTMENT, and an acknowledgment of the obvious: That in order to have a society where all can aspire to a decent life, we need to acknowledge that some people will pay a little more because they can afford more AND because they have benefited more.

    Here, if you're not already tired of reading my ramblings, I reference my 2011 essay "Enough", which I wrote in response to proposals at that time for a flat tax. It takes more about that.

    netsettlement.blogspot.com/201

    #BookerSolidarity #BookerFilibuster #SenatorBooker #SenatorCoryBooker #Booker #SocialSecurity #SS #Fascism #Oligarchy #GoodTrouble #USPolitics #politics #taxation #FlatTax

  30. I'm peeking in on Booker's filibuster, realizing I wish I'd listened all night. Quite inspiring.

    He's speaking about who needs help in this nation. That seems to be a recurring theme.

    One of the underlying themes of all these cuts is that people shouldn't be "charged" ("taxed") for services they don't use. It sounds good in isolation, but on closer inspection, it's utterly preposterous. What they're saying is...

    ... that the only people who pay for very expensive diseases are those who get them.

    ... that the only people who pay for disaster recovery are those hit by disasters.

    ... that the only people who pay for police protection are those who violated -- or perhaps the only people who can afford police patrols.

    ... that the only people who pay for fire departments are those whose houses burn down.

    I could go on, but the point is that pay-per-service makes no sense for these. Instead...

    ... the only people who can afford to help people who are sick are those who can.

    ... the only people who can afford to help people who have lost everything in disasters are those who are not victims.

    ... the only time it makes sense to most of us to have the police patrol is BEFORE we are violated, robbed, or killed, and that we should not have to be rich to be protected.

    ... the only time it makes sense to have a fire department is BEFORE our homes burn, and our poor, who can barely afford to eat, should not have to shrug off protection of the fire department because they more needed food.

    Most of us WANT COMMUNITY, where the strong help the weak so that we can all survive. It's easy for the mega-rich to pay focus groups to come up with tricky messaging, or to pay Facebook to use The Algorithm to evolve and promote messaging that seduces people into thinking community just sucks out of us, giving nothing back. You CAN spin it that way, but it won't make it true.

    Even abroad, which is how this all started, where we were (and hopefully still are) helping others who could not help themselves, we are enriched by a world in which the overall standards of human existence are improved.

    Even if we had no religious or moral reason to just be kind, and we were totally mercenary and sociopathic (as the co-presidents are), being kind to other people makes them less likely to attack us and more likely to trade fairly with us. Ending kindness, behaving belligerently, invites bullets instead. Where is the ECONOMY in that? The SAFETY? Kindness, even to a sociopath (if they had a brain in their head) should be seen as BUYING us something.

    And our sociopathic oligarchic leaders, after gutting all of this stuff THEY feel the could buy off-the-shelf if they cared, will then turn to payment and suggest a flat tax because they hope poor people will demand a low tax hope that means they'll get one, too. There is NO justice in that, only regressive effect.

    "But it's our money," the rich will say. "Taxes are a taking, a robbing. You're just robbing me," they'll say. Not so. These people did not make this money in a vacuum. They're in denial about how...

    ... they benefited from having a fire department and police department to have a customer base and even their own factories that were safe to visit or work at.

    ... they have benefited from working in a country where they, their employees, and their customers were not routinely seeing bombs flying overhead.

    ... they have benefited from having a country where customers were basically healthy.

    ... they have benefited from the availability of many well-educated candidates for employment.

    ... they have benefited from having a population of customers who were healthy and had enough surplus of cash to buy their products.

    ... they have benefited from people being able to count on a dignified retirement. SO MUCH could be said about that, and perhaps I will on another day, but let me here just say that the availability of a safety net lets employees and their families focus on work rather than their own and their family's retirement.

    I could go on. but they have benefited from a society that was a COMMUNITY, where we pitched in together to make it a good place. And so to later say they did it on their own is, at minimum, the height of INGRATITUDE, and also really an outright, self-serving LIE.

    Taxation is NOT robbery. It is INVESTMENT, and an acknowledgment of the obvious: That in order to have a society where all can aspire to a decent life, we need to acknowledge that some people will pay a little more because they can afford more AND because they have benefited more.

    Here, if you're not already tired of reading my ramblings, I reference my 2011 essay "Enough", which I wrote in response to proposals at that time for a flat tax. It takes more about that.

    netsettlement.blogspot.com/201

    #BookerSolidarity #BookerFilibuster #SenatorBooker #SenatorCoryBooker #Booker #SocialSecurity #SS #Fascism #Oligarchy #GoodTrouble #USPolitics #politics #taxation #FlatTax

  31. I'm peeking in on Booker's filibuster, realizing I wish I'd listened all night. Quite inspiring.

    He's speaking about who needs help in this nation. That seems to be a recurring theme.

    One of the underlying themes of all these cuts is that people shouldn't be "charged" ("taxed") for services they don't use. It sounds good in isolation, but on closer inspection, it's utterly preposterous. What they're saying is...

    ... that the only people who pay for very expensive diseases are those who get them.

    ... that the only people who pay for disaster recovery are those hit by disasters.

    ... that the only people who pay for police protection are those who violated -- or perhaps the only people who can afford police patrols.

    ... that the only people who pay for fire departments are those whose houses burn down.

    I could go on, but the point is that pay-per-service makes no sense for these. Instead...

    ... the only people who can afford to help people who are sick are those who can.

    ... the only people who can afford to help people who have lost everything in disasters are those who are not victims.

    ... the only time it makes sense to most of us to have the police patrol is BEFORE we are violated, robbed, or killed, and that we should not have to be rich to be protected.

    ... the only time it makes sense to have a fire department is BEFORE our homes burn, and our poor, who can barely afford to eat, should not have to shrug off protection of the fire department because they more needed food.

    Most of us WANT COMMUNITY, where the strong help the weak so that we can all survive. It's easy for the mega-rich to pay focus groups to come up with tricky messaging, or to pay Facebook to use The Algorithm to evolve and promote messaging that seduces people into thinking community just sucks out of us, giving nothing back. You CAN spin it that way, but it won't make it true.

    Even abroad, which is how this all started, where we were (and hopefully still are) helping others who could not help themselves, we are enriched by a world in which the overall standards of human existence are improved.

    Even if we had no religious or moral reason to just be kind, and we were totally mercenary and sociopathic (as the co-presidents are), being kind to other people makes them less likely to attack us and more likely to trade fairly with us. Ending kindness, behaving belligerently, invites bullets instead. Where is the ECONOMY in that? The SAFETY? Kindness, even to a sociopath (if they had a brain in their head) should be seen as BUYING us something.

    And our sociopathic oligarchic leaders, after gutting all of this stuff THEY feel the could buy off-the-shelf if they cared, will then turn to payment and suggest a flat tax because they hope poor people will demand a low tax hope that means they'll get one, too. There is NO justice in that, only regressive effect.

    "But it's our money," the rich will say. "Taxes are a taking, a robbing. You're just robbing me," they'll say. Not so. These people did not make this money in a vacuum. They're in denial about how...

    ... they benefited from having a fire department and police department to have a customer base and even their own factories that were safe to visit or work at.

    ... they have benefited from working in a country where they, their employees, and their customers were not routinely seeing bombs flying overhead.

    ... they have benefited from having a country where customers were basically healthy.

    ... they have benefited from the availability of many well-educated candidates for employment.

    ... they have benefited from having a population of customers who were healthy and had enough surplus of cash to buy their products.

    ... they have benefited from people being able to count on a dignified retirement. SO MUCH could be said about that, and perhaps I will on another day, but let me here just say that the availability of a safety net lets employees and their families focus on work rather than their own and their family's retirement.

    I could go on. but they have benefited from a society that was a COMMUNITY, where we pitched in together to make it a good place. And so to later say they did it on their own is, at minimum, the height of INGRATITUDE, and also really an outright, self-serving LIE.

    Taxation is NOT robbery. It is INVESTMENT, and an acknowledgment of the obvious: That in order to have a society where all can aspire to a decent life, we need to acknowledge that some people will pay a little more because they can afford more AND because they have benefited more.

    Here, if you're not already tired of reading my ramblings, I reference my 2011 essay "Enough", which I wrote in response to proposals at that time for a flat tax. It takes more about that.

    netsettlement.blogspot.com/201

    #BookerSolidarity #BookerFilibuster #SenatorBooker #SenatorCoryBooker #Booker #SocialSecurity #SS #Fascism #Oligarchy #GoodTrouble #USPolitics #politics #taxation #FlatTax

  32. I'm peeking in on Booker's filibuster, realizing I wish I'd listened all night. Quite inspiring.

    He's speaking about who needs help in this nation. That seems to be a recurring theme.

    One of the underlying themes of all these cuts is that people shouldn't be "charged" ("taxed") for services they don't use. It sounds good in isolation, but on closer inspection, it's utterly preposterous. What they're saying is...

    ... that the only people who pay for very expensive diseases are those who get them.

    ... that the only people who pay for disaster recovery are those hit by disasters.

    ... that the only people who pay for police protection are those who violated -- or perhaps the only people who can afford police patrols.

    ... that the only people who pay for fire departments are those whose houses burn down.

    I could go on, but the point is that pay-per-service makes no sense for these. Instead...

    ... the only people who can afford to help people who are sick are those who can.

    ... the only people who can afford to help people who have lost everything in disasters are those who are not victims.

    ... the only time it makes sense to most of us to have the police patrol is BEFORE we are violated, robbed, or killed, and that we should not have to be rich to be protected.

    ... the only time it makes sense to have a fire department is BEFORE our homes burn, and our poor, who can barely afford to eat, should not have to shrug off protection of the fire department because they more needed food.

    Most of us WANT COMMUNITY, where the strong help the weak so that we can all survive. It's easy for the mega-rich to pay focus groups to come up with tricky messaging, or to pay Facebook to use The Algorithm to evolve and promote messaging that seduces people into thinking community just sucks out of us, giving nothing back. You CAN spin it that way, but it won't make it true.

    Even abroad, which is how this all started, where we were (and hopefully still are) helping others who could not help themselves, we are enriched by a world in which the overall standards of human existence are improved.

    Even if we had no religious or moral reason to just be kind, and we were totally mercenary and sociopathic (as the co-presidents are), being kind to other people makes them less likely to attack us and more likely to trade fairly with us. Ending kindness, behaving belligerently, invites bullets instead. Where is the ECONOMY in that? The SAFETY? Kindness, even to a sociopath (if they had a brain in their head) should be seen as BUYING us something.

    And our sociopathic oligarchic leaders, after gutting all of this stuff THEY feel the could buy off-the-shelf if they cared, will then turn to payment and suggest a flat tax because they hope poor people will demand a low tax hope that means they'll get one, too. There is NO justice in that, only regressive effect.

    "But it's our money," the rich will say. "Taxes are a taking, a robbing. You're just robbing me," they'll say. Not so. These people did not make this money in a vacuum. They're in denial about how...

    ... they benefited from having a fire department and police department to have a customer base and even their own factories that were safe to visit or work at.

    ... they have benefited from working in a country where they, their employees, and their customers were not routinely seeing bombs flying overhead.

    ... they have benefited from having a country where customers were basically healthy.

    ... they have benefited from the availability of many well-educated candidates for employment.

    ... they have benefited from having a population of customers who were healthy and had enough surplus of cash to buy their products.

    ... they have benefited from people being able to count on a dignified retirement. SO MUCH could be said about that, and perhaps I will on another day, but let me here just say that the availability of a safety net lets employees and their families focus on work rather than their own and their family's retirement.

    I could go on. but they have benefited from a society that was a COMMUNITY, where we pitched in together to make it a good place. And so to later say they did it on their own is, at minimum, the height of INGRATITUDE, and also really an outright, self-serving LIE.

    Taxation is NOT robbery. It is INVESTMENT, and an acknowledgment of the obvious: That in order to have a society where all can aspire to a decent life, we need to acknowledge that some people will pay a little more because they can afford more AND because they have benefited more.

    Here, if you're not already tired of reading my ramblings, I reference my 2011 essay "Enough", which I wrote in response to proposals at that time for a flat tax. It takes more about that.

    netsettlement.blogspot.com/201

    #BookerSolidarity #BookerFilibuster #SenatorBooker #SenatorCoryBooker #Booker #SocialSecurity #SS #Fascism #Oligarchy #GoodTrouble #USPolitics #politics #taxation #FlatTax

  33. #PFDcuts and a flat rate income tax both raise the same amount of rev. #PFDcuts do it by taking most from middle & lower-income #AKfams, while the Top20% & #NonRez dodge. A #FlatTax does it by taking the same broadly from ALL #AKfams + #NonRez. Why is #akleg SenFin using the first? buff.ly/3XufH58