Taxes, and the case of the helpful billionare

As I've discussed the idea of taxing the rich more, there has been some, well, pushback.

That these people are paying more than their fair share, that they provide all of the income for the government, etc, etc.

Here's the thing, the fundamental things - whenever a rich person it taxed almost any percentage of taxes, they will have more than enough income to live on

Furthermore, let's assume that Biden's 15 dollar an hour minimum wage passes - that's 15 dollars times an average workweek of 40 hours, multiplied by four for your gross monthly income

That's approximately $2400, so, to deduct that 50% income tax, you get 1,200 dollars. According to Statistica, in January of 2021 (the last recorded data point), that is an overall cost of $1,124... so - rent - costs nearly your entire gross monthly salary - and that's not even considering if you have kids, or any other bills you have to pay, like internet, car insurance, health insurance, utilities, etc, etc. And this is all presuming that the minimum wage is increased to 15 dollars an hour. 

According to Pew. Research and Business Insider, the median interest of the group considered the "rich" is $187,872 - to be charitable, we'll round down to 185,000 dollars annually. So dividing that number in half, we get 92,500 annually, and 7,708 monthly.. which, is enough to pay what Statistica reports as the average rent for a house of more than 5 people, more than four times over

so- to say that a tax will affect each level of income earner the same is to not understand what fractions can do to different proportions. This is, fundamentally why, the rich ought to be taxed more than the poor.

Not to make them also struggle, but to overcome this basic principle of proportionality. 

In reviewing the neuroanatomical and physiological evidence in the fetus, it was apparent thatconnections from the periphery to the cortex are not intact before 24 weeks of gestation and,as most neuroscientists believe that the cortex is necessary for pain perception, it can beconcluded that the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior to this gestation. After 24weeks there is continuing development and elaboration of intracortical networks such thatnoxious stimuli in newborn preterm infants produce cortical responses. Such connections tothe cortex are necessary for pain experience but not sufficient, as experience of external stimulirequires consciousness. Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that the fetus neverexperiences a state of true wakefulness in utero and is kept, by the presence of its chemicalenvironment, in a continuous sleep-like unconsciousness or sedation. This state can suppresshigher cortical activation in the presence of intrusive external stimuli. This observationhighlights the important differences between fetal and neonatal life and the difficulties ofextrapolating from observations made in newborn preterm infants to the fetus.

Umm... a lot of these responses are irrelevant and in response to snippets that are out of context

or at the very least your response is framed as a response to something which the quoted portion is not trying to establish.

You've also made some claims... um, prove it,

and lastly - yes - we should declare what is "enough" - certainly we should

and we should certainly fight back against exploitative capitalism being described as income that someone "deserved".

Tell me, why is trading stocks worth more than teaching young people?

Or surgery or things that actually benefit society?

Such a thing is quite arbitrary, and the mere fact that someone is wealthy does not mean that they "earned" that wealth. 

Furthermore, let's assume that Biden's 15 dollar an hour minimum wage passes - that's 15 dollars times an average workweek of 40 hours, multiplied by four for your gross monthly income

That would only create unemployment.

So because it generates more commerce its worth more?

Uhuh - I suppose I don't have to remind you of the economic arguments for slavery, do I? Or forcibly starving people?

The mere fact that doing something creates more profit means nothing in regards to its actual worth to society, please do explain how trading stocks benefits societies, I wait with bated breath.

The point wasn't advocating for Joe's bill, the point was that even given a thing that's not true, most poor people can't generate enough wealth to pay for basic necessities. Its such an obtuse thing to get wrong, I scarcely believe that you're doing it unintentionally

Exploitative Capitilism? Let me think - monopolizing an industry effectively eliminating any other prices for a product

not allowing workers to form worker unions,

general concept of never receiving the full worth of their labour?

All of the above, and the easy answer is easy, just give 'em what they need to live for free.

How do you "gauge" wealth - three questions buckaroo - "How many times over could that dude afford housing?" "How much surplus money does that dude have after paying ever basic utility?" and "how many zeroes are at the end of that check?"

It's pretty easy, they do it to poor people all the time, frightened at the prospect of rich people getting it done to them?s

As for the claim? "That would create unemployment",  bud

Um.... yes - slavery was fundamentally a capitalistic venture, it was a way to have labour for free drastically increasing profit margins.

And trading stock helps facilitate new goods and products, oh look how the competition helps increase the quality of goods... not - a majority of any profits derived from stock trading is taken as personal profit, the meandering stuff used in actual development might as well be the light bulb industry (constantly decreasing in quality)

Did... you seriously just ask that question? "what industries become monopolies in capitalism?" I'm not designing that one with a response - well - not a sentence response - just a name: Rockafeller.

Because worker unions want better working conditions, more pay, etc - all of which take from the bottom line of profit, something pure capitalism is against.

Does a worker who makes, grows, whatever, some good get all of the pay for the full worth of that thing? I.e - does a McDonald employee get paid for every burger they make? Well no - because its not really a labour system - fundamentally speaking - you aren't paying workers what they make... literally. 

How do you gauge one's "earnings" of wealth? Um... how much did that person tangibly contribute to society? Like, actually contribute? 

Funny that argument there - did you know that was the exact same argument people used against there being a minimum wage?

Do you know what the easy solution there is bud? Companies literally have to pay 15 dollars at a minimum, that just means rising the amount they pay - do you think that thousands of companies are just going to be "okay then, if you won't work for 7:50, then you won't work at all!" of course freaken' not - that would be incredibly stupid.

The problem with your argument is that its purely theoretical...ya know how i know that?

Because we've seen it FAIL BEFORE. 

"By 1880, Standard Oil owned or controlled 90 percent of the U.S. oil refining business, making it the first great industrial monopoly in the world. But in achieving this position, Standard violated its Ohio charter, which prohibited the company from doing business outside the state. Rockefeller and his associates decided to move Standard Oil from Cleveland to New York City and to form a new type of business organization called a "trust.""

24weeks there is continuing development and elaboration of intracortical networks such thatnoxious stimuli in newborn preterm infants produce cortical responses. Such connections tothe cortex are necessary for pain experience but not sufficient, as experience of external stimulirequires consciousness. Furthermore, there is increasing evidence that the fetus neverexperiences a state of true wakefulness in utero and is kept, by the presence of its chemicalenvironment, in a continuous sleep-like unconsciousness or sedation. This state can suppresshigher cortical activation in the presence of intrusive external stimuli. This observationhighlights the important differences between fetal and neonatal life and the difficulties ofextrapolating from observations made in newborn preterm infants to the fetus.

in a gestational window of 12–24 weeks

A fetus cannot feel pain, they are ony reacting to stimuli.  A heel prick from a needle used for amniocentesis, for example, can result in the fetus recoiling, much as an adult would to a painful pinprick.

Studies have shown, however, that the recoil is more of a reflex controlled by the “lower brain” (which is involved with more base functions like breathing than with consciousness) or the spinal cord and does not necessarily reflect an experience of pain. In fact, the same response can be seen in anencephalic infants, who are born missing large parts of the brain. As the JAMA review explains: “[F]lexion withdrawal from tactile stimuli is a noncortical spinal reflex exhibited by infants with anencephaly and by individuals in a persistent vegetative state who lack cortical function.”

Put another way, the experience of pain is different from what is known as nociception. Nociception refers to the body’s ability to perceive harm — this can be achieved below the level of consciousness, as with reflexes. A paper published in 2001 in the journal Bioethics explains the difference: “[W]hile nociception is neural activity, pain is an unpleasant feeling. It follows that while pain requires some level of consciousness, nociception does not.”