>This limit can very well be a million or a few millions.
An income tax rate of 80 percent on any income bracket is extremely heavy according to my definition of a 'heavy tax', as is a tax amounting to 2-10% of the value of privately owned assets. His proposal is of the typical disastrous socialist variety that show an utter misunderstanding of how capital is formed.
>You are circumventing the basic question. From where property came from? Did individual said "Let there be property" and property came into existence?
>No, property is a result of individual's or an organized group's utilization of natural or human resources.
Acquiring property is a result of an individual utilizing their own property, or the human resources that others freely give them, in a manner that generates value.
Piketty's proposal is to violate people's human rights. The fact that it's done through taxation rather than communist-style expropriation of the means of production doesn't change that.
>We are discussing taxation of higher income not some petty transaction between individual player. However,
The principle doesn't change because the values involved increase. A sound principle is universal, and not arbitrarily stop being morally applicable due to considerations relating to the sum involved. There is no sound principle for a tax on income or private property.
>if we take your argument to its logical conclusion and imagine a billion dollar Multi-National making the same argument that I am just bartering few thousand tonnes of clay with few hundred tonnes of seashell so we aren't responsible for soil erosion and extinction of species.
But I used clay as my example because it is abundant.
If we are going to change the fundamental premise of the example, and assume a scarce natural resource is being appropriated, then society could certainly charge a fee for the act of appropriating the natural resource.
Let's say that each tonne of iron ore extracted from the crust costs society $10.00 in diminishment of natural resources, and in environmental damage. Let's say society charges an iron ore miner $50 to extract a tonne of iron ore, to compensate for these costs.
Now if the iron ore miner pays the fee, mines the ore, smelts the iron, and fashions the iron into an incredible machine, you have absolutely no right to what the machine produces. An income tax is not a tax on using scarce natural resources, or a charge for damaging the environment. It is robbery against someone successfully generating economic value. It is a human rights violation.
> If we are going to change the fundamental premise of the example, and assume a scarce natural resource is being appropriated, then society could certainly charge a fee for the act of appropriating the natural resource.
and from your comment elsewhere.
> The homestead principle is based on the notion that if something is unclaimed, and someone adds value to it, they should be able to enjoy the full benefit of that value-added thing.
What resources are not scarce in your view? If a forest is unclaimed and then I should be allowed to claim and cut it to produce valuable furniture and keep all the profit to me. Noting available on this earth is unlimited or free.
> A sound principle is universal, and not arbitrarily stop being morally applicable due to considerations relating to the sum involved. There is no sound principle for a tax on income or private property.
Universal Principal is progressive taxation, and tax rate is determined by scale of operation. An individual making furniture out of unclaimed wood cannot be compared to an industrial scale operation resulting in deforestation and they cannot be taxed on the same rate.
> Now if the iron ore miner pays the fee, mines the ore, smelts the iron, and fashions the iron into an incredible machine, you have absolutely no right to what the machine produces. An income tax is not a tax on using scarce natural resources, or a charge for damaging the environment. It is robbery against someone successfully generating economic value. It is a human rights violation.
Ok what this hypothetical machine is going to produce?
You have also chosen not to reply back to other data points so I will leave the argument here. What is your on Warren Buffet's observation or tax rates vs. employment data.
Charging a fee for appropriating natural resources can be fully justified, but whether a fee is charged comes down to practicality.
Example: it's not practical to charge every individual camper a fee for every piece of obsidian they find. While scarce, the amount of obsidian they stand to find and take is so small, that the cost of enforcing the tax would far exceed the cost to society of them depriving us of the natural resource. Moreover, the amount they're taking is so small that the actual fee they would have to pay society to compensate it for the appropriation of this natural resource would be close to zero.
>What resources are not scarce in your view? If a forest is unclaimed and then I should be allowed to claim and cut it to produce valuable furniture and keep all the profit to me. Noting available on this earth is unlimited or free.
You should have to pay society for the value of the trees you're cutting down, and the cost you're incurring upon society through the harm the tree-cutting does to the rest of the forest. Society is also fully within its rights to reserve some areas of the forest to maintain the ecosystem.
>Universal Principal is progressive taxation, and tax rate is determined by scale of operation.
There is no universal principle behind an income tax. You yourself said it doesn't apply to petty transactions involving me trading a clay figurine for sea shells. It's not universal. It's arbitrary gouging of those with the most to tax.
>An individual making furniture out of unclaimed wood cannot be compared to an industrial scale operation resulting in deforestation and they cannot be taxed on the same rate.
Morally there's no qualitative difference. 1 billion individual furniture makers cutting down 1 tree each does exactly the same amount of damage as one company cutting down 1 billion trees. It's the natural resources that should be taxed, not the people.
>Ok what this hypothetical machine is going to produce?
This hypothetical machine produces information. It's a computer. It sells computations. It is powered by solar panels that are on land that I'm renting from the government.
I've paid for the cost of the natural resources I'm using (iron ore and sunlight I'm using up). The iron ore and energy is legitimately mine. You have no right to the value I generate using these inputs.
> This hypothetical machine produces information. It's a computer. It sells computations. It is powered by solar panels that are on land that I'm renting from the government.
I am glad you elaborated. So how this information is produced. In order to produce the information, you will rely on the works of centuries of collaborating between individual and groups. You will use that for free to produce value and then sell it on price of your choosing?
I am not against Capitalism. On the contrary, I hate collectivism with passion. Argument in favor of progressive taxation does not mean we are heading towards communism.You constantly use tangible and intangible resources from society without paying for them and right taxation is necessary to keep providing you those resources.
>I am glad you elaborated. So how this information is produced. In order to produce the information, you will rely on the works of centuries of collaborating between individual and groups.
That information is freely available. And making use of it and generating value for myself does not make me indebted to you and does not give you a right to use violent force to compel me to forfeit this share of my income that you think I owe you.
An income tax rate of 80 percent on any income bracket is extremely heavy according to my definition of a 'heavy tax', as is a tax amounting to 2-10% of the value of privately owned assets. His proposal is of the typical disastrous socialist variety that show an utter misunderstanding of how capital is formed.
>You are circumventing the basic question. From where property came from? Did individual said "Let there be property" and property came into existence?
You didn't ask that question. I answered it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12829401
>No, property is a result of individual's or an organized group's utilization of natural or human resources.
Acquiring property is a result of an individual utilizing their own property, or the human resources that others freely give them, in a manner that generates value.
Piketty's proposal is to violate people's human rights. The fact that it's done through taxation rather than communist-style expropriation of the means of production doesn't change that.
>We are discussing taxation of higher income not some petty transaction between individual player. However,
The principle doesn't change because the values involved increase. A sound principle is universal, and not arbitrarily stop being morally applicable due to considerations relating to the sum involved. There is no sound principle for a tax on income or private property.
>if we take your argument to its logical conclusion and imagine a billion dollar Multi-National making the same argument that I am just bartering few thousand tonnes of clay with few hundred tonnes of seashell so we aren't responsible for soil erosion and extinction of species.
But I used clay as my example because it is abundant.
If we are going to change the fundamental premise of the example, and assume a scarce natural resource is being appropriated, then society could certainly charge a fee for the act of appropriating the natural resource.
Let's say that each tonne of iron ore extracted from the crust costs society $10.00 in diminishment of natural resources, and in environmental damage. Let's say society charges an iron ore miner $50 to extract a tonne of iron ore, to compensate for these costs.
Now if the iron ore miner pays the fee, mines the ore, smelts the iron, and fashions the iron into an incredible machine, you have absolutely no right to what the machine produces. An income tax is not a tax on using scarce natural resources, or a charge for damaging the environment. It is robbery against someone successfully generating economic value. It is a human rights violation.