The general structure is that all businesses rely on the government to maintain the courts and enforce contracts, and they are all built upon public commons. Taxation is not theft, pay your share.
Entrepreneurialism is at an all-time low in this low-tax, finance-happy environment, so I don't see how you can conclude that low taxes are good for creativity. It seems like it's been pretty good for concentration - low taxes means more money for acquisitions and buybacks.
I never said taxation was theft or that taxes shouldn't exist. I said that private ownership of property was good for creativity, this is independent of taxation. You can pay taxes and still own things. Indeed, we do.
You seem to be proposing that taxation is an unalloyed good and that more taxation is always better - that all problems are the result of insufficient taxation. Do you have any actual plan for how to spend all this money you propose to collect in taxes, or do you just want to throw more money at the people who are currently doing a bad job with the money they already have?
That seems like a straw man of my position. Suggesting that we tax the wealth of the richest person in the country is not a radical idea, nor is it equivalent to "taxation is an unalloyed good". Likewise, nothing I said conflicts with the idea that private ownership of property is good, generally. Just that inequality is bad, and taxation is a primary way to address it. If you don't think taxation is theft, then it's just negotiating the number, and I don't understand what point you are trying to make other than "government bad".
> Do you have any actual plan for how to spend all this money you propose to collect in taxes, or do you just want to throw more money at the people who are currently doing a bad job with the money they already have?
Sure, but I'm not running for office, because "small government conservatives" and their presumptions make it absolutely miserable for anyone who would do a good job of it. You can burn the money in a furnace for all I care, as long as the ratio between the richest and poorest goes down substantially.
> You can burn the money in a furnace for all I care, as long as the ratio between the richest and poorest goes down substantially.
How does making everyone worse off make things better? For example, inequality skyrocketed in China after they liberalized their economy [0]. Why would it be better for everyone to be equally miserable and starving? I really don't understand this mentality.
Why would burning some marginal percentage of the very wealthiest individuals' money make everyone worse off? Seems like it would just put a slight damper on the inflation rate of country estates and enormous yachts.
(Heck, for all intents and purposes given the high marginal tax rates in many countries and the enormous amounts of waste that those governments are guilty of we're already doing just that, and the last 80ish years of human history have been pretty darn good!)
Taxation to pay 1. “your fair share of the public commons”, which all big businesses benefit from, is very different from 2. taxation to reduce poverty, which is also different from 3. taxation to eliminate rich people.
Am I wrong in sensing that you believe in a bit of #3?
Entrepreneurialism is at an all-time low in this low-tax, finance-happy environment, so I don't see how you can conclude that low taxes are good for creativity. It seems like it's been pretty good for concentration - low taxes means more money for acquisitions and buybacks.