🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@opendna @pmonks @QasimRashid

The Dutch taxes on the highest tax bracket is also highly abusive. So not sure thats a great comparison.

@hanchmanj @pmonks

Yea thats nonsense. They arent cheating on their taxes as employees. They are usually working under the table or not reporting side income and stuff like that. Everytime you see someome on the street selling food or washing your car or any of the many hard working services people do to make money independently, its almost never reported to taxes.

@utterfiction @pmonks

So no profit maximizers and wealth generators are very different things, though a person may be both.

The reason you dont see them as expanding the economy is because wealth can be destroyed too. You have wealth generators and wealth destroyers and these forces cancel eachother. So overall you may not see the economy grow even kf an individual is generating a lot of wealth

@utterfiction @pmonks

No insaid nothing about taxes redistributing wealth. I only pointed out that the rich people, who got rich by being good wealth generators, shoukd not be taxed an abusive rate in the 90s.

Whether what is abusively taken from them is used to redistribute money is secondary to my concerns at best.

@utterfiction @pmonks

No one said anything about wealth being equivelant to profit... what are you talking

When i turn a pile of sand i to a piece of glass ive created wealth, i own that wealth, and this is true regardless of if i ever sell that piece of glass or not. It has nothing to do with profit except that selling the glass and converti g the wealth i made into cash .eans i can buy more sand, make more glass, and generate more wealth.

@pmonks

What your missing is these people where wealth concentrates are also the people resonsible for creating much of that same wealth.

So i have no issue with someone having way more wealth than everyone else when that wealth only exists because of thrm in thr first place. It isnt a pie they are stealing more from, they literally are baking the pies.

@MelodyCooper @pies @zack

More guns dont stop all forms of violence.. the presence of guns are preventing coubtless rapes and violent acts many before they even start as a deterrant.

So yes while you eliminate guns all your doing is eliminating some home murders with guns, replacing it with murders by other means and then adding countless new rapes and murders on top.

It shouldnt be hard to see how a murder witb a gun simply gets replaces with a murder with a knife, 2 rapings, and a strangle.

@jaysonmassey what arr you talking about, no one asked you to explain anything. You are welcome to debate if you want, you also dont have to... but everything you wrote was **actually** read. If you feel something was twisted feel free to speak up but i dont see anything you said getting twisted.

@pies @MelodyCooper @zack

Because correlation isnt causation. When you analyze the data using causation tests llike granger the pattern becomes clear, which is the correct way to analyze the data.

No simply injecting guns till you reach p doesnt worth, the relationship is clearly going to be nonlinear.

@johnabs absolutely gorgeous!

@pies @zack @MelodyCooper

How many times do people need to tell you correlation isnt causation before yiu get it?

@pmonks

Yea its 3.3m your right there.

Wealth is not a pie, some having more doesnt mesn others have less. So its hard for me to see someone who generates wealth unethical. That say the system does have inequality issues to be addressed.

As for rich people avoiding taxes, i usually find its kore so the other way around, usually the poor and middle class seem to lie, avoid, and cover up taxes when they can far more often than the rich. Id like so find some good numbers on that though, just from what Ive seen.

@pies @MelodyCooper @zack

Yes as i explained to you earlier why you were looking at the dats erroneously in the regard and how to correct it. Your incorrect approach of conflating correlation with causation from the start will usually lead to bad conclusions as it just did for you.

Woukd be happy to explore some valid analysis with you as I offered many times already. I suspect you arent arguing in good faith though.

@pies

That reply was to melody not you.

@MelodyCooper @zack

1. It was hovering in thr 90s fkr about 10 years

2. Actually closer to 2 mil or 2.5 mil and yes im aware, so. Its an abusive tax rate in my eyes regardless of how rich someone being taxed it might be.

As i said no one, including the incredibly wealthy, should ever be taxed at such an abusive rate.

@pmonks yes.. that doesnt disagree with what i said.

If you want to talk in math terms.. as your income approaches infinity what does your effective tax rate approach? It approaches the 20%, or in the real world case 94, like I said.

@pmonks @QasimRashid

Please feel free to explain specifically where you think i went wrong. I deal with these sorts of taxes daily as the EVP of a company.

@pmonks

Yes I am well aware how income tax works. But yes as you get father above the 200K bracket the closeryoull get to 94%. So yes you have tax rates abusively high for the rich that can approach 94%, if your rich enough you are effecitvely paying 94%.

@QasimRashid