Interesting or ironic?

[sdduuuude]

I think you’d be hard-pressed to find any capitalist that even hints at the idea that the top consumers have superior morals. You’ve pulled that comment out of your ass and should probably put it back.

[Aecetia]

You forgot to put Al Gore and his large carbon foot print on the list of gross consumers.

[Aecetia]

You forgot to put Al Gore and his large carbon foot print on the list of gross consumers.

[Aecetia]

You forgot to put Al Gore and his large carbon foot print on the list of gross consumers.

[Aecetia]

You forgot to put Al Gore and his large carbon foot print on the list of gross consumers.

[Aecetia]

You forgot to put Al Gore and his large carbon foot print on the list of gross consumers.

[sdrealtor]

Just glad I dont live in the stem.

[sdrealtor]

Just glad I dont live in the stem.

[sdrealtor]

Just glad I dont live in the stem.

[sdrealtor]

Just glad I dont live in the stem.

[sdrealtor]

Just glad I dont live in the stem.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdduuuude][quote=CA renter]Gosh, looks like a great reason to pass a flax tax instead of a (steeply) progressive income tax!

/snark[/quote]

Because this aggregates many countries, it doesn’t suggest either is good or bad.

Assume this scenario: You have one country with 80% of the wealth and 20% of the people, but all the people were equally wealthy; then another country with 80% of the people and 20% of the wealth but all the people are equally wealthy within that country. Assuming they don’t share taxes with each other, it seems the tax system in either country wouldn’t really have an effect on the balance at all.

Would be interesting to see how this looks on a country-by-country basis. It only takes a few Saudi Arabian Princes to skew this pretty heavily, and I suspect they won’t want to tax themselves to balance the power but you can call them and suggest they give it a try.[/quote]

Yes, very true, but from what I’ve seen, the wealth/income distribution in the U.S. doesn’t look very different from this global one.

Wealth and power are concentrated in the top because power and wealth are concentrated in the top.

Those who have the $$$$ make the rules, and the rules will always work in their favor. And so it goes…

[CA renter]

[quote=sdduuuude][quote=CA renter]Gosh, looks like a great reason to pass a flax tax instead of a (steeply) progressive income tax!

/snark[/quote]

Because this aggregates many countries, it doesn’t suggest either is good or bad.

Assume this scenario: You have one country with 80% of the wealth and 20% of the people, but all the people were equally wealthy; then another country with 80% of the people and 20% of the wealth but all the people are equally wealthy within that country. Assuming they don’t share taxes with each other, it seems the tax system in either country wouldn’t really have an effect on the balance at all.

Would be interesting to see how this looks on a country-by-country basis. It only takes a few Saudi Arabian Princes to skew this pretty heavily, and I suspect they won’t want to tax themselves to balance the power but you can call them and suggest they give it a try.[/quote]

Yes, very true, but from what I’ve seen, the wealth/income distribution in the U.S. doesn’t look very different from this global one.

Wealth and power are concentrated in the top because power and wealth are concentrated in the top.

Those who have the $$$$ make the rules, and the rules will always work in their favor. And so it goes…

[CA renter]

[quote=sdduuuude][quote=CA renter]Gosh, looks like a great reason to pass a flax tax instead of a (steeply) progressive income tax!

/snark[/quote]

Because this aggregates many countries, it doesn’t suggest either is good or bad.

Assume this scenario: You have one country with 80% of the wealth and 20% of the people, but all the people were equally wealthy; then another country with 80% of the people and 20% of the wealth but all the people are equally wealthy within that country. Assuming they don’t share taxes with each other, it seems the tax system in either country wouldn’t really have an effect on the balance at all.

Would be interesting to see how this looks on a country-by-country basis. It only takes a few Saudi Arabian Princes to skew this pretty heavily, and I suspect they won’t want to tax themselves to balance the power but you can call them and suggest they give it a try.[/quote]

Yes, very true, but from what I’ve seen, the wealth/income distribution in the U.S. doesn’t look very different from this global one.

Wealth and power are concentrated in the top because power and wealth are concentrated in the top.

Those who have the $$$$ make the rules, and the rules will always work in their favor. And so it goes…

[CA renter]

[quote=sdduuuude][quote=CA renter]Gosh, looks like a great reason to pass a flax tax instead of a (steeply) progressive income tax!

/snark[/quote]

Because this aggregates many countries, it doesn’t suggest either is good or bad.

Assume this scenario: You have one country with 80% of the wealth and 20% of the people, but all the people were equally wealthy; then another country with 80% of the people and 20% of the wealth but all the people are equally wealthy within that country. Assuming they don’t share taxes with each other, it seems the tax system in either country wouldn’t really have an effect on the balance at all.

Would be interesting to see how this looks on a country-by-country basis. It only takes a few Saudi Arabian Princes to skew this pretty heavily, and I suspect they won’t want to tax themselves to balance the power but you can call them and suggest they give it a try.[/quote]

Yes, very true, but from what I’ve seen, the wealth/income distribution in the U.S. doesn’t look very different from this global one.

Wealth and power are concentrated in the top because power and wealth are concentrated in the top.

Those who have the $$$$ make the rules, and the rules will always work in their favor. And so it goes…

[Author]

Posts