If:
A man who represents himself has a fool for a lawyer...
Then:
What is a man who argues with a fool?
To echo the lingo of my 13 year old cousin: that is adorbs.
If:
A man who represents himself has a fool for a lawyer...
Then:
What is a man who argues with a fool?
Roughly the exact same thing, how can it be roughly the exact same thing? You're trying real hard pick a fight here Eric. If I've bruised that enormous ego of yours I apologize. Perhaps you should start LESG and get some support for that. You get to decide all the rules, so insults can be mandatory. It will be roughly the exact same as this site.
Propably :smile:Do you mean the House of Representatives, Perados?
Again
You can increase taxation and a huge part is financed by the safed money out of then excess and no more needed services...
This also still makes no sense, probably a language thing.Also does only an unemploymency higher then 50% will influence the tax income negative.
- and YOU still couldnt offer an arguement why so many people should become lazy AND ARE NO MORE WILLING TO SEARCH FOR A TASK
Also does only an unemploymency higher then 50% will influence the tax income negative.
This also still makes no sense, probably a language thing.
It may surprise you, as it did me, that our Labour Party (way more socialist than your Democrats) abolished our flat tax system that our Conservatives (way more socialist than your Republicans) had always supported.
Personally, I would have a flat tax system in the UK of up to £20,000 ($32,000).
Do you know how big an industry Taxation is? It is a bit mad isn't it and counter intuitive, but that is the system that leads to theories such as Underguy's. Economies get so big that you can forget the underlying principles and believe that they exist without any relationship to realities. If we all agree that bananas are worth $10,000 an ounce then so be it. Who are we to argue?
Which still makes no sense.Only an unemployment rate higher than 50% will influence tax income negatively.
At the current system do pay only 50% of all employees pay income tax - 50% doesnt earn enough to pay income taxWhich still makes no sense.
Excuse me? What is this theory that you've invented on my behalf?
Chartalism.
Increasing unemployment to 50% from say 10%, may not affect income tax take, but it would affect every other type of tax take, it would massively reduce the income generation of other people and business, thereby reducing the income tax take, and of course it would increase the social security cost fivefold.
I would also suggest that people who are not employed use more public services than those who are employed, rather than providing these services for nothing.
At the current system do pay only 50% of all employees pay income tax - 50% doesnt earn enough to pay income tax
If your thesis would be correct and people would start to quit their jobs, its more likelly that those with a low income would do so. - people with a higher income wouldnt quit their jobs for just 2500 franc.
These "low income people" do not pay any income tax today. Thats why it wouldnt affect the total amount of income tax, cause the new unemployed never paid the income tax...
And if currently 50% of all employees dont pay any income tax, the unemploymency rate could increase up to 50%, without effecting the total amount of income tax, in theory. (if just the lowest 50% quit)
I'm describing the system that is. It's not a theory.
How would massively increasing income through the social credit massively reduce income? That's just bizarre.
Nope. Employed people use more resources than unemployed. That's obvious.
Oh look! A phact.
I'm describing the system that is. It's not a theory.
How would massively increasing income through the social credit massively reduce income? That's just bizarre.
I'm describing the system that is. It's not a theory.
How would massively increasing income through the social credit massively reduce income? That's just bizarre.
Nope. Employed people use more resources than unemployed. That's obvious.
Oh look! A phact.
Well, apart from the phact that I was talking about public services not resources. Minor detail, obviously!
Chartalism is a theory.
Did you miss Vince's post that pointed out that the average wage in Switzerland is more than double the proposed non working entitlement, and that normal unemployment is a very high percentage of the previous salary? Under these circumstances, you would be putting less money into the economy.
Well, apart from the phact that I was talking about public services not resources. Minor detail, obviously!