• half@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    30
    ·
    1 year ago

    Off the top of my head we’ve got progressive taxes, intersectionality (and general racism/sexism, rebranded daily), industrial welfare, the over-criminalization of social and economic conduct, arbitrary nationalization of resources and services, negative ROI public spending, unchecked support for labor unions, the subsidization of academia, and a general willingness to create unconstitutional law from any branch of government according to a broad, irrational, committee morality. Socialists take markets for granted and speak of privacy as though it’s part of the commons. In short, the left wing trends towards institutional collectivism at the cost of the individual liberties which are the foundation of collective action.

    I am an economically centrist libertarian. I believe taxes should be based on resource use, not productivity, welfare should be unconditional, not coercive (and half liquid, not locked into the discretion of committee thinking), criminal law should be based on justice, not morality, and public spending should be productive, not performative.

    For the record I have a separate laundry list of grievances with the right wing. I’ll zoom out since I’m facing left right now, but theocracy, monopoly, draconianism, the ignorance of systemic violations of natural rights, and support for the growth of industrial complexes (military, prison, healthcare, etc.) are among the issues. There’s a bipartisan willingness to replace justice with morality in the application of force; a viral acceptance of abuse followed by a question of flavor. What symbol would you like to be branded into the boot on your neck?

    We are in this sensitive, polarized position because industry overwhelmed our agrarian notions of justice. That does not deprecate those notions. We should focus on the economic limitations that aggravate cultural issues and escalate us towards war.

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Lmao imagine opening your fucking list with being against progressive taxation.

      Edit: and you write an entire screed in your history about Georgism, and yet don’t realize it’s inherently progressive. Jesus dude c’mon.

      • half@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        “Progressive tax” refers to a tax rate which increases as taxable revenue increases. It doesn’t have anything to do with progressive cultural values. Georgism is based on a flat tax of a special resource, economic rent. Given how prone this forum is to willful misinterpretation, I should specify that I don’t support flat income tax, or any income tax for that matter.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If everyone doesn’t own land, Georgism is by definition progressive.

          How do you not know this?

          • half@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I do not propose either to purchase or to confiscate private property in land. The first would be unjust; the second, needless. Let the individuals who now hold it still retain, if they want to, possession of what they are pleased to call their land. Let them continue to call it their land. Let them buy and sell, and bequeath and devise it. We may safely leave them the shell, if we take the kernel. It is not necessary to confiscate land; it is only necessary to confiscate rent.
            ──Henry George, Progress and Poverty

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              You seem to think I am unfamiliar with Henry George and I assure you that is quite untrue. I am all about LVTs, political dead-ends though they may be.

              However, I am informed enough to know an LVT is inherently progressive.

              • half@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think you’re talking about the poltiical philosophy of progressivism as opposed to progressive tax, especially progressive income tax.

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  No, I am definitely not.

                  A progressive tax is a tax in which the tax rate increases as the taxable amount increases.

                  A land value tax is a progressive tax, in that the tax burden falls on land owners, because land ownership is correlated with wealth and income

                  Source: literally any discussion about progressive taxation and Georgism

                  I am not a Progressive arguing in favor of Progressivism. I am loosely a “third way” neoliberal with Georgist tendencies (also in favor of Pigouvian taxation, etc), arguing that words have actual meanings.

                  • HandwovenConsensus@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’m confused. By tax rate, you must mean the percentage of the taxable amount.

                    In that case, land ownership being correlated with wealth and income isn’t sufficient to prove that LVT is progressive.

                    Consumption spending also correlates with wealth and income, but a sales tax is usually considered regressive.

                    So it’s possible that the LVT can be progressive, but only if the percentage of wealth spent on land rises with income. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but what is your basis for believing it is?

                  • half@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    7
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    That’s like saying that a flat income tax is a progressive tax because some people have more income.

    • ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is this post sincere? This has to be trolling right? Or are you talking about some other country aside from the US?

      • half@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not an argument. I’m American, but none of these issues are exclusively American. There’s certainly lots of room for discussion of each of these issues, but the crux of my comment is that public policy is more complicated than @PoopingCough’s implication that there are no valid points outside the Everyone Vs. The Nazis false dichotomy.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          And you claim this while making…shitty points that are not founded in any study of economics whatsoever.

          Dude tees you up perfectly and you swing directly into the woods.