too rich?

[jonb]

When I walk up the stairs and it taxes me. there is no government to take that tax.
In international transactions there is no governmental jurisdiction it is only that part of the transaction that is within, or by agreement affects a national government that it has any say over.
So by definition we can say a levy or tax on international wealth, but we are not talking about a government because there is no government with that jurisdiction. Thus I maybe talking about the simple act of 'making a levy on' or Taxing, but not be referring to any organisation.

I was told I was referring to a government, and that tax could only refer to a governmental tax.

From my position, it is hard to see the paint or the corner you say I am backed into.

[Shell B]

No, you were told that, in that context, it had to mean government tax. That is true. Either you are saying, you want them to be 25% difficult for their incomes, or, you want them to be 25% government taxed on their incomes. You must see the absurdity. Also, levying is levying taxes. Only the government does that.

Sorry, but you know what you were saying, jon.

[jonb]

Either you are saying, you want them to be 25% difficult for their incomes, or, you want them to be 25% government taxed on their incomes.

Tell me what '25% difficult for their incomes,' means, after all you must know you have written it as a choice.

[Shell B]

It makes no sense. It means nothing. So, if you are a halfway coherent person, which you seem to be, you must have meant the latter. It is a completely valid and sound conclusion. I mean, there are other options, but the conversations here has made those null. Now, you are dragging me into this nonsensical rhetoric. When you know you are just dragging it out for something that doesn't make any sense and not using language as it is defined, you are flaming. It's that simple. So, be straight about it. What did you mean, jon? Which definition of tax were you referring to?

[jonb]

No, you were told that, in that context, it had to mean government tax. That is true. Either you are saying, you want them to be 25% difficult for their incomes, or, you want them to be 25% government taxed on their incomes. You must see the absurdity. Also, levying is levying taxes. Only the government does that.

Sorry, but you know what you were saying, jon.

You made this post you now say it is nonsense, I am in total agreement, your post is nonsense.

[Mister Agenda]

The is a problem with internationally held wealth, that it gives the ability to choose where the money is Taxed (yes I said the word meaning governmental tax), however there is no international government so the supper rich can choose where to pay, unlike DeistPaladin or anybody else with a small to medium sized business. This creates an uneven playing field. I am sure Deist's business would be a lot more profitable if he could choose to pay his taxes in Lichtenstein, but he does not have that choice. However a business like Starbucks which stretches across international boundaries, can choose which part of its manufacturing and services are said to be making a profit, and by that means choose where it is taxed. Consequently it reports its shops in Britain have made no profit, the only profit it makes are where is head offices are which coincidently is in a minimal tax jurisdiction it does not even make a profit from manufacturing or distribution. However it does not close down its unprofitable shops, distribution, and manufacturing arms and just keep a small office which the company says makes a profit, we can only speculate why.
So when we look at the super rich, we find we have no equality with them, they can make choices that simply are not available to us. The Lee family who own Samsung (also own as it was put to me by one of their assistants) a good part of south Asia, as well as having interests in every market internationally), have choices that we do not have.

You make an interesting point about the multnationals often being able to choose their jurisdiction for tax purposes. It is in the nature of wealth, which is a representation of economic resources, that the more you have of it, the more options you have. We have choices that people who are poorer than us do not have.

I suppose an alternative arrangement might be to require multinationals to pay taxes to their country of origin or always desgnate their country of origin as their HQ. As always, there will be other consequences to that than the country of origin getting more tax revenue. Interestingly, economists of both the left and the right tend to agree that taxing corporations is not economically beneficial. The left-leaning economists would advise that if you want to tax the rich more, tax the rich more, taxing their corporations doesn't touch the income of the rich, it's just an indirect tax on their employees and customers. The US already charges hefty penalties to wealthy people who emigrate, so if they decide to relocate to a tax haven, our government still gets a revenue boost.

---

No, you were told that, in that context, it had to mean government tax. That is true. Either you are saying, you want them to be 25% difficult for their incomes, or, you want them to be 25% government taxed on their incomes. You must see the absurdity. Also, levying is levying taxes. Only the government does that.

Sorry, but you know what you were saying, jon.

You made this post you now say it is nonsense, I am in total agreement, your post is nonsense.

That was her point: that the first formulation is nonsense, and the second one you deny. Can you offer another alternative? Preferably one that is what you meant in the first place?

[Shell B]

He's not going to. He is flaming and dodging a question that has been pointed at him numerous times in this thread. Because he has no answer, as he meant government taxes, he is trying to say it is against his artistic beliefs to answer the question. This is seriously fucking ludicrous. How an adult can behave like that in a conversation is beyond my reckoning.

[jonb]

He's not going to. He is flaming and dodging a question that has been pointed at him numerous times in this thread. Because he has no answer, as he meant government taxes, he is trying to say it is against his artistic beliefs to answer the question. This is seriously fucking ludicrous. How an adult can behave like that in a conversation is beyond my reckoning.

you use this term to define what sort of taxes you mean. Therefore that very term has defined that there can be a tax which is non-governmental.
You have stated it twice now.

[Shell B]

you use this term to define what sort of taxes you mean.

I didn't make the statement. I do not mean any kind of taxes. I am trying to establish what kind of taxes you meant before you started backtracking.

Therefore that very term has defined that there can be a tax which is non-governmental.

It doesn't matter if there can be. What matters in this context is what you meant when you first said the word tax. You keep dodging the fucking question. What did you mean? That is the only response that matters for this debate right now. When you first said tax, what did you mean?

\

---

Also, at least two things you are doing in this thread are against the rules. It's fucking obnoxious that they have to be specifically because of issues like this.

[jonb]

I will make a statement that

'Gravity affects me.'
Now, we have the term gravity, and in that statement we find that we are talking about gravity affecting the individual. There is no sort of reference to the body which the individual is affected by. So the statement is about the affect of gravity on an individual. Nothing more nothing less. To say that the statement is about the earth pulling me down, is not proven because the statement is clearly about the affect of gravity on me, it is not about any other possible object. Other possible objects are not defined by the statement.
Thus in that statement we are talking about gravity and an individual.
Now it could be said that to have gravity you need at least two objects so that one can be attracted to the other, but as the statement does not define a second object it is clear the statement is not about a second object.
Just the action of gravity on an individual.
This is basic English we use it to define what we are talking about.
It does not matter how hard a reader of that statement insists the earth is part of the statement as any possible second body is not defined by the statement. The writer of the statement is correct in insisting the earth is not part of the statement.
Similarly the Statement 'I am taxed', or even 'she should be taxed' does not define what I or she maybe taxed by. This is because those statements are about the act of taxation on individuals, not what may or may not be taxing them.