So you're against high tax rates.

And you equate this with natural economic inequality.

With no notice of the fact that people democratically get suckered, like idiots, into electing governments which overtax them. With no notice of the fact that this is not inherently related to natural economic inequality, which is not a bad thing.

"Second concept:  systems of regressive taxes, fees, charges which result in systems whereby the rich tend to get richer and the poor poorer are an inevitable result of capitalistic activity."

That's just an ignorant and overly simplistic understanding of economics and free markets. You are aware that relatively free markets have made Americans the richest people on earth and skyrocketed their standard of living in a very brief period of time? You do understand that your standard of living is finite and can be measured by the things you have an can afford, and is not somehow magically diminished by the fact that others work harder than you, are smarter than you, and have acquired more wealth than you?

You're raping the crap out of the word "regressive" when you use it to describe taxes. You're using it to describe "anything that doesn't inherently redistribute wealth to the poor." If a rich man pays 6% tax on his taco and a poor man pays 6% tax on his taco, you describe this as "regressive." Even if the rich man tends to buy more expensive tacos and, in actuality, pays more taxes. You rape the crap out of the word so much that you describe the rich paying the same percentage and a higher dollar amount as "regressive."

"Take 'renting' as an example: the cost of rent is incurred as a loss each month by the renter.  The land-owner, in contrast, over the long-term, almost always collects a capital gain.  Thus, over say 20 years, while the poor renter has paid the equivalent of $300,000 in rental fees, the rich home-owner has gained the equivalent or more in capital gains in the value of the property.  In this way, over the long-term, cost of living is higher for the poor renter than it is for the owner, who actually accumulates a gain over the long term."

So you're against the private ownership of property? So it's capitalism at fault? Many renters become owners. Owners who rent are offering a service, which required they make a substantial investment of their own wealth to be able to do, in exchange for a fee. This is called capitalism. It rewards hard work and good decisions. You should read about it sometime. It's done great things for standards of living around the world, especially for the poor!

"This is an example of how the cost of fulfilling basic need, housing, is more expensive for the poor than for the wealthy,"

You just completely ignore the cost of the property, which the owner had to first acquire and then give up in exchange for the property. By just ignoring the cost to the wealthy entirely, you could claim that housing is more expensive for the poor if it's $5/month. That's just stupid, misleading, and ignorant.

If someone saved up $300,000 over decades and bought a property, you're here saying [cluck] them they're unjust to make any profit out of renting it out. You just completely ignore that the asset has value, or that they had to earn $300,000 by being a productive human being in order to reward themself with the asset in the first place.

This is exactly the ignorant speech I've pointed out many times is Communist. Here you're arguing against private property and free markets. Whereas capitalists see money as something to be earned and used to purchase rewards for one's productivity, you see it as evil because everyone should just share everything. The renter, you argue, has as much right to the property as the owner, who payed for it with money that they earned. We have a name for the ideology you're describing. It's called communism.

"Thus, over say 20 years, while the poor renter has paid the equivalent of $300,000 in rental fees, the rich home-owner has gained the equivalent or more in capital gains in the value of the property."

Maybe the poor renter shouldn't rent a property for 20 years which does not allow for enough savings to purchase a property of his own. How do you propose we save idiots from their own bad decisions? I'm eagerly awaiting your response.

"In this way, over the long-term, cost of living is higher for the poor renter than it is for the owner, who actually accumulates a gain over the long term."

That's up to the poor renter and his decision making process. You're implying that owners should rent properties out for no profit. How exactly do you propose that would work? Why would people buy property, build on it, and rent it out in return for nothing? That would be a huge waste of money. Are you proposing we all live in communes? In case the obvious again escapes you, that's communism.

I'm with you on our tax rates being exorbitant and it rising to the level of crime. But to equate this with income inequality, as if it's anything NEAR that simple, is just silly and ignorant. You go far beyond arguing against oppressive taxation. You're arguing for owners to rent property for no profit? That doesn't make any sense.

Have you put any thought into this at all? Free markets work because they reward productivity and responsible decisions. If you just tell everyone they deserve 2 loafs of bread and some cheese, you quickly find they don't produce shit and everyone has less. That's why communism fails. That's why your ideas fail.

If you tell someone he can't plan to make a profit off of renting his property in a decade or few (or, so it doesn't make NO sense, let's presume a tiiiiny profit over a huuuuge period of time), you end up with less rental properties built. You end up with lower quality rental properties. That's BAD for the poor renter. That's why communism fails. That's why your ideas fail.

You didn't even suggest a mechanism by which anything you proposed would work. The owner should make nothing? Explain why he'll own. Explain why he'll earn the money to purchase to begin with.

"One day, one civilization somewhere, sometime will somehow transcend this cycle, and historians of that era will look back on ours in astonishment that ours operated this way, for, ultimately, in all likelihood, the solution is probably so simple that it boggles the mind to even begin to fathom it as the solution.
And, well, hell if I know what it is..."

We know. It's communism.

East,

Its not that you are getting swindled; its that by your purchase you are contributing to the systemic injustice inherent in our civilization.

Understand that there are regressive costs associated with the production of any product or provision of any service.  These regressive costs are those which are inherently cheaper both actually and relatively for the wealthier person and more expensive actually and relatively for the poorer person.  Therefore, the nature of the systemic injustice is that the purchase of any good or service results in the re-distribution of wealth from the poor to the wealthy.

First, consider the macro effect: when a poor person buys any product, a certain amount of their money goes to government in the form of various regressive taxes the producer factored into their profit margins, and the larger producer pay less proportionately than the smaller producer: corporate taxes paid will be less per unit produced simply because they produce more, property taxes of factories and distribution centers rent or leases stores or warehouses will be less because the larger producer has more of them,  freight charges will be less because the larger company ships more than the smaller producer.  It's based on the inherrent tendency for someone to get better deal per unit when they buy more units.  Thus, the larger the company, the lower the actual cost of production per unit, making it more difficult for the smaller company to compete.

Second, consider the micro effect:  when a poor person buys a product, like an i-pad, for instance, they have saved up their money to do so over a long period of time.  Inflation has eaten away these savings much more than it has the rich person, who was able to save up the money for the same purchase in a shorter amount of time.  Also, the poor person will probably only be buying one ipad, whereas the wealthier person will probably be buying an i-pad, a laptop, and a smart TV the same purchase and will thus be able to work out a better deal with the salesperson for the price of the ipad.  The wealthier consumer is like the larger company paying less for the cost of production relative to a smaller producer.  Also, consider how in any provision of a good or service, certain amount the purchaser spends goes to pay the employees involved in the different stages in the production and distribution process the shareholders, and the government.  When these parties who have profited somehow by your purchase in turn buy the same product (and often do so for cheaper because they do so in volume or at reduced insider prices), their purchase is in effect subsidized by yours.

There is much more to this than I have shown above... don't have time to explain it all.  Think about it, though: its a system by which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.  It's always been this way, everywhere, in every civilization.  It's antithetical to the value systems of liberal-democratic countries which strives to mitigate the effects of this inherrent injustice, but which, sadly, all too often fail to do so.

"Welcome to McDonald's, how can I help you?"
"I'd like a big mac meal."
"Would you like that large?"
"Oh, what the heck.  Alright."
"Anything else?"
"No."
"Please bring your income tax records to the auditor at the next window to determine the cost of your order.  Thank you, have a nice day!"

Xeno,

You are assuming that wealth is limited. Capitalism creates wealth. Sure, the majority of created wealth goes to the entrepreneurs, but at the same time everyone becomes wealthier.

> Einstein wrote:

> Xeno's argument: A Testerosa is to expensive, make it so all can afford it with a few hours pay.

No, Einstein.  My argument is that a home, and basic needs goods necessary to provide for a low-stress home environment to raise children is too expensive, and it is immoral for the privileged to profit from the artificially induced scarcity of basic needs goods.

An apartment is a home. I think you confuse house and home.

Interestingly, in Norway some fines (e.g. driving related) are based as a percentage of your annual income. As a stick it's got merits; as a carrot basing cost on income has no great merit.

> Einstein wrote:

> Portland Oregon disagrees. Homes should be difficult to own, small apartments are better.

Or why would they have an urban growth boundary?

Wow.  are you that out of touch; that ignorant of the way of life of the vast majority of humans on the planet?

small apartments are their homes

". He's arguing for communism"

More SLANDER from the Kemp.  This is going to be a great lawsuit.  So much evidence collected against him and Einstein. Lol

"Such a rate of speed results in jail time and charges above and beyond "speeding." You are factually wrong."

Wow.  Twity, you are clueless as to how the sorts of societies in which the majority of humanity lives, aren't you?

"Wow.  Twity, you are clueless as to how the sorts of societies in which the majority of humanity lives, aren't you?"

I'm sorry, I live in America. Where do you live? I was only speaking for how it is here.

Continue ignoring 90% of what I said. We don't want you to be in danger of actually thinking.