From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Mon Jul 28 2003 - 17:45:15 MDT
Robert Bradbury wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>
>> Brendan wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 01:42:23PM -0700, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>>>> Where they get the capital to invest is a different issue
>>>> altogether.
>>>>
>>> No shit. So what is your suggestion?
>>
>>
>> ### Massively progressive inheritance tax is collected from dead
>> people, and distributed evenly as a dowry at maturity, giving
>> everybody a level playing field.
>
> Rafal, I'm quite surprised by this proposal. It would appear to
> require either (a) one "promote" that people should "die"; and/or (b)
> some "fixing" of the legal playground such that when you enter
> cryonic suspension ones assets are taxed (or worse confiscated) in
> some way.
### Well, this is not meant to be the only possible source for capital for
the poor, merely a remark that assuming that taxation is indeed necessary
(and this is a big if), taxation of the dead (as in really dead, rotten and
disintegrated) is less damaging than the taxation of the living. Of course,
if nobody dies (or if everybody gets frozen), this expedient would be denied
to the would-be poor people's benefactor.
My modest proposal should under no circumstances be seen as promotion of
dying or inequitable taxation of corpsicles.
Assuaging poverty could be still accomplished by charitable donations of
capital, or the growth-promoting taxation of monopolies (which is to be
differentiated from the largely wealth-destroying income redistribution
practiced today). With the explosive growth in economic output in the
robotic nation, it should be almost trivially easy to find sufficient funds
to prevent the privations of poverty, without heavy-handed intervention.
Extrosattvas will save the day.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 28 2003 - 14:51:24 MDT