What if you owned your own country...?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

11 - What types of religions would be permitted or restricted? All religions permitted, but since equality of the sexes is one of our founding tenets, partriarchal (or matriarchal, should they arise) religions will have to conform to the Constitution in their actions- they can believe whatever they want. [/b]

What exactly do you mean, when you say they would have to "conform to the constitution in their actions"?

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

What exactly do you mean, when you say they would have to "conform to the constitution in their actions"?

Actually, I started thinking of you after I wrote that, and realised I overstated.

No, it doesn't mean that, for example, the Catholic Church would have to accept women priests or recognise gay marriage. Comes down to it, it's basically a situation like you have today (in the USA).

People can voluntarily accept beliefs that hold women (or men) to be inferior, but such beliefs have no legal standing. I'm thinking of cases such as the Ontario, Canada attempt to establish "voluntary" sharia civil law arbitration boards. Or the various multiculturalist cases where older conservative males always claim to be the spokesmen for their group and demand the right to impose their values on the rest of their community.

Oh, and your kids will be taught (in compulsory education classes) that male and females are totally equal and that neither is subordinate to the other.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You know, if it's quite stronly progressive, you'll greatly reduce the motivation for people to seek high skill jobs. High skill jobs are also usually higher wage, so the two go hand in hand.

Yes, I think this would be somewhat of a problem, and there would be a tendency in any egalitarian society to stagnation.

A great science fiction book about this is Ursula K LeGuin's "The Dispossessed", an attempt at a communitarian anarchist utopia, and the problems it has dealing with innovators. (A great anarcho-capitalist SF novel is Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".)

OTOH, countries like Sweden and Finland with high equality ratios seem to be doing okay.

And the US did all right in the 50s and 60s when the top tax rates were 50-70%, and the pay ratio for CEOs to workers was about 20:1, compared with the 200:1 it is today. I don't think the clowns who've dropped GM to Number 2 and are running Ford into the ground are worth ten times the guys who brought us the Mustang and the Camaro (but then I'm a pony-car freak )

One problem with super-high pay rates is that you get people going into degrees like Law and MBAs simply for the money- any PhD in the natural sciences could get into Law or Business school, and many of them do, simply because of what a scientist makes these days has dropped so far behind.

Same with doctors- many go into specialisations instead of general practice because of the financial rewards -and to pay off student debts, which also applies to other fields of study)- while the best and brightest should be going into research anyway.

I disagree. People will always seek positions where they can make more money. It doesn't matter how much more, just that it is more.

Agree on that.

Of course, in an open world we'll probably have a brain drain, as many countries do with the US today- but then, we have nice beaches

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I disagree. People will always seek positions where they can make more money. It doesn't matter how much more, just that it is more.

Not if it takes a lot more work on their part. There is such a thing as a pay/work ratio. If the work is less, more people will go for the job. If it is more, fewer people will. And that all depends on how the pay side of the ratio is tweaked as well. High skill jobs require a lot more time and money invested in one's education, so if one isn't going to get a whole lot of return, one might find it more worthwhile to settle for a lower skill job and spend one's time and money in other ways.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

One problem with super-high pay rates is that you get people going into degrees like Law and MBAs simply for the money- any PhD in the natural sciences could get into Law or Business school, and many of them do, simply because of what a scientist makes these days has dropped so far behind.

On the other hand, when President Bush established tax cuts that to a large extent impacted those who were more wealthy in our country, BBC reported a big drop in our country's unemployment. That's because having larger amounts of money at their disposal enabled small businesses to hire more employees. Our economy benefitted from it, as did many lower income families (indirectly).

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Actually, I started thinking of you after I wrote that, and realised I overstated.

No, it doesn't mean that, for example, the Catholic Church would have to accept women priests or recognise gay marriage. Comes down to it, it's basically a situation like you have today (in the USA).

People can voluntarily accept beliefs that hold women (or men) to be inferior, but such beliefs have no legal standing. I'm thinking of cases such as the Ontario, Canada attempt to establish "voluntary" sharia civil law arbitration boards. Or the various multiculturalist cases where older conservative males always claim to be the spokesmen for their group and demand the right to impose their values on the rest of their community.

Oh, and your kids will be taught (in compulsory education classes) that male and females are totally equal and that neither is subordinate to the other.

'Kay, I'm cool with that.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Not if it takes a lot more work on their part. There is such a thing as a pay/work ratio. If the work is less, more people will go for the job. If it is more, fewer people will. And that all depends on how the pay side of the ratio is tweaked as well. High skill jobs require a lot more time and money invested in one's education, so if one isn't going to get a whole lot of return, one might find it more worthwhile to settle for a lower skill job and spend one's time and money in other ways.

Which isn't a bad thing.

But, if you look at many European countries with vastly more progressive tax systems then we have, there are still many rich and successful people that thrive within those systems.

[inked]

BJ, there's nothing preventing you from giving away vastly more progressive amounts of money to causes you think should be supported in this country now. Why wait for the tax to enforce what you know you want to do with your own money in your own country?

[hectorberlioz]

BJ- do you itemize on your tax returns?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

BJ, there's nothing preventing you from giving away vastly more progressive amounts of money to causes you think should be supported in this country now. Why wait for the tax to enforce what you know you want to do with your own money in your own country?

I actually do that with both my time and my money. I do volunteer work for an organization that helps build houses for people that can't afford them. I'm also very involved with my children's schools, helping with extracurricular events and fundraisers so the school can afford some very basic supplies like paper and books that they can't afford via the budget alone. And I help with a volunteer children's theatre that put's up a production once a year.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

BJ- do you itemize on your tax returns?

Yes.

[inked]

That's great, BJ. Now, let's ay that you fall into the 99% taxed rate because you have been incredibly successful and the government knows how to spend your earnings best. Still think that your ethical and moral giving is valued? Or is it rendered null and void because you don't do it, but the government does?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Yes.

So you try to keep as much money as possible, but at the same time, you only have confidence that the gov't can spend your money the right way. In other words, you'd rather be financially flogged by the gov't to give up more your money, officially, than give them more yourself each year....

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

That's great, BJ. Now, let's ay that you fall into the 99% taxed rate because you have been incredibly successful and the government knows how to spend your earnings best. Still think that your ethical and moral giving is valued? Or is it rendered null and void because you don't do it, but the government does?

That's a crazy hypothetical because taxation would never be anywhere near 99%. You could vastly increase spending on education in our country just by making modest increases to the rates of the most successful individuals.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

So you try to keep as much money as possible, but at the same time, you only have confidence that the gov't can spend your money the right way. In other words, you'd rather be financially flogged by the gov't to give up more your money, officially, than give them more yourself each year....

I pay the taxes that the government asks me to pay, and don't have a problem with it.

I don't give them more money then they ask for, but why should I? Depending upon how the tax money was meant to be spent, I am not always against a tax increase of one kind or another, but I see no point in just giving money away with no strings attached, either to the government or a charity program.

It's not black and white. There's some things that only a government that taxes it's people can support (i.e. public school, national defense, etc.), while there are other things that function very well purely on optional donation schemes.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I pay the taxes that the government asks me to pay, and don't have a problem with it.

Ok, thats not the point though...because they would tax you into hell, if they could. The IRS knows no bounds set for them by congress.

I don't give them more money then they ask for, but why should I?

Well depending on what you believe congress does with money is good, it might be a little more consistent to not itemize. Not that you want to, or that I expect you to...I'm just saying, if you believe congress needs more money....

Depending upon how the tax money was meant to be spent, I am not always against a tax increase of one kind or another, but I see no point in just giving money away with no strings attached, either to the government or a charity program.

Well there you go.
You only want the robbery to be rubber-stamped

("robbery" is a little harsh)

It's not black and white. There's some things that only a government that taxes it's people can support (i.e. public school, national defense, etc.), while there are other things that function very well purely on optional donation schemes.

Indeed, I agree.

It isn't that the Gov't doesnt need money, it's that a lot of things can work far better and more felxible within the individual States' gov'ts.

[inked]

Hey, we need a Brit to tell us authoritatively what the peak tax bracket is for England.

Memory jogs at 90% for the wildly successful entrepeneurs... but I'm getting a little neuronal crossover these days and I could be misremembering (which is related to being wrong only if you deny the possibility, I think).

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by inked

Hey, we need a Brit to tell us authoritatively what the peak tax bracket is for England.

Memory jogs at 90% for the wildly successful entrepeneurs... but I'm getting a little neuronal crossover these days and I could be misremembering (which is related to being wrong only if you deny the possibility, I think).

Current top rate is 40%, but in the old days it was that high, as the Beatles found out to their dismay:

Let me tell you how it will be,
There’s one for you, nineteen for me,
‘Cos I’m the Taxman,
Yeah yeah, I’m the Taxman.
Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don’t take it all,
‘Cos I’m the Taxman,
Yeah yeah, I’m the Taxman.
(If you drive a car), I’ll tax the street,
(If you try to sit), I’ll tax your seat,
(If you get too cold), I’ll tax the heat,
(If you take a walk), I’ll tax your feet.
Taxman.
‘Cos I’m the Taxman,
Yeah yeah, I’m the Taxman.
Don’t ask me what I want it for
(Ah Ah! Mister Wilson!)
If you don’t want to pay some more
(Ah Ah! Mister Heath!),
‘Cos I’m the Taxman,
Yeah yeah, I’m the Taxman.
Now my advice for those who die,
Declare the pennies on your eyes,
‘Cos I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
And you’re working for no-one but me,
(Taxman).

[GrayMouser]

Lief, what happens to apostates on your island, if Christianity is the only allowed religion? Banishment?

[Lief Erikson]

I haven't thought through punishments for different kinds of crimes. I have thought about what HOBBIT was saying earlier, about guests maybe being arrested, and I've decided I disagree with that. I think that guests would be treated very well whatever religion they adhere to. It would be great if we could bring back some of the ancient culture of hospitality that has existed in the past in the Middle East and still does in some places.

Apostates would be punished in some way. Maybe banishment, maybe something else- I don't know. I know it matters, but I also haven't thought through punishments for all the different crimes.

I know that I'm suddenly a wierd specimen, something for people to gawk at because my views are so strange to the modern psyche. That's why I'm getting questions (from BJ, you and HOBBIT so far) about specific punishments I'd have meted out for specific crimes, "crimes" that are presently legal and considered to be wholly acceptable in modern culture. It's a kind of spectator sport, a fascination with the strange, unusual and dangerous. It's very natural. My views will naturally be considered to be dangerous by most here and are so unusual that there is a fascination I have seen. People have that fascination for some bizarre criminals or dangerous zoo animals. I have that fascination for Great White Sharks. I love Great Whites . It's a combination of the unusual and the dangerous that fascinates people in that way.

Meanwhile, I view the views most people here hold about religious freedom to be dangerous. However, I'm not fascinated by the idea of religious freedom in spite of the danger I see it as posing, because for me it is not "unusual." I understand the view very well having grown up and reached adulthood holding to it and being surrounded by a culture that holds to it as one of the central pillars that much of its past, present and planned future are established upon.

[inked]

Thanks, GM. That would have been a 95% taxation rate! BJ!