Post: #1

In my travels perusing industry news as a tax accountant, I was horrified and sickened when I read the headline "Why Gender Equality Requires Tax Revenue".

Apparently, this is the new focus of the SJW's in their neverending quest to replace the male-as-provider archetype with the government-as-provider archetype. Here's the excerpt and the link.

"A government’s capacity to reduce gender inequality is determined in large part by the amount of revenue it raises in tax, and how tax payments are distributed. A high level of tax revenue, if raised progressively and spent wisely, enables governments to fund the services, social security and infrastructure that make it easier for women to undertake paid work and to provide jobs for women in the public sector that are often of better quality than those in the private sector."

http://www.taxjustice.net/2015/05/05/why...x-revenue/

Obviously, the writing is on the wall.

Post: #2

It says if tax money is "raised progressively and spent wisely" gender equality can be had.

There's two inherent faults there. First, excessively progressive tax codes with no incentives to earn more will result in less revenue, not more. As a married father of three, I need to earn more knowing that my kids and wife need to be provided for. If the government will take care of women and children, what's the incentive for a young single man to earn more than what he needs to get by?

Second, "spent wisely"....

Post: #3

In the long run, I don't worry about things like this because of economics. In this case, from your quote, it seems they assume that tax revenues can simply be raised at will forever. The catch you and I know, of course, is that tax revenue has to come from somewhere, namely the private sector. And unlike the government, a truly private sector isn't obligated to operate. It can move abroad, be replaced by better competition abroad (especially if they're not allowed to move abroad), or simply shut down (even in the case of a world government). In any case, no more tax revenue.

Of course, a truly SJW-government doesn't care about tax revenues. They'll spend whether they have the money or not (including tax cuts with no concurrent spending cuts). But even in that case, eventually, reality is going to set in, and the credit card will be deactivated. Germany may bail out Greece, but who will bail out Germany when the time comes? Even if other countries bail out Germany, who will bail those countries out when their time comes? Either someone says no or you eventually run out of bailout countries.

Post: #4

(08-31-2015 12:06 AM)262 Wrote:  In the long run, I don't worry about things like this because of economics. In this case, from your quote, it seems they assume that tax revenues can simply be raised at will forever. The catch you and I know, of course, is that tax revenue has to come from somewhere, namely the private sector. And unlike the government, a truly private sector isn't obligated to operate. It can move abroad, be replaced by better competition abroad (especially if they're not allowed to move abroad), or simply shut down (even in the case of a world government). In any case, no more tax revenue.

I think it's even closer than that - namely, the Laffer Curve. It suggests there's a threshold of GDP that you can extract from a population by taxation revenue, and no matter how draconian your revenue legislation, it never gets any higher. It's simply because people respond to incentives -- in either direction. But then SJWs don't really understand how people think anyway, so why should we be surprised?

Post: #5

Representing "people's opinions" (read - elite's interest) means that as a government you want to tax as much as you can, so you can have resources to spend on what "suits" your opinions.

Governments usually look at taxes as a "given", but they are not.
In order to tax more - you need the people to earn more.

But if you have a different agenda (e/g/ - war, gender equality, ideology of any sort etc.) - than you have a conflict between "wanting more money" (=taxes) and how to spend them.
Looking at "gender equality" means that you want to tax males in order to create "equality". This means that males will have less incentive to work - migrate/work less/drop out.

Parkinson has taught us that government never does anything "wisely".

Post: #6

(08-31-2015 12:06 AM)262 Wrote:  Of course, a truly SJW-government doesn't care about tax revenues. They'll spend whether they have the money or not (including tax cuts with no concurrent spending cuts). But even in that case, eventually, reality is going to set in, and the credit card will be deactivated. Germany may bail out Greece, but who will bail out Germany when the time comes? Even if other countries bail out Germany, who will bail those countries out when their time comes? Either someone says no or you eventually run out of bailout countries

I'm sure they'll come up with some clever scheme that's so complicated that nobody really understands it, but will be used to keep the merry-go-round going.

Or they'll just print more money, hyperinflation be damned.

Post: #7

Progressivism is a wonderful money making scheme.

There is a problem? Well the solution is cut checks to the poor, and create jobs for the middle class to administer that money, taxing productive people for it.

Oh we are fine? Eh invent some problem, wash rinse repeat.

It is a very effective way to consolidate political power, it is nothing but largess, that most ancient political tactic. Jobs for the boys, free stuff for the commoners.

Post: #8

It's hardly a "new front". These organizations often exist solely because of government money that is funneled into their causes, whether indirectly via subsidy receiving businesses or directly from government grants. If that ever dries up SJW-ism is going to go belly up very quickly.