apta

People stopped using gold because of greed and power. They introduced a usurious system in order to collect wealth to a small group of people, resulting in the mess we're in today. Gold, silver, and commodities are the superior solution.

> nobody is trying to be a saviour here

Perhaps not explicitly, but by ignoring reality and pretending that we live on a different planet, people with this mentality sure do come across that way. Some even explicitly so.

> we all want fulfillment, no matter our sex

Which is why in countries that are most egalitarian, you'll find women naturally drawn to more "female oriented" practices, like nursing or childcare, and men to more "male oriented" work like construction and plumbing. Of course, the SJW's don't like that and want to push women head to head against men, only for it to end in the chaos we see today.

> overly simplistic biological hypotheses

Except it's not so. Phenomenon that have been observed across cultures and geography and time is not a "simplistic biological hypothesis".

I see what you're saying, but I think there's more to it. Mixing men and women in the workplace has been a recipe for disaster time and time again. I'm not excusing the behavior of men who do engage in those actions, but it's almost an expected outcome. We see this across the board, from desk jobs, to labor intensive work like construction or even the military.

Agreed that people look to those at the top of the society. In a hyper capitalistic world we live in today, the vast majority of those people are the ultra wealthy, who happen to almost all be men. Many of those men fought their way up, rightly or wrongly. Feminists and SWJ's want to push women into that same space, claiming that men and women are the same, yet they don't see the contradiction of having to hand hold those women in order for them to be able to compete there in the first place. They're implicitly admitting that men and women are different, but they can't deal with the cognitive dissonance.

Because sex is something that most people are going to engage in at one point or another, it's part of human nature. Killing and murdering isn't acceptable.

> The overvaluing and focus on sex of being something amazing or interesting.

Because there are severe consequences to it, pregnancies and STDs being just the start.

Yes, it is an amazing thing, and it is not overvalued at all. It's one of the strongest drives we have as humans, and it should be controlled, otherwise it will lead to chaos.

No reason that women can't accomplish important things, the problem is that feminism pushed the false narrative that men and women are equal across the board, this is obviously a fallacious and dangerous premise, and now society is paying the price. They also brainwashed people that any criticism of their toxic ideas is automatically labeled as "misogynistic", "patriarchal" and "authoritarian", etc. Add to that the notion of equality of outcome (instead of equality of opportunity), and we see what it leads to.

> Two people earning 30k each will pay significantly less tax than one earning 60k

Is it the case though? Don't married filers get taxed on the total household income instead of their individual incomes?

> Women are wasting their lives do menial make-work instead of the one thing they all want to do sooner or later

Shhh, that's sexist ;) You can thank the feminists for propagating their toxic agendas that caused this by the way.

The modern economy is debt based by design (i.e. backed by interest and usurious transactions). This by definition creates a separation in the socio economic hierarchy.

It's for a reason that usury/interest is banned in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism for example. It's a parasitic practice that makes the economy fundamentally unstable. This includes dangerous practices such as selling debt for debt (which triggered the 2008 crisis), and things like stock shorting (which, interestingly enough was also banned during the crisis, at least for some critical company stocks).

Get rid of these dangerous, immoral, and parasitic practices, and we'll be on a strong path to improve things.

> During and after the economic collapse of 2007-2009 I wondered who was at fault; who to blame

Sometimes it is possible to at least narrow things down to an underlying inherent instability. In the case of your example, a huge underlying cause is an economic system based on debt (backed by interest and usurious transactions). It's for a reason that usury/interest is banned in Islam, Christianity, and Judaism for example. It's a parasitic practice that makes the economy fundamentally unstable. This includes dangerous practices such as selling debt for debt (again part of the same crisis), and things like stock shorting (which, interestingly enough was also banned during the crisis, at least for some critical company stocks).

Islam has the superior approach. Look up Zakat laws.

Except when it comes to gov't controlled inflation.

The superior model that has proven to work is Islam's Zakat. It's sort-of-but-not-really a wealth tax. 0% income tax, 0% gains tax, and only people who hold commodities over a certain threshold are taxed (meaning the poor are exempted). Gold and silver holdings for example are taxed at 2.5%, with a different percentage for cattle and produce.

As to your example, you won't pay a wealth tax on your car if you increase its value under Zakat. Now if you want to use it as a currency (start flipping cars) then it's different.

> That's only true if you raise taxes on the kind and amount of income that doctors and lawyers typically make.

That's what Biden wants to do, terrible idea.

Removing favorable treatment of long term capital gains is also a terrible idea. Ideally, there should be 0% gains tax (and income tax), but people will settle for favorable treatment compared to income tax.

> Taking away our culture and morally corrupting the young generation

It's 100% correct.

What line of work are you in?

It was during the time of Omar Ibn AbdulAziz. I looked up the reference, and it was actually not just income from Zakat, but the entire fund in Iraq was overflowing, so much so that it was not only sufficient for the needy, but it also paid off people's debts, and married whomever wanted to get married.

[1] https://www.islamweb.net/ar/fatwa/181283/%D8%A3%D8%AB%D8%B1-...

Look at the route Islam took with Zakat. It's a form of "charity tax" that depends on wealth. However, your scenario does not hold, the government will not force you to sell your company or any shares it in, because those are not subject to Zakat (at least not directly). Gold and silver over a minimum amount are taxed at 2.5% per Hijri year, while produce is taxed at a different percentage.

Taxation of company shares depends on many things, such as the debt ratio and value of products the company owns. It's very possible to owe only a tiny amount, or none at all, while still doing business and making money. This is the superior approach which has proven to work if you look at history.

Exactly. Islam took a similar route with Zakat (a form of "charity tax" if you will, over 1400 years ago, and it's proven to work. When you look at history, there was a period of time, when everyone paid their share of Zakat, and when there were no poor people left to take it!

It's not that much either, only 2.5% for currencies like gold and silver over a minimum threshold (so the poor/lower class are exempted anyway).

However, as I explain in my other post, there is no forcing to liquidate a fixed portion of any holdings you have. For example, if you own property and rent it out, the property value itself is not taxed, only the money you make out of rent if you hold on to it for over a year (and it's above a minimum threshold). Similarly if you owe shares in a company, the taxation is not a direct percentage of that ownership, it depends on things like debt and the amount of produce or products the company owns each year.

Income tax is unethical and predatory as far as I'm concerned, not to mention continues to fail even at absurdly high taxation rates.

Except that is a misconception because no one paid anywhere close to that 87% rate back in the day. The rich will always find loopholes and deductions to lower their tax rates.

Islam solved this problem a long time ago. It has a built-in "charity tax" called Zakat whereby a portion of people's wealth (as long as they make more than a minimum threshold) is donated to charity each year. The portion depends on what kind of wealth it is (e.g. for gold and silver have a different rate from produce, the former being only 2.5% per Hijri year). This ensures lifting up the poor and stimulating the economy by discouraging people from hoarding wealth, yet, it is not a socialist system because it heavily discourages people from being needy and relying on others. There were many rich and wealthy Muslims across history, and it is not frowned upon one bit.

It is historically established that there was a time, when everyone committed to paying their Zakat, that there were no more poor people left to take it!

High taxation is a symptom of a broken economic system. Taken from my post on the other thread.

> The problem lies elsewhere, but no one seems to discuss it. It's not for no reason that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity prohibit lending money with interest. We look around us and see a debt heavy and debt ridden society. The modern usurious economic system is inherently going to favor the rich. Ban interest and other usurious immoral and parasitic practices (e.g. stock shorting) and things will improve quickly.

The problem is the usurious economic system. Prohibit interest and reduce taxes, and things will improve almost by definition.

> was a time of higher taxes for the rich

Correlation vs. causation. The sources I've seen all have said that no one of the rich paid those high taxes, and the same will happen when Biden and his gang will attempt to increase taxes now. There will be loopholes and a million other things the rich can use to reduce taxes.

The problem lies elsewhere, but no one seems to discuss it. It's not for no reason that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity prohibit lending money with interest. We look around us and see a debt heavy and debt ridden society, because it's easy to lend money with interest. The modern usurious economic system is inherently going to favor the rich. Ban interest and other usurious immoral and parasitic practices (e.g. stock shorting) and things will improve quickly.

What's so ironic about that? One is a parasitic immoral practice that feeds off the poor, the other is a new technology that breaks the dependency on government fueled interest and inflation. I don't see where the scam part is.

Bitcoin is an investment, just like any other, it can go up or down.

If you really want to talk about profiting off the backs of others, look no further than interest bearing loans. It isn't for no reason that parasitic and immoral practice had been declared prohibited in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Most, if not all of the economy today is based off of interest, and the sooner we get rid of it the better.

Are you using and HDMI cable? I found it solved the issue when I switched to DisplayPort.

The less taxes the better. Islam has solved this problem over 1400 years ago, no income taxes, no land tax, no property tax, etc. If more societies applied something similar to Islam's Zakat, we'd be much better off.

Islam's Zakat system provably works. Just read history.

> If Bezo's was forced to liquidate say 2% of his ownership in Amazon to satisfy his wealth tax

Except nothing I explained about Islam's Zakat laws force anyone to liquidate in the manner you're describing. Note I said cash money. Stocks are not cash money, and hence will not be taxed in the same way I explained. Ownership in companies is subject to things like debt, which will reduce the amount of money paid out.

Islam's Zakat is different from the wealth tax some leftists are trying to push today as you're describing.

Sounds like a terrible system.