where do you see “Aws”?
I said:
Amazon making beaucoup bucks on cloud data for corporates.
Amazon Web Services is a subsidiary of Amazon that provides on-demand cloud computing platforms to individuals, companies and governments, on a paid subscription basis. The technology allows subscribers to have at their disposal a virtual cluster of computers, available all the time, through the Internet.
Or are you referring to something else than aws?
exactly.
same thing like firms under the umbrella of a holding company
Come on, we already went over this. It’s voluntary and if one landlord isn’t willing to sell, another is, which is fair.
If a landlord who let’s say inherited that land and some money does nothing or makes horrible investments or blows his money…guess what he is most likely forced to do…If a king does all of the above he would just raise taxes to cover it.
I mentioned it above it is possible. But how much land ownership rights does a person have under a king? legislation have strengthened the hand of the individual landowner in many ways, there is clearly a difference.
Are you seriously unable to see why it’s more fair in a free market with landlord vs a king in a monarchy?
Let me ask you this, which one would you rather live in, I should have asked this from the start since it would prove my point.
If A isn’t willing to sell B the title to the land he already lives on for X million dollars, someone else somewhere on the planet is willing to sell him a different piece of land. Great. That’s still pack up and leave. Even if A – or C or D or anyone else – is willing to sell a suitable piece of land to B, it’s still likely to be out of his reach.
The analogy was (originally) about A demanding payment in exchange for B’s right to stay there. If B refuses to pay, he will eventually be deprived of a certain amount of freedom, whether A is the state (king or other ruling power) or merely the landlord. Stiff your landlord, get evicted. Stiff the state, have your assets seized and possibly go to jail.
A also needs to pay tax to the state if he’s a landlord. (I mean that’s the theory…)
The landlord can raise rent. If the landlord is living way beyond his means and can’t raise rent high enough to get by, he will find some other solution: lower expenses, sell assets, or get crafty.
The landlord king can raise rent taxes. If the landlord king is living way beyond his means and can’t raise rent taxes high enough to get by, he will find some other solution: lower expenses, sell assets, or get crafty.
If the landlord/king doesn’t find a solution, one will be found for him. There’s always an Iron Bank of Braavos waiting in the wings.
It depends on how much power the king is willing (or forced) to grant his subjects, which of course depends on many factors and tends to change gradually over a period of centuries. As I said, there’s no such thing as a genuine absolute monarchy. (There are also limits on private property ownership, i.e. the state can expropriate it under certain conditions.)
I think modern tenancy agreements in general are fairer than medieval ones. You still need to pay rent to the landlord though, unless you are the landlord, in which case you still need to pay rent/tax to the king/state.
Sorry, what was your point again? That taxes are morally wrong unless they’re flat? That even flat taxes are morally wrong if the super-rich aren’t guaranteed protection from boycotts organized by pronoun warriors? (That boycotts should be illegal in a free market?)
If your point is that life in general is better in developed countries than in not-so-developed ones, I have no quarrel. If your point is that human rights in general are more respected and protected in developed countries than in not-so-developed ones, I still have no quarrel.
As I said, there’s no magic formula that would satisfy everyone. I’ve also said that I’m not a fan of ridiculously complex tax systems, but it’s not because I think taxes or progressive taxes are morally wrong.
And as I said, other ideas are welcome, but if they don’t catch on, then what? Stop taxing anyway?
No…i’ve never said that. I said flat taxes are more fair for everyone and the most egalitarian in a free market system.
Maybe, but it’s the most fair system anyone has thought of. That’s my point, it’s certainly more fair than a king owning all the land.
Oh come on, you know which is more fair. The powers a king has is far beyond a landlord is afforded. Don’t try to make it seem it’s the same.
Wouldn’t a lump sum be even fairer than a flat rate ? If you can’t pay, you will receive reduced services(eg fire protection, healthcare, etc)
I mean, 10% of a million is still far more than 10% out of a thousand
It wouldn’t make sense since if everyone pays 10k, and i made 5…what can I do? a flat rate wouldn’t penalize anyone or benefit anyone regardless of how well they do.
If you can’t pay, you are denied some non essential services
I guess there is some logic in if you can’t pay, you don’t get the service. But I don’t think this is beneficial and stable for a civil society or economy.
And we might as well not pay any income tax, if i’m rich, i’m sure I don’t need services like the police and just hire private security.
So, the USA is pretty stable and the economy is doing great and there if you can’t pay you don’t get healthcare( to simply it a bit)
So, basically I’m saying to expand the range of services denied from healthcare to other services provided by the state
To summarize all these months of back and forth, briefly
American leadership under Kennedy: “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”
American Leadership under Trump: “Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you”
They love America so much they’ll hide every last penny in the caymans before chipping in to pay for anything that doesn’t benefit them personally.
So, for the landlord to be able to evict B from the land is the fairest system ever, but for the king to be able to evict B from the land is unfair. Got it. 
Oh come on. I stated clearly that I think life in developed countries is generally better and that modern law is generally better than medieval law. If you want specific examples, the modern landlord can’t force the tenant to perform manual labor (as long as the tenant has enough money), and the modern landlord can’t tell the tenant not to marry someone.
I brought up royalty in the first place because you were complaining about estate tax. And I stand by it: abolishing absolute monarchy means someone – the fruit of whose labor the whole nation “literally” enjoys in your view – gets deprived of his/her property for the benefit of the state. It’s happened many times, and without it, our modern world would not exist.
In America’s case, was it a mistake? Should the lawful property of George III have been protected?
In the course of the revolution, you guys also stole land from ordinary citizens (who just maybe happened to be kind of rich), signed a treaty implying they would get it back, and then kept it anyway. Was that okay?
As you said…
Hello all, address the message please. 
Is there a system more fair? Tenants are given considerably more rights than anyone living under a king. But lets just ignore that.
I’m pretty sure just planting a flag and claiming you own all of this area on a map you you made is not really what the average person considers fair.
Do kings and landlords have similar ways they operate, yes. But there are clearly huge differences that set them apart.
Removed a couple of posts
I like your new profile pic.
1 Like
Including an on topic one, oddly
Don’t think so! Then again, brought it back with an edit.
Thank you, sir.
1 Like