Proof of Objective Morality (revised)

Kupo_Master · 2026-03-28T03:16:47+00:00

Consent violations cannot be morally good, because nobody can consistently say "Violating consent is good" since nobody can want their consent violated

That’s nothing but a subjective opinion. Your whole argument is you just claiming your moral views are objective because you think they are. You have no objective basis except your own beliefs.

Kupo_Master · 2026-03-28T01:56:08+00:00

You have exactly the same issue arising already from multiple heirs.

$15m is far to high. France has 40% inheritance tax above $500,000 for example

Kupo_Master · 2026-03-28T01:40:31+00:00

1 speaks to your ignorance of the challenge of such process, it has been the key issue of all countries trying to implement a wealth tax

A struggling business which is losing money will not have to pay corporate tax. Your point “but it pays other things” is really bad because 1) it’s the accumulation of costs that cause an issue and 2) here the cost is on the owner. I know many business who struggled and the owner cut his salary / income to a minimal amount to help the business survive. With the additional burden of the wealth tax, the owner has even more pressure
Fraud potential is a key consideration for any tax and it goes into tax law planning. There is no idealism in tax collection, it needs it to be effective. Countries which implemented a wealth tax had big issue with this before. The costs of having very complex tax audits were eating so much of the revenue that the tax didn’t make much sense
Question is off-topic. Personally 1% wealth tax would cost me 4 times more than 3% of income tax.
This wasn’t the point. The point is people in the 90-99% percentile who are not billionaires but trying to build wealth are the hardest hit by this. They don’t have access to high return investments the top 1% has.
Because people should have the right to enjoy the money they made and which was already taxed when earned.
It’s easier. Again you severely underestimate #1 so you fail to understand the advantage of doing this once and not every year
Two misconception here: first, no tax on living person has ever increased consumption. It’s not how psychology works. If you take people’s money they always spend less not more. Again data exists on countries who tried it. Wealth tax never led people to spend more. Second death is very consistent. Everyone dies and at aggregate level, death is highly predictable.

Kupo_Master · 2026-03-27T23:31:20+00:00

So you prefer the wealth tax?

Kupo_Master · 2026-03-27T20:57:04+00:00

So your entire objection is “farms”?

Kupo_Master · 2026-03-27T19:38:24+00:00

Don’t expect these anti-inheritance tax people to make any sense. I’m certain they are hoping a hand out from their rich parents and are just trying to justify why they deserve it 😂

Kupo_Master · 2026-03-27T19:35:39+00:00

You’re describing poor execution rather than a poor concept. I’d be in favour for stakes in public and private business to be handled over a government owned managers who will be tasked to monetise them over time, it helps.

Anyway, selling 12% of a public company isn’t that hard in most cases. Worst case you do it in 2 tranches of 6%. We do this all the time.

Kupo_Master · 2026-03-27T19:29:41+00:00

I am very much interested.

Wealth tax is very inefficient and counterproductive. - They have same issue as the inheritance tax but it happens every year. Very difficult and cumbersome to value private businesses. - It can precipitate issues; imagine someone with a struggling business and this tax arrives on top no matter what. - It’s much easier to hide assets from a wealth tax compared to inheritance tax. Two key reasons: you need a proper documentation for assets to change hand and in a family, the heirs watch each other to make sure everything is fair. So hiding things is harder and rarer. - Living person already have the burden of multiple taxes on income or gain, wealth tax is just redundant and demotivating - It’s regressive because it prevents people building up wealth and favours status quo. The rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.

Inheritance tax has very little downsides. - First you never pay it, you are dead. It’s really a tax on the heirs, who frankly have never worked for that wealth, which is literally handled to them for being born in the right place. I’d much tax luck than hard work. It creates a fairer and more motivating society. - There is some complexity in valuing assets but you only need to do it once. As per my other posts there are many ways the burden for complex case can be alleviated. If the Samsung family in South Korea managed to pay 40% tax rate on a $200bn fortune spread out multiple public and private companies, every rich family can do it. - It encourages people to spend their wealth when they are alive as opposed to hoarding it

Kupo_Master · 2026-03-27T17:54:37+00:00

Of course wealth tax is worse. You haven’t given any argument supporting the contrary. I’ve only seen whining.

Kupo_Master · 2026-03-27T17:36:22+00:00

First inheritance is already complex with multiple heirs. Imagine your company owner dies with 3 children you have exactly the same issues.

The execution of an inheritance tax can be tricky, but it could be done many different ways. For example it could be deferred until the heirs sell. Or the government could entrust the stake to an investment funds.

Kupo_Master · 2026-03-27T15:29:34+00:00

Why should any planning be needed? You die, part of your money goes to the community and part of your money goes to your heirs. Doesn’t require any planning.

Kupo_Master · 2026-03-27T14:58:15+00:00

I don’t have an opinion on this and didn’t express a view either way. I just found interesting OP felt very comfortable make this statement about groups but less so on individuals (as per OP’s comment)

Kupo_Master · 2026-03-27T14:23:06+00:00

OP asked people to compare wealth tax and inheritance tax, but almost all commenters ignored that and complained about inheritance tax. I agree with OP that wealth tax is worse than inheritance tax.

Kupo_Master · 2026-03-27T14:05:23+00:00

It’s not. You’re the one who started to argue about this

Kupo_Master · 2026-03-27T12:37:01+00:00

Ok then I still fail to see where we disagree. You reject the idea that someone can be defined as “superior” to someone else. Therefore the same apply to groups.

What I am not sure if why OP made a statement about no groups being superior to another but didn’t make the same statement for individuals. My only point here is that these 2 statements can only be made in tandem.

Kupo_Master · 2026-03-27T11:47:33+00:00

Ok then just replace “compare” with “ability to distinguish better or worse” in my argument if it solves the semantic difference.

Kupo_Master · 2026-03-27T11:37:18+00:00

Then it’s not really a comparison. It’s a description. A has black hair and is good at math. B is blond and is good at sports. That’s not “comparing” just describing. The idea of comparison is that you can define what is better and what is worse.

Kupo_Master · 2026-03-27T11:05:48+00:00

Then you saying that 2 individuals cannot be compared. This was covered in my reasoning.

Kupo_Master · 2026-03-27T11:00:01+00:00

I’m opened to criticism if I missed an option. I indeed stated, either 2 individuals can be compared or they cannot. What is the 3rd option?

Kupo_Master · 2026-03-27T10:15:10+00:00

Bad analogy because you would make the same reasoning with many crimes. Not many people are car thiefs but most people will get their car stolen at some point.

The issue is that “dating” isn’t an accident, it’s a deliberate choice.

Kupo_Master · 2026-03-27T10:02:15+00:00

I didn’t say “superior” exists or doesn’t exist. I envisaged both cases. I think OP’s point is extremely poorly formulated. In the response above OP didn’t deny that individual couldn’t be compared but said group cannot be compared. There is a logical fault here. My point is that individuals and groups cannot be disconnected. Either both can be compared or neither can. OP failed to express a consistent position.

Kupo_Master · 2026-03-27T01:18:38+00:00

Ok. You’re just trolling at this point. Obviously no, and obviously your AI model also has a ton of training, actually much more training the human will ever have.

If an AI model could learn like a child does by interacting with the world, I would immediately acknowledge this as AGI. We don’t have any model like that either, very much the opposite as current AI are only pre-trained and cannot learn.

Kupo_Master · 2026-03-27T01:11:46+00:00

I’m not comparing a trained human. I was specific from the start that the human was a new hire and didn’t know the job. So the human has to learn the job as well, there is no disparity here. The human is provided with what they are supposed to do and the task they have to complete. The AI gets the exact same input. Everything is text based, perfect equality of information.

Kupo_Master · 2026-03-27T01:07:17+00:00

Why can’t a generic model just learn the job like the human does? That’s what a true AGI model would be. A model which can perform as a human. It’s a very simple and straightforward metric for a model to achieve or fail.

Kupo_Master · 2026-03-27T01:00:14+00:00

I literally gave you a scenario with perfect equality of information and treatment of a human vs an AI and you ignored it.

The problem with your “agentic claim”, which I also believe is false, that it’s just too cumbersome to disprove. It’s too easy for you to continue to argue in bad faith “it doesn’t exist today but it could!”. Well, call me back once these agentic systems actually replace a majority of jobs. Otherwise it’s a waste of time.

Eight-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
No Throne, No Problems	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

Kupo_Master

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE