Rayman Pirate-Community

Same here, I spent a while trying to think about what to answer.

I took this test before, but I decided to take it again since I felt it was somewhat inaccurate. It's much more accurate this time, the only thing that's a bit different from what the results show is that I'm slightly more secular, meaning I would be Extreme Secular instead of Secular.

Also, this is where I am on the political compass:

I retook both of mine, though I mixed up some questions on the 9axes one so I'm going to retake it.

Сым wrote: ↑Wed Nov 25, 2020 10:57 pm I shared my political compass here.

I've merged the threads and removed the cross-referencing posts. I think it's tidier this way.

Anyway, 9Axes… That used to be 8values didn't it? The thing's obviously more than doubled in scope! I'll take the test at some point soon, to see how I compare to everyone else…

I'll just post my results again here then since I had made a mistake when it came to answering government related questions.

PluMGMK wrote: ↑Anyway, 9Axes… That used to be 8values didn't it? The thing's obviously more than doubled in scope! I'll take the test at some point soon, to see how I compare to everyone else…

Yes, it used to be 8Values. I look forward to your results.

Some of these questions are worded ambiguously or misleading... but in general this seems pretty accurate to where I stand

Here's my result for 9Axes:
So yeah, no surprises here, I'm not so much of a democrat but rather a supporter of enlightened despotism. Everything for the people, nothing by the people.

I'm in favor of a strong, 100% assimilationist nation as I believe in the importance of a common, homogeneous culture to achieve progress.

I'm obviously secular, but not anticlerical. Just keep religion to the private sphere.

As for security... well, there can be no freedom without order.

Now onto economic liberalism... I'm actually pretty liberal here, but it's critical that the strategic sectors of the economy be state-owned and state-managed (think infrastructures, education. etc.) else this significantly weakens the nation and puts the state at risk. I feel the 'neutral' label doesn't well reflect this nuance.

Same for progress vs. tradition, they're not necessarily at odds. I'm in favor of all technological progress, but it doesn't mean you can't respect the traditions at the same time.

Here's mine:My head is fried now…

Here's my political compass I guess. I was centre-left before. It seems became right-winged recently. I don't know how that happened. But, I find these political tests really interesting.

I sort of skimmed through the 200 questions so I don't think it's totally accurate. Especially the top three axes which I don't have particularly strong opinions on. I might have to go through them again at some point with a little more thought put in and see what changes.

Here are my political compass and 9Axes results:

Here's my Politiscales result:
I took the test in French, but it's also available in a few other languages including English.

If you want to take the test: https://politiscales.fr/

Social Democracy - I'd say that's pretty accurate. Coming from more personal experience than cultural zeitgeist now, I find wealthy people are just far more materialistic on average, and the drive for personal wealth comes at the expense of others big time. I strongly support taxing the rich more, because, ironically, they're often the least likely to give to charity (because they're the most socially disconnected from the ones they're giving it to) unless they're rich and famous enough to care about their personal image. No one needs a billion dollar mansion, and poor people don't deserve to be stuck in a financial rut that's virtually impossible to climb out of and not even be able to pay for bare medical expenses. It's far harder to increase your wealth when you're poor, it's far easier to when you're already rich. Given the huge disparity between the rich and the poor, mathematically speaking, the poor would feel a positive financial impact more than the rich would feel a negative one.

What changes to the Canadian tax system would you suggest so as to reach this goal?

Currently the brackets are as follows:

$48,535 or less --- 15%
$48,535 - $97,069 --- 20.5%
$97,069 - $150,473 --- 26%
$150,473 - $214,368 --- 29%
More than $214,368 --- 33%

I think additional tax brackets for people far richer should apply; I have no idea why the scaling doesn't continue upwards with diminishing returns other than to specifically protect the top 1%. I haven't done the math myself but >1 million per year I think should be 50% if not higher, with the appropriate scaling for brackets between 215k and 1mil. Of course many businesses would be affected if it were rolled out flat, so maybe it should only take into account personal wealth that you don't write off for your business.

The thing is, income tax brackets are pretty much irrelevant to the "top 1%". The richest people in the world do not pay themselves salaries, or barely. They do not live off their work, they live off their capital. And some don't even pay themselves dividends either, they just live off huge credit lines collateralized with their stocks and other types of securities.

Focusing the debate on income tax means taxing work, and therefore production, even more, while the true problems lie elsewhere. I'm not sure how the inheritance system works in Canada, but I'm pretty sure that with decent optimization, someone can inherit most of their parent's fortune, live off it and barely do anything with their lives, while someone born into a poor or middle-class family that worked their ass off to get a high-paying job will be milked like a cow by the government.

That's why I think we should stop overtaxing work and instead focus on the transmission of capital if we want to tackle inequality. Then people, with equal opportunities at birth, could do as they please with the money they've rightfully earned, and unless they start living forever, money will always end up in the hands of the state and be redistributed.

Of course, it'll be hard to get such a system to work if it's not implemented globally, but that's definitely the direction we should head towards.

Adsolution wrote: ↑Sun Nov 07, 2021 11:08 pm Currently the brackets are as follows:

$48,535 or less --- 15%
$48,535 - $97,069 --- 20.5%
$97,069 - $150,473 --- 26%
$150,473 - $214,368 --- 29%
More than $214,368 --- 33%

I think additional tax brackets for people far richer should apply; I have no idea why the scaling doesn't continue upwards with diminishing returns other than to specifically protect the top 1%. I haven't done the math myself but >1 million per year I think should be 50% if not higher, with the appropriate scaling for brackets between 215k and 1mil. Of course many businesses would be affected if it were rolled out flat, so maybe it should only take into account personal wealth that you don't write off for your business.

I'm curious what your progressive tax result would be if you took the dichotomy test.

I personally like the idea of the progressive tax as well.

Here's my result for this test:

Wait, "adhocracy" is a thing now?

PluMGMK wrote: ↑Sat Nov 13, 2021 4:56 pm Wait, "adhocracy" is a thing now?

Unfortunately, yes…