Tax the rich!!!

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by MRT144
also...

berzerker, look at europe. they have a better than average welfare system. sure they arent economically impressive as the US, but i think it stands to reason they enjoy a better quality of life because they arent so focused on a rat race of money. Their governments provide the essentials so they can focus on more important things, like family, football, food, and fun.

Explain why it is not possible to enjoy these things without a welfare state. Assuming government provides services less efficiently than the private sector (and so far this appears to almost always be the case) then the greater efficiency of the economy of the non-welfare state should allow it to provide the same or greater free time at even lower cost.

Don't forget that the same people who you claim are bennefitting from their governments provision of their basic essnetials are also the same ones who will have to pay for it and who will have to labor to provide those essentials.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by MRT144


there are no garuntees that at the end of the life, there will be taxable income.

Oh well. there is also no guarentee that in the middle of life there will be any income to tax. Dang. fortunately the government can budget based on the average.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


What gives you the right to determine that "family" is more important for me?

Funny, a liberal arguing for family values...

im not a liberal, doofus.

the thing that i dont think is important are the ideas that work and your means to work are all that you are worth, and all you should care about. this ties into my belief that to sustain a society where this idea is rejected there must also be a system that provides basics to people(health care, food, clothing, and shelter, work)

[Kuciwalker]

Work is all that you're worth monetarily.

[Berzerker]

Kid -

And conservatives want to take a little at a time, everytime he decides to work or buy something.

I'm not a conservative, but I'd have to ask: which of the two will take more? Wait a minute, liberals do that too in addition to the death tax.

MRT -

because it is a characterization, and by that very fact is not factual or a true indication of who i am. it is an overstatement in an attempt to brand me as something.i am not a liberal. I have certain opinions that lean left, and certain that lean right. get used to it.

You didn't explain why my characterisation was invalid, you just said it was as if that's proof.

Krazyhorse -

If it was a death tax then it would apply to all those that die.

It's a tax levied on the act of leaving an estate.

If you don't leave an estate when you die then there's no tax.

Then the estate tax is not a tax on estates because it only applies to people who die with a certain amount of money. Virtually everyone leaves an estate... I knew that argument was coming up...

Geronimo -

Sure decide what you want. But do not expect me to ascribe to your post mortem transactions the same validity that I give to your ownership of the money you earn.

That's a bogus argument, liberals won't let people hand over their money to their offspring when they're alive so they can avoid the death tax, there are all sorts of limits on what parents can give their kids to ensure there are estates liberals can tax to high heaven.

It's critical that we control the fruits of our own labors but it's of no consequence that other people get to keep the fruits of our labors after we leave the world.

It's called respecting their wishes. Dying people feel better when we do that...

My objection to taking someone's earned money is that it is tantamount to slavery. Can't enslave someone who is dead. only the living.

They can't make money when their dead either. So the money being taken was earned when they were alive, and that's when they are enslaved. Might as well tell people to spend everything they have because you will take it when they die. Hell, might as well send grave diggers into coffins to grab any other possessions they're buried with. Better yet, why bury people in marked graves we're supposed to leave indisturbed? According to you, they shouldn't even own the burial plot.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Ummm....Che....not sure where you've been hiding bud, but in case you missed it on the news, the Internet bubble burst back in the 90's, and these guys made their fortunes AFTER that.



-=Vel=-

But the technology didn't go away, and it's still reptty easy to become an internet millionaire. It's just not ridiculously easy.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Explain why it is not possible to enjoy these things without a welfare state. Assuming government provides services less efficiently than the private sector (and so far this appears to almost always be the case) then the greater efficiency of the economy of the non-welfare state should allow it to provide the same or greater free time at even lower cost.

Don't forget that the same people who you claim are bennefitting from their governments provision of their basic essnetials are also the same ones who will have to pay for it and who will have to labor to provide those essentials.

the private sector is not benevolent, nor does it try to be. the government in some capacity should be. the role of government is to empower its people to succeed.

your second paragraph ties into the idea of "taxing the rich" using extra income to support people that need it isnt a bad idea. unless you believe in the duality of "fairness"

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
and it's still reptty easy to become an internet millionaire. It's just not ridiculously easy.

When did you make your first million, che? I'll come over and take 90% of your money.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Berzerker
MRT -

You didn't explain why my characterisation was invalid, you just said it was as if that's proof.

because i can tell you that i am not a liberal. i know myself better than you. or am i a dubious athourity on my own belief system.

i dont believe in stealing. Im not going to argue semantics with you about how you think taxes are stealing, because we each are stuck in our own ideology.

[Velociryx]

:: shrug::

More technology coming online every day. More opportunities for those with a bit of savvy.

Fifteen years = a pretty damnably solid trend, and that's the state of affairs in the here and now, which is, I presume, what we're talking about, yes?

And if so, then the original hypothesis presented is FALSE.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Let's look at this from a non-ideological pragmatic approach:

non-ideological? Is that what you think your little approach is?

How about if we look at it from an approach that resembles the real world as we know it today?

One person is born into society as a property owner, and another person is born into the world with no means to provide the things he needs for himself. The capitalist wants to sit on his ass and think of ways to get more capital so he puts an add in the paper offering to pay someone a wage to do the work that he was doing before. The poor person decides that he would rather work than starve so the only choice that he is left with is working for our soon to be capitalist. You say this is consent.

Let's look down the road a little. Not working has paid off big for the capitalist. He has found a way to get more wealth. Unfortunately for the worker it involves moving the capital to another country and hiring someone for cheaper than the worker was able to live on.

So the worker still wants to eat. He asks the capitalist for help. The answer is no.

Now according to you the capitalist acted in an ethical way and owes the worker nothing because the worker gave his consent.

THIS IS ALL YOU HAVE! After several 500 post threads on this, this is all you have - what you call 'consent.'

Get a new argument. This one is so weak its incredible.

[Velociryx]

Question for The Kid:

When have your posts EVER been concerned with the state of affairs in the real world?

-=Vel=-

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Saras
So, how much of the US population live below the GLOBAL income average, median AND mode

That's a red herring.

It simply is impossible to live on, say, US$2 a day in the US, but you can in a great number of 3rd World countries.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Question for The Kid:

When have your posts EVER been concerned with the state of affairs in the real world?

-=Vel=-

nice punt

[Japher]

One person is born into society as a property owner, and another person is born into the world with no means to provide the things he needs for himself. The capitalist wants to sit on his ass and think of ways to get more capital so he puts an add in the paper offering to pay someone a wage to do the work that he was doing before. The poor person decides that he would rather work than starve so the only choice that he is left with is working for our soon to be capitalist. You say this is consent.

It ain't what you are born into it is what you become... Why are people more concerned with Other Peoples Money than with their own. Get your own! And, Kid, if you want help I have good connections in Fresno.