Tax the rich!!!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
How can we have justice when we send any and everybody who doesn't preach the party gospel and march in perfect goose-stepping fashion to the beat of the party drum to special "re-education camps" and make their families disappear in the night?

-=Vel=-

I'm not asking you to do any of those things, and I'm not threatening to send you to any camps, so you can't stop the silly nonsense.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


It is not an accusation, it's a rebuttal.

Berzerker was trying to establish some kind of la-la land hypothetical, thus it is up to him to make it work. Distractors only need to point out the flaws in his model.

Then perhaps you could start by pointing out at least some of the flaws, perhaps the most glaring of them. simply saying "everything you said is wrong" doesn't invite much discussion does it? And to be fair a quick look at his analogy showed portions that had obvious resemblance to portions of reality but I agree that this is insufficient to necessarily make for a useful analogy all by itself.

[Velociryx]

You musta forgotten your rants in the good ol' cap/com debates then....short memory, eh?

-=Vel=-

[Kuciwalker]

This is Urban Ranger, Geronimo...

[Geronimo]

whoops tried to edit by quoting my own post how odd.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I thought it was suppossed to be easy to become an internet millionaire according to you. Where's the millions?

if business wasnt too busy trying to meet investor needs rather than people's needs

What are investors? Trees?

people who invest arent in need. having the capital and ability to invest money is a sign you arent in need.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
You musta forgotten your rants in the good ol' cap/com debates then....short memory, eh?

-=Vel=-

I think you are remembering your own cheesy ineffective tactics.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Velociryx
UR: It makes perfect sense.

The original hypothesis was that you're far more likely to be born into wealth than to bootstrap your way to it.

The hypothesis said NOTHING about who accumulates more wealth, only that you cross the line.

It still does not make any sense. Suppose all descendants of the wealthy are also wealthy, that's 100% sucess rate. OTOH, what is the % of the rest of the population become rich? That's how you compare it.

Still, you read it wrong. The original hypothesis is:

Incorrect. Most of the rich were born that way. Ninty percent of all rich people picked the right family into which to be born.

Using top 1% as the cut off point.

[Velociryx]

Kid....do you *really* want me to dredge up your own quotes from those threads?

I mean, if you want me to, I suppose I could, but....you sure?

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

UR: Plainly, the hypothesis says that 90% of ALL rich...NOT the top 1%, yes?

I mean, that was written in what you quoted, right?

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Kid....do you *really* want me to dredge up your own quotes from those threads?

I mean, if you want me to, I suppose I could, but....you sure?

-=Vel=-

That would be the honest thing to do.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
This is Urban Ranger, Geronimo...

Oh please. This from a person who is fond of making posts that conists of only a single rolling eye smilie. Or maybe "Duh!"

[DinoDoc]

Why don't you dazzle us with the wisdom you gleamed from you famous quick web searches, UR?

[chequita guevara]

You are such a petty little *****.

[Berzerker]

Kid -

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

Yes, if I was to argue based on my ideological views, it would be about the immorality of legalised theft, not the pragmatic approach I offered.

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.

Babies don't own property other than what the creator gave them.

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.

How does a capitalist sit on his ass and start placing ads to hire people to do his job of sitting on his ass? Oh, you mean the capitalist wasn't really sitting on his ass, he was building a business. Otherwise, the person he hires would have no job to do...

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.

Yup, the capitalist didn't create the poor person's need for food, nature or nature's creator did that.

Let's look down the road a little. Not working has paid off big for the capitalist.

Don't you mean working to build a business has paid off? A capitalist who sits on his ass with no business is an oxy-moron.

He has found a way to get more wealth.

Yup, and employ others so one day they can start a business of their own once they've learned a trade and accumulated capital.

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.

When liberals aren't decrying capitalism here, they're complaining about poor people in other countries getting jobs so they can improve their lives too.

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

The answer would probably be, "go ask the liberals who just destroyed your job with their taxes and regulations".

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

Yup, but I can't say the same about the liberals.

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

I'm now responsible for several 500 post threads on consent? In case you haven't noticed, you're a participant in this thread and I only raise consent when liberals are trying to justify legalised theft.

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

I responded to your points and you ignored mine, weak is not a term I'd use to describe my position.

Geronimo -

I do indeed suggest that people spend everything they have before they die. I even quoted carnegie earlier to the same effect.

Why? Shouldn't that be their choice? After all, many older people are fiscally conservative and want savings to make sure they can deal with an emergency.

Your other main point appears to be that we should give post mortem transactions the same value as we give to our control of our property while alive because to do otherwise would be to show no respect to the dead.

Sure, if I die and I have debts to pay off those debts get taken care of by my estate. Should we do away with post-mortem debt along with inheritance? And I have respect for them while they're alive. A dying person feels better when they know their life's work won't be consumed by politicians waiting at the door for them to die. I've seen what effect that can have on a dying person...

Well, I certainly agree that respect for the dead is a good thing and I also agree that it is nice for people who are facing imminent death to feel better. However I daresay that you think that giving food and shelter to hungry homeless people is a nice thing and that people starving and being homeless is bad. However I don't think you would allow that these considerations should receive the same weight as your right to control your own property.

That's right, but it's the dying person's property and if they want it to go to their children or starving homeless people, I'll respect their wishes.

I maintain that the estate tax (while bad) is less bad than the income tax or sales tax or any other tax because it doesn't at any time constrain my control over my property.

It's a constraint on your labor, you said the income tax was ~slavery. I agree, but the death tax merely enslaves a person while they were alive. If you spend 30 years saving money from your labor, it doesn't matter when I take it. The fact I'm taking it means I'm taking those years out of your life. You may not care once you're gone (or you might, who knows what happens then) but you care when you're alive.

So in summation I accept the death tax as the least of the the available evils while also agreeing that respect for the dead is a good thing. Did that help illuminate my position?

Yes, you acknowledge it's evil and that's all I can expect.