Are states' rights more important than human lives?

[kentonio]

I believe charity should come from my own pocket, not the pockets of others. What point is there trying to fix a system that relies on theft?

Oh stop being a ****ing moron. Do you know how utterly pathetic it sounds when you talk about taxation as theft? Every time you travel on a road you prove your own idiocy.

[Ben Kenobi]

is not and integral part of life, and the toleration of suffering forms one of the central reasons why I despise your stupid little death cult.

"Better a gramme than a damn"

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh stop being a ****ing moron. Do you know how utterly pathetic it sounds when you talk about taxation as theft? Every time you travel on a road you prove your own idiocy.

When one percent pay the same as 93 percent, yes, it's very much theft. Since the system relies upon the benefits of the very rich, wouldn't we simply be better off if we let them decide where their money goes?

[kentonio]

No it's not theft you idiot, the rich only have the opportunity to become rich because of the infrastructure provided by society. What's especially funny is when poor people like yourself get all defensive about the tax rates of the rich, a group you are not a member of and will never be a member of.

As for letting them spend their own tax money, that's some especially stupid ****. Allowing the super rich to not contribute to the society they live in tends to lead to things like the poor lining the rich up against walls and shooting them.

[Ben Kenobi]

the rich only have the opportunity to become rich because of the infrastructure provided by society.

If this were in fact true, wouldn't everyone be rich and nobody poor?

What's especially funny is when poor people like yourself get all defensive about the tax rates of the rich, a group you are not a member of and will never be a member of.

If we distributed the vote according to what people actually contributed to society, the top 1 percent would contribute the same as 93 percent of the population. That to me, speaks volumes. It tells me that my life is dictated and decided by a small number of wealthy people whom I will likely never meet, and I will never be in contact. That flies 100 percent against the egalitarian ideal, does it not? If one sincerely believes that all people are equal, shouldn't everyone contribute equally? I firmly believe that if the cost of society were shared equally, that things would be far better off than it is now.

Allowing the super rich to not contribute to the society they live in tends to lead to things like the poor lining the rich up against walls and shooting them.

The Super rich have no choice. What are they going to do with all this money? Money has zero true value. It only has value in the things that it is tied up in - the investments that it helps support, the production that it permits to happen, etc. You seem to believe that the rich have all their money in their money bin, just lying around and sitting there for the thief to steal. It's been tried before, and it's not worked very well. The rich don't change, you simply have a system where the rich have power now, and the rich have even more power than before. And their membership will hardly change.

If you try to rob them, what's to stop them offering the robbers a paycheck more than you can provide to kill you?

[kentonio]

The truly idiotic thing is allowing a system whereby a tiny group can claim the vast share of societies resources. There is a huge difference between allowing the hard working a larger share to reward them for their industry and the obscene income inequality which America has today. You think that people wouldn't bother working unless they were able to become billionaires? That if they could only become millionaires that no-one would bother? Wild income inequality leads to one inevitable outcome and that is social unrest. It's happened every single time it has occurred and it will happen again. It doesn't matter how much money the rich have, because there comes a point where the poor will no longer tolerate watching their children sicken and starve while others swan around decked in the lap of luxury.

If you allow the rich to collect wealth without control this will happen. Taxation acts as one of the few methods of preventing this, but the question people should be asking is why such a tiny group are being given such a lions share of the resources in the first place. Top tip: they aren't earning it in any meaningful sense.

[Ben Kenobi]

The truly idiotic thing is allowing a system whereby a tiny group can claim the vast share of societies resources.

Society's resources? Do you not believe that people can earn things? If someone is productive, why shouldn't they accumulate wealth proportionate to their productivity?

There is a huge difference between allowing the hard working a larger share to reward them for their industry and the obscene income inequality which America has today.

Oh, I see. So how much did you pay for your 'Harry Potter' book?

You think that people wouldn't bother working unless they were able to become billionaires?

No, not at all. But I do believe that more people will be working if we let those same billionaires manage their own money (which they seem quite able to do on their own without the help of the state). Billionaires making money means that everyone benefits in some fashion.

Wild income inequality leads to one inevitable outcome and that is social unrest.

Which is why Communist societies were free from it?

It doesn't matter how much money the rich have, because there comes a point where the poor will no longer tolerate watching their children sicken and starve while others swan around decked in the lap of luxury.

Before or after they are finished checking their Ipads?

why such a tiny group are being given such a lions share of the resources in the first place.

Because they earned it?

Top tip: they aren't earning it in any meaningful sense.

Define 'earn'.

[kentonio]

A system where someone can 'earn' vast sums just by having vast sums is a fundemantally broken system. You think a stock broker works harder or contributes more to society than a teacher? You've bought hook, line and sinker into the oldest lie in the book, whereby if you sit and beg at masters feet he'll reward you with an occasional crumb from the table.

No the rich cannot be trusted to act in the common good, and no they aren't super special people who deserve all the best stuff. They are simply people who have a skill at making money, and nothing more. They don't always contribute to making the world better, they don't trickle down a worthwhile proportion of their wealth, and you're a sucker if you believe they do.

[Ben Kenobi]

A system where someone can 'earn' vast sums just by having vast sums is a fundemantally broken system.

That's fundamentally. And no, it's not. Anyone can earn a sum through investments, and the better one is at ascertaining the market, the better one will do. It's not just about accumulating a large sum, but about putting it to use where it is most needed, and where it is most effective. You can hand two people a certain sum, and in a year, go back and assess whom was more successful. It's not very obvious, and people are very far from making optimal decisions, so there is considerable work that can be done here to improve efficiencies of capital accumulation.

You think a stock broker works harder or contributes more to society than a teacher?

Insofar as the stock broker not only is responsible for his own earnings - but the earnings of plenty of other people, including teachers? Absolutely. A good stockbroker, yes. A bad one will contribute far, far less. Same with teachers, fwiw. A good teacher has a substantial effect on the entire community, and a bad one has the similar negative effect. The system that we have today shortchanges teachers dramatically. A private system that gives more responsibility to the teacher would ensure that the contribution of the individual teacher were greater and that the teacher would have a much larger impact on society. As it is - the impact of one good teacher is generally smoothed out by the influence of other teachers, and so their compensation reflects this.

Imagine if a teacher, instead of being assigned a class of 20 students for one year, were assigned a class of 20 students for 12 years? Would we not be able to state that the individual impact of the teacher were far greater?

You've bought hook, line and sinker into the oldest lie in the book, whereby if you sit and beg at masters feet he'll reward you with an occasional crumb from the table.

Indeed, "for He came for the Jews only".

No the rich cannot be trusted to act in the common good

Two things here. One, we already trust the rich with the common good. Look at the Senate, at the House. Are not the majority of members wealthy? Do they not get even more wealthy off the largesse of the public? Clearly we do trust the rich to act in the common good.

Two, those who have earned their wealth through sound investments have shown a capacity to understand the market. They serve society by continuing to finance sound investments, and society would do better allowing these people to continue to invest. The state does not make sound investments, and so, in wasting their money - the money could be put to better use by letting the very wealthy continue to manage their money wisely.

They are simply people who have a skill at making money, and nothing more.

They act as a force multiplier ensuring that more things get produced when they are working - everyone makes money when they make good decisions, and everyone loses money when they make bad ones. We've tolerated incompetence in our electoral officials for far too long- spending more than they take in every year, and incredibly wasteful spending. Thus, we need to massively cut back their spending and their total proportion of the economy because they have demonstrated their incapacity to adequately govern the trust of the people.

They don't always contribute to making the world better

Not always, yes, but the successful ones hit more than they miss.

they don't trickle down a worthwhile proportion of their wealth, and you're a sucker if you believe they do.

Yes, their decisions have an impact on my life - the better they invest their wealth - the better off everyone is in the market. Bad decisions lead to wasted capital and losses, that lead to inefficiencies. Good decisions the precise opposite. Their decisions lead to a trickle down effect, in the costs of everything that I buy.

[Kidlicious]

Society's resources? Do you not believe that people can earn things? If someone is productive, why shouldn't they accumulate wealth proportionate to their productivity?

Because doctors should earn more than people who produce child porn.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because doctors should earn more than people who produce child porn.

Even an abortionist?

[Kidlicious]

Even an abortionist?

What do you say? Should an abortionist earn more money than a heart surgeon because the market says so?

[Ben Kenobi]

What do you say? Should an abortionist earn more money than a heart surgeon because the market says so?

Given present compensation rates, the worst doctors at the bottom of their classes specialize in abortions. Keep that in mind when you hear that they are 'safe'. The market has already decided to push the good doctors into other specialties.

[Kidlicious]

Given present compensation rates, the worst doctors at the bottom of their classes specialize in abortions. Keep that in mind when you hear that they are 'safe'. The market has already decided to push the good doctors into other specialties.

“Along the way,” says Levantino, “you find out that you can make a lot of money doing abortions. I worked 9 to 5. I was never bothered at night. I never had to go out on weekends. And I made more money than my obstetrician brethren. And I didn’t have to face the liability. That’s a big factor, a huge perk. I almost never, ever had to worry about her lawyer bothering me.

“In my practice, we were averaging between $250 and $500 per abortion – and it was cash. It’s the one time as a doctor you can say, ‘Either pay me up front or I’m not going to take care of you.’ Abortion is totally elective. Either you have the money or you don’t. And they get it.”

Cash payment is common in the abortion industry, says Everett.

“I’ve seen doctors walk out after three hours’ work and split $4,500 dollars between them on a Saturday morning – more if you go longer into the day,” she said. “Of the four clinics I’ve worked in, none of them ever showed that they collected the doctors’ money; they collect it separately, and do not show it on any of the records in those clinics. That way, the doctors are independent contractors and the clinic doesn’t have to be concerned with their malpractice insurance, and doesn’t have to report their income to the IRS.”

“Every single transaction that we did,” adds Whitten, “was cash money. We wouldn’t take a check, or even a credit card. If you didn’t have the money, forget it. It wasn’t unusual at all for me to take $10,000 to $15,000 a day to the bank – in cash.”

Lets see, if you made $10,000 a day, multiplied by about 240 workdays in a year, that’s $2.4 million. In a year. $12 million every five years. If they make even one third of that, we’re still talking pro sports money here. But some doctors just can’t stomach it after a while…

http://thenaturallawyer.wordpress.co...nd-experience/

[kentonio]

@Ben: That's a good doggy, you go and lick your masters feet. Anyone with lots of money is clearly super clever and special and more worthwhile a person than you.

How the **** you have the cheek to claim to be christian is beyond me. Something about camels and needles ring any bells you ****ing joke of a human being?