Wrong, I stated it was theft for the gov't to unequally take. In this case it is in the form of "progressive" taxation of labor.Originally posted by: Craig234
It's been explained to you repeatedly that you have to choose to take it from the very wealthy or from someone else. You say that it's 'theft' from the wealthy, and by implication that it's not theft, that it's moral, to take from people other than the very wealthy instead. Not much of an argument.Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I don't agree with any of those 3 areas.
moral - how is taking more from someone who earns more - "moral"? IMO, it's theft and/or jealousy.
You dodge the issue of pragmatism, not even touching on the issues in my post, other than to falsely call the concentration of wealth issue 'emotional', which is not the case.pragmatic - IMO, the pragmatic way to do this is have a flatter tax/consumption tax as it allows for individual choices. This whole "wealth concentration" falls under the emotional "moral" arguement.
What a lackey you are for the ideology you are fed. I guess the desire for yet more wealth by the wealthy has no 'emotion' and is just good policy, while others are just 'emotional'.
Again, you call it 'redistributing' when it's one group and not another, when it's the government and not the private sector, more blind ideological flufffy nonsense from you.political - again, flat or consumption tax would take the politics out of the tax code to a certain extent. But taking your argument of the wealthy voting it's own interests is no different than you "poor people" peddlers trying to take more and more of people's earnings to redistribute.
IMO, the founding fathers were smart not to put a cap on wealth. They seemed to understand the idea of freedom from an oppressive gov't. They seemed to understand that people needn't be under the thumb of the gov't - which is what higher and higher taxation does to people.
You confuse the motivation of the founding fathers, which reflected the very different economic situation they were in.
While any sort of 'cap' is debatable, you are in fact praising the founding fathers for doing the pretty much the opposite of what they did. We always here those in your camp spouting about the 'government taking your money at gunpoint' for every dime you disagree with, yet the founding fathers are the ones who set up that very power of taxation - after having been too soft on their first try in the Articles of Confederation. They put people 'under the thumb of the government', while balancing that with the vote and some basic constraints on the government's power - constraints which liberals agree with at least as much, and probably more, than the right. The issue the right is arguing against isn't those basic protections, it's the very act of the government taxing backed up by force, whether indirectly with higher prices of goods from tariffs in their day, or more directly through income tax for the last century.
Your post is, sorry, just hot air, IMO, and so lacking in substance as not to be a discussion. You get the last word, next, until you can offer more for discussion.
I note in particular the lack of any answer to my asking if you will go read some books.
Yes, "concentration" is an emotional issue and falls more on the moral side. You are assigning "harm" to this supposed concentration. :roll: I did not say the desire for more wealth wasn't emotional. However, who are YOU to say someone shouldn't be able to act on that desire? I do not desire the wealthy to have more wealth, but then again, I'm not obsessed with what others have so I won't impede them. It's their choice - not yours or the gov'ts.
So you don't think taxes are redistribution of wealth? Wow, talk about "
What a lackey you are for the ideology you are fed." :laugh:
I do not oppose taxation - I oppose taxation that is unequal and lacks choice. The founding fathers seemed to understand this...
BTW, I have no desire to read a book by a guy who basically promotes class envy. How do you like that shot? Nope haven't read his books, don't care too because I've read things by people like him. I would not even comment on it except you think you had to make a point of it. Likewise - I suggest you refrain from comment if you are only going to shoot the messenger like you did in this thread - which was my original point here.