Thread: Why Is Taxing the Rich So Hard?

Originally Posted by Brutus

Republicans are for freedom. For example, they have proposed 40 Balanced BUdget Amendments to the COnstitution and Democrats have killed alll 40 of them.

Good job in buying into the whole Us vs Them argument... just like you are supposed to. Neither party is working to benefit the citizenry. They are both working for the benefit of the favored few... just as long as they can keep us all distracted like drunken sports fans arguing over which team is the best.

Originally Posted by Brutus

Republicans are for freedom. For example, they have proposed 40 Balanced BUdget Amendments to the COnstitution and Democrats have killed alll 40 of them.

You have a choice Brutus. You can either acknowledge that Jeffersons party eventually became the Democrat party, or you can acknowledge that Democrats weren't around to kill anything when he was around. You can't just claim that anything you don't like comes from Democrats.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

Society benefits the most.

yes society benefits most from business, in fact business makes society possible. BUsiness got us from the stone age to here.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

Which is why education for all who desire it is a benefit to society,

why on earth are you changing subject to education?????? Do you feel you lost the debate so had to to save face??

Originally Posted by Unique POV

and that benefit must be paid for by society before society reap it.

so now you're an open communist?? Does communism work?? Do you lack the IQ to undestand why Red China just switched to capitalism???

Originally Posted by Unique POV

The wealthy who does not want to pay to teach the man to fish

please don't be absurd or insane . Business is 100% about teaching people how to use the products they supply! It has nothing to do with public education

Originally Posted by Unique POV

is trying to make sure the poor have to keep buying fish from the wealthy... IOW, he wants to keep the poor poor.

actually you get rich by suppling a fishing rod or any product that people can afford and use. NOw you now that capitalism prevents the rich from not selling fishing rods.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

Good job in buying into the whole Us vs Them argument... just like you are supposed to.

yes you are supposed to because freedom versus government is the basis for all of human history

Originally Posted by Unique POV

Neither party is working to benefit the citizenry. They are both working for the benefit of the favored few... just as long as they can keep us all distracted like drunken sports fans arguing over which team is the best.

as I said Republicans have proposed 40 BBA's since Jefferson; the liberals have killed everyone of them and are now hard at work killing the current one!!

That( the BBA's) are very saintly because it would greatly limit government. The Democrats are pure evil for opposing

Originally Posted by Porras

You have a choice Brutus. You can either acknowledge that Jeffersons party eventually became the Democrat party,

yes the name was changed from Republican to Democratic Republican to Democratic

Originally Posted by Porras

or you can acknowledge that Democrats weren't around to kill anything when he was around.

at the time the party of big government was called Federalist

Originally Posted by Porras

You can't just claim that anything you don't like comes from Democrats.

using the modern meaning of the term one can! Democrats are for big government and not surprisingly spied for Stalin and elected a president who had 2 communist parents.

Originally Posted by Brutus

yes the name was changed from Republican to Democratic Republican to Democratic



at the time the party of big government was called Federalist



using the modern meaning of the term one can! Democrats are for big government and not surprisingly spied for Stalin and elected a president who had 2 communist parents.

Are you starting to see why the labels you use are useless? If you argue the issues, rather than vague and meaningless ideology, you might make some progress here. You've called me a liberal multiple times on this forum. That's not what I am. I'm big on states' rights, gun rights, the ability to endorse religion in a public forum, these are all things which are, by modern definitions, conservative views. That doesn't make me a conservative either, though.

Take each issue on it's own merits rather than deciding that all 'liberals' are too stupid and lack the IQ and courage to debate.

Originally Posted by Porras

Are you starting to see why the labels you use are useless? If you argue the issues, rather than vague and meaningless ideology, you might make some progress here.

how is Jeffersonian freedom and liberty meaningless??? PLease try to explain!!!!!

Originally Posted by Porras

You've called me a liberal multiple times on this forum. That's not what I am. I'm big on states' rights, gun rights, the ability to endorse religion in a public forum, these are all things which are, by modern definitions, conservative views. That doesn't make me a conservative either, though.

sorry, if you are independent of philosophy you are independent of intelligence. HItler had a philosophy and so did Jefferson and that made all the difference. You need to think your way to a philosophy about freedom versus government. That is the only issue of human history. Think about it over and over again please.

Originally Posted by Porras

Take each issue on it's own merits rather than deciding that all 'liberals' are too stupid and lack the IQ and courage to debate.

as Jefferson taught us, there is only one issue: freedom versus government!!

Originally Posted by Brutus

how is Jeffersonian freedom and liberty meaningless??? PLease try to explain!!!!!

The arguments for freedom and liberty aren't meaningless. Turning it into us vs them talking points is meaningless.

sorry, if you are independent of philosophy you are independent of intelligence. HItler had a philosophy and so did Jefferson and that made all the difference. You need to think your way to a philosophy about freedom versus government. That is the only issue of human history. Think about it over and over again please.

So the people evaluating each issue on it's merits rather than thinking whatever Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olberman tell them to are the ones without intelligence? I'm going to have to disagree on that.

as Jefferson taught us, there is only one issue: freedom versus government!!

So you support gay marriage and legalization of narcotics then? You're starting to sound like a liberal.

Originally Posted by Porras

The arguments for freedom and liberty aren't meaningless. Turning it into us vs them talking points is meaningless.

how so???us has supported 40 BBA's since Jefferson to limit government; them has killed all 40 of them!!!! GOt it now??????

Originally Posted by Porras

So the people evaluating each issue on it's merits rather than thinking whatever Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olberman tell them to are the ones without intelligence? I'm going to have to disagree on that.

if I mentioned Rush I'll pay you $10,000 Bet??? A liberal wil show his illiteracy with the assumption philosophy started with Rush, not Aristotle

Originally Posted by Porras

So you support gay marriage and legalization of narcotics then?

no to gay marriage, yes to a drugs

Originally Posted by Porras

You're starting to sound like a liberal.

what??????

Originally Posted by Brutus

how so???us has supported 40 BBA's since Jefferson to limit government; them has killed all 40 of them!!!! GOt it now??????

Again, that's one issue. An issue I've been on the 'conservative' side of since I knew what the national debt was. See my sig line for evidence of this.

if I mentioned Rush I'll pay you $10,000 Bet??? A liberal wil show his illiteracy with the assumption philosophy started with Rush, not Aristotle

I was simply identifying modern mouthpieces to show how foolish party line thinking is.

no to gay marriage,

You must be on the government side of the 'freedom vs government' argument then.

yes to a drugs

Typical liberal.

Originally Posted by Brutus

no to gay marriage

Originally Posted by Porras

You must be on the government side of the 'freedom vs government' argument then.

Sad how often the "legalizing gay marriage" is misconstrued by its supporters. Gays can marry now -and do, Click Here. They are simply not entitled to a legal marriage license, i.e., a license by the State to receive State benefits because of that marriage.

Freedom is NOT what government gives you but what they do not take from you.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

I didn't miss your point at all. Clearly it is your opinion that a progessive tax IS a punative tax. You feel that the wealthy are being punished, or discriminated against, for having more wealth. I just don't happen to agree with that opinion.

Yes, they are being discriminated against, and worst of all, by the very government that is supposed to protect them from unequal treatment under the law. It isn't an opinion, it is a fact.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

The wealthy do not make themselves wealthy.

Of course the wealthy make themselves wealthy, and they usually make society better in the process.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

Society makes them wealthy.

That is absurd.

Society is the environment in which the wealthy function to become wealthy, but it is also the environment in which the poor function to become poor. Society causes neither, but allows for both.

Originally Posted by Unique POV

You can work as hard as you want to, and make the best product known to man... but if society does not value your efforts or your product, you are not going to make a single dime off of it. That is an undisputable fact.

And I can work as hard as I can, and run as fast as I can... but if I can't run a 10. something second 100 meter dash, I am not going to be an Olympian. That is an indisputable fact.

Does that mean that the track makes Usain Bolt fast?

Originally Posted by Unique POV

Those who have benefitted the most from society, should give the most back to society. That is my opinion.... and it is just as valid as yours.

It is my opinion also.

I just don't want the government to force them to do it.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

As of right now, the private sector apparently hasn't found a solution for the needs of Mr. Richard James Verone in the story I linked above. If people hate having money taken from them in the form of taxes to help the unfortunate, why do you expect they will be even MORE forthcoming when doing so is "optional"? I'm not talking individual examples, I'm talking people in total giving away ~10% of GDP through private interests so we don't have to have social programs.



If the poor screamed that their taxes were too high the government would cut their tax burden and tax the middle class more, because that is how politicians would get more votes. Then they cut taxes for the wealthy (capital gains tax) in order to boost their political campaign coffers. Thats exactly how we have gotten into the situation we are in today. However, nobody TRIES to become poor to take advantage of the 'gravy train', its not like they're living a great lifestyle everyone covets.

Not if the law treated all citizens equally, as it should. There would be no manipulation of tax brackets up and down to buy votes.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

The example of Kings is interesting because: The feudal system WORKED and worked for thousands of years. It further gives thought to the following: Would you rather be a lord or a peasant under the feudal system? Our modern capitalistic system is becoming more and more like the feudal system with the ultra-wealthy and the poor representing the lords and peasants. Yes its far better to be a poor person in America than to be a peasant under the feudal system ... however what you're proposing is to tax the poor more and tax the rich less ... which effectively pushes us CLOSER to the feudal model which is inferior to our modern day system.

No. What I am proposing is that government would be forced to shrink if more of the citizenry were actually paying something akin to their fair share.