• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Super rich hold $32 trillion in offshore havens

Don't know what other meaning to draw from that exchange. If that is not what your meant, explain it.

Exactly what I said. Just because it's LEGAL doesn't mean it's not theft. Just because it's LEGAL, doesn't mean it's not murder. There are FAR better pro tax arguments than simply stating its legality, as if that settles that. Sorry if I was unclear with what I meant.
 
Exactly what I said. Just because it's LEGAL doesn't mean it's not theft. Just because it's LEGAL, doesn't mean it's not murder. There are FAR better pro tax arguments than simply stating its legality, as if that settles that. Sorry if I was unclear with what I meant.

You are still unclear. First its theft, then it isn't, then it is again. When you make up your mind if you think taxation is theft or not, please let me know.
 
You are still unclear. First its theft, then it isn't, then it is again. When you make up your mind if you think taxation is theft or not, please let me know.

I don't think taxation is theft, its simply a necessary evil. But claiming that it's legal is NOT the same as claiming it's not theft. Just like in the FL case. Claiming that Zimmerman's actions were legal (jury still out) is not the same as saying it wasn't murder. Maybe not murder in the eyes of the law. But to anyone with common sense...murder.
 
I don't think taxation is theft, its simply a necessary evil. But claiming that it's legal is NOT the same as claiming it's not theft.


Under our Constitution, it is the legal system that determines what is theft and what is not theft. For over a century taxation has been deemed legal under our rule of law.
 
Under our Constitution, it is the legal system that determines what is theft and what is not theft. For over a century taxation has been deemed legal under our rule of law.

Legal theft, does not make it not theft. It just makes it legal.
 
I'm by no means rich but I would stand with them and their right to protect that which they rightfully and legally own. Besides, people need to understand that, if others can just decide to take property from people on a whim (who defines "rich"? - To some "rich" could be you) then nobody's property would be safe.
Which means, in the real world rather than in some Master-Slave fantasyland, that if you use your gun to stop someone from shooting at you, then you'll set it up for somebody else to have the right to take your own gun. The non-rich who support the rich are cowards who won't fight back.
 
Legal theft, does not make it not theft. It just makes it legal.

Under our constitution, the courts are the entity that decides what is theft and what is not. The Constitution makes no mention of unsubstantiated claims by anonymous far right internet dudes.
 
Is their money so they can have it where they want. How about if they had it under their beds? Would that make it illegal? Once they paid taxes the first time they made the money then I don't have a problem

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2
 
Under our Constitution, it is the legal system that determines what is theft and what is not theft. For over a century taxation has been deemed legal under our rule of law.
Right, so Zimmerman didn't commit murder. Listen, genius, if you take something that isn't yours WITHOUT the express consent of the own, it's theft, I don't give a rats ass what the supreme court says. So, saying it's legal, and therefor, not theft, is a really weak ass argument. Split hairs all you want, its only hurting you, lol. Better argument would be to focus on the express consent part. As in, if people REALY do not grant their consent...and REALY have a problem with...they would do something about...and by NOT doingthung, they are, in essence. Granting their consent, invalidating the theft argument.
 
I hate typing on I phones.
 
Listen, genius, if you take something that isn't yours WITHOUT the express consent of the own, it's theft, I don't give a rats ass what the supreme court says.


We run the country according to the rule of law based on the Constitution. I don't give a rat's ass about the opinion of some anonymous internet dude that doesn't believe in this country's rule of law.
 
We run the country according to the rule of law based on the Constitution. I don't give a rat's ass about the opinion of some anonymous internet dude that doesn't believe in this country's rule of law.

Right. Shooting people who winning a fight you started isn't murder in FL, then. Right back where we started, lol.
 
Right. Shooting people who winning a fight you started isn't murder in FL, then. Right back where we started, lol.

Yeah, with you trying to change the subject to a completely unrelated topic. Big surprise there!
 
Yeah, with you trying to change the subject to a completely unrelated topic. Big surprise there!

It's not unrelated. It's simply stating a point.


Not all laws are in our best interests. I DO believe that was what Justice Roberts said, to, lol. Constitutional, yes. Legal, yes. Smart, no. In our best interest, no. Food for thought.

But anyway, my main point was, due to the fact that we got a great DEAL of completely legal things on the books, that are neither smart, nor in anyone's best interests...state the legality of something, in this case, simply isn't the best argument you can put forth about it. I already laid out a better argument, which, of course, you edited out of your reply to me. Big surprise there!
 
It's not unrelated. It's simply stating a point.

Yes, an unrelated talking point.


Not all laws are in our best interests. I DO believe that was what Justice Roberts said, to, lol. Constitutional, yes. Legal, yes. Smart, no. In our best interest, no. Food for thought.

You can believe whatever you like. It doesn't change the fact that taxation is not theft under our rule of law.

But anyway, my main point was, due to the fact that we got a great DEAL of completely legal things on the books, that are neither smart, nor in anyone's best interests...state the legality of something, in this case, simply isn't the best argument you can put forth about it. I already laid out a better argument, which, of course, you edited out of your reply to me. Big surprise there!

That is simply your personal opinion and has no basis under the rule of law.
 
Yes, an unrelated talking point.




You can believe whatever you like. It doesn't change the fact that taxation is not theft under our rule of law.



That is simply your personal opinion and has no basis under the rule of law.

Just and Fair taxation to support legitimate governemental functions are indeed not theft under law or morally. Unjust and Unfair taxation my not be legally theft, but morally it is. Taxation which mainly transfers wealth and services from one person to another is morally theft. Taxation the is used for "social" programs instead of legitimate governmental functions is not legally theft, but morally it is. Taxation that is taken and used only on limited number of citizens instead of equally to all citizens is also morally theft.

As far as it being legal, just because it is legal does not make it right. Or perhaps you think slavery was right when it was legal. Or how about segregation? So much for everything that is legal being right.
 
Just and Fair taxation to support legitimate governemental functions are indeed not theft under law or morally. Unjust and Unfair taxation my not be legally theft, but morally it is. Taxation which mainly transfers wealth and services from one person to another is morally theft. Taxation the is used for "social" programs instead of legitimate governmental functions is not legally theft, but morally it is. Taxation that is taken and used only on limited number of citizens instead of equally to all citizens is also morally theft.

As far as it being legal, just because it is legal does not make it right. Or perhaps you think slavery was right when it was legal. Or how about segregation? So much for everything that is legal being right.

The only authority authorized in the Constitution to decide what is legal is the courts. Things that are not right gain public support for ending them. Taxation much greater for the wealthy than today's rates have been upheld by the Courts under both parties for a 100 years, without successful challenge. And after a hundred years there is only a small minority of voters that support reducing the tax rates for the wealthy. Even after all this time, a majority presently supports higher taxes for the wealthy.
 
The only authority authorized in the Constitution to decide what is legal is the courts. Things that are not right gain public support for ending them. Taxation much greater for the wealthy than today's rates have been upheld by the Courts under both parties for a 100 years, without successful challenge. And after a hundred years there is only a small minority of voters that support reducing the tax rates for the wealthy. Even after all this time, a majority presently supports higher taxes for the wealthy.
Now THAT is a good argument. Knew you had it in you.





We may now return to our regularly scheduled program.
 
And they get that 22% ($32+ trillion), which is ONLY the cash from the other 99%.
By providing a service the other 99% wanted. They for the most part DID NOT steal it. Its theirs to do with as they please. I could really careless about what the rich do or dont have, or the rich themselfs for that matter. So long as they leave me alone they will have nothing to fear from me, if they dont, well lets just say money cant buy everything. People dont seem to realise that money in and of itself is a tool. Thats it. Some people know how to use certain tools better than others. Thats just life. Rich people know how to use and make money, I know how to create things.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but aside from trade agreements, our government has no say in how other governments treat their citizens.

Now, on the subject of trade agreements...I absolutely think that if some company wants to ship their business from the US to, say, China, then, as a representative of this country, they should be legally bound (if they wish to continue to sell their products here) by the employment laws we have in the US. I think that is a perfectly stand up idea. Maybe not laws about minimum wage...but safety laws, child labor laws, so on and so forth. Just because they have moved their operation to some distant land, is no excuse for a business CLAIMING to be a US business to regress 150 years, in terms of human rights, and worker's rights. In addition, they should also still be held to out environmental standards. I mean, if they don't follow our laws, and are not bound by them...and they don't actually exist in this country, what, exactly, makes them a US company?

They do have a say, its called capital controls, and banning foriegners from investing. China does lots of that. Its ILLEGAL to take USD into China, they take the USD and give you
wuan at the rate they tell you too. It would also be smart for USA now to ban foreigners from buying property driving up home prices.........

What makes a USA corp? Filling incorporation papers in USA and or listing on a USA exchange. But then they normally have many layers of corp's before you get to
actual assets or employees.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom