• 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!

Why We Need a Wealth Tax

OscarLevant said:
It's been gutted, and it's only once in a life time.


I believe the wealth tax is yearly.
Click to expand...

That is why the wealth tax won't be passed and it is malignant. It forces you buy non-income producing property over and over just to keep the envious happy
 
Deuce said:
I understand the objection to "wealth redistribution." That's a complaint about what taxes are spent on. Not how the tax is collected, or what kind of tax it is.

Which really means your argument is "it's theft if I don't approve of the use of the taxes," which is laughable.
Click to expand...

No you don't understand. It is a theft because I, like others who have accumulated wealth, paid a fair share of taxes on what was earned as it was earned. This is an attempt to double dip, steal from success, for the sole reasons of "I don't have and you do." Call it what you will, envy, jealousy, whatever. This nation guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome. It isn't for some mealy mouthed thieving politician to tell me how my wealth should spent, accumulated or passed to a next generation, because that politician wants more votes, more power, mostly to enrich oneself.

Never trust an altruist.
 
Here's a reason I object to a wealth tax beyond what I've already said. I've lived long enough and followed politics to know that the "just think of all the wonderful things we can do for you if you just let us raise taxes/create new tax" mantra politicians chant never seems to deliver the wonderful thing they promised. We're $22 trillion dollars in debt - for all that money we got very little improvement, and yet some citizens act like bobble-head dolls nodding dutifully when ever a new tax is proposed.
 
RedAkston said:
This is without a doubt one of the of the dumbest things I've ever read here at DP. No ones are being restricted or taken away because someone else gets to keep what they've earned. What contempt do I have for anyone's actual rights, not some pie in the sky idea of what you think rights should be, by pointing out that most taxes.are theft?

This should be both entertaining and comical.
Click to expand...

Deuce said:
Hey, genius, this is the exact dumb **** I dismissed earlier. I'm not interested in discussing the ridiculous notion that any tax is theft if it's not "voluntary."
Now take your personal attacks elsewhere, moderator.
Click to expand...

RedAkston said:
This is without a doubt one of the of the dumbest things I've ever read here at DP. No ones are being restricted or taken away because someone else gets to keep what they've earned. What contempt do I have for anyone's actual rights, not some pie in the sky idea of what you think rights should be, by pointing out that most taxes.are theft?

This should be both entertaining and comical.
Click to expand...

Deuce said:
No, the dumbest thing ever seen on DP is claiming that taxes are theft just because you personally disagree with them. I have an idea: let's eliminate all taxes and just run the country on donations. See how that works out.
Click to expand...

RedAkston said:
Taxes are theft because one could face imprisonment or confiscation of additional personal property for failure to pay. It doesn't matter if you or I agree or disagree as to whether some taxes are theft or not because they absolutely are, sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Click to expand...

Taxation as “theft” is a silly talking point that will never go anywhere. I’ve never seen an actual argument for why it’s like other things called theft. Only declarations along the lines of "[things are thus, so be quiet because reasons]."

First, the person stolen from in every other kind of ‘theft’ is not enjoying the availability of services necessary to anything like a modern existence in return. We use roads, we pay taxes to build/maintain them. Etc.

Second, everything else we call theft is done lawlessly, willy nilly. Taxation is done according to law (that is constitutional), in an ordered scheme.

Third, and perhaps more importantly, it’s generally a pointless word game to argue it’s theft (or even to argue it’s not theft).


Word game: I could say “Know what sounds a lot more like "theft" to me? Enacting laws such that we borrow over one trillion a year so as to give the richest tax cut, knowing full well it'll be our children and grandchildren who pay the bill. "Theft" from one's future descendants.”

Just as easy as you typing a declaration that taxes are “theft”.


The pointlessness of this debate:

We have a government. We need to pay for it. Just about everyone is invested in enough programs that we're never going to agree to even cut spending much. Voluntary payment instead of lawfully required taxation cannot work (See, e.g., Articles of Confederation).

So let’s trace the results of putting your “taxes are theft” principle into action, and get rid of this criminal enterprise like we do other thieves.

First, the federal government collapses. It needs money to exist. Without a federal government we don’t have a nation or any military to defend it or any way of maintaining equipment with which to defend it. Ok, so now it’s 50 state governments. But wait. States will have to pay for services. But that requires taxation and you say that’s theft. So let’s get rid of the theft. So now state governments cannot function and dissolve. (Nevermind that collapse of a federal government would make existing currency meaningless).

Anarchists might love this (until local warlords pop up).


In other words, actually calling and treating it like “theft” – putting your principle in action – would mean the end of any coherent governance. With it, the roads you use, the water you drink, and almost certainly the forum on which you called taxes “theft”.
 
OldFatGuy said:
No you don't understand. It is a theft because I, like others who have accumulated wealth, paid a fair share of taxes on what was earned as it was earned. This is an attempt to double dip, steal from success, for the sole reasons of "I don't have and you do." Call it what you will, envy, jealousy, whatever. This nation guarantees equal opportunity, not equal outcome. It isn't for some mealy mouthed thieving politician to tell me how my wealth should spent, accumulated or passed to a next generation, because that politician wants more votes, more power, mostly to enrich oneself.

Never trust an altruist.
Click to expand...

Convenient that your "fair share" of taxes is exactly what you've already paid. What about me? I've paid more than my fair share. So I've been stolen from, right?

End of the day, your entire objection is based on subjective feelings of what you think is fair.

Wealth taxes don't create "equal outcomes."

I've often said the difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals in America want equal opportunity, conservatives think we have equal opportunity.
 
Bullseye said:
Here's a reason I object to a wealth tax beyond what I've already said. I've lived long enough and followed politics to know that the "just think of all the wonderful things we can do for you if you just let us raise taxes/create new tax" mantra politicians chant never seems to deliver the wonderful thing they promised. We're $22 trillion dollars in debt - for all that money we got very little improvement, and yet some citizens act like bobble-head dolls nodding dutifully when ever a new tax is proposed.
Click to expand...

Raising revenue would help deal with that debt.
 
RedAkston said:
I've made that crystal clear but I'll restate it in a way that maybe, just maybe you'll understand.

Any tax that is not voluntary is theft. If someone smokes, they are voluntarily paying the tobacco tax. If someone buys alcohol, they are voluntarily paying the alcohol tax. If someone buys a car that runs on gasoline or diesel fuel, they are voluntarily paying the gas tax. Sure, you could make the weak argument that people are voluntarily paying income tax by working but if no one was working, the economy would be in shambles. A wealth tax is not voluntary, unless the successful among us decide to make less than what they're worth.
Click to expand...

Paying a tobacco tax is voluntary? If the tax were voluntary, you could opt out of the tax while buying the cigarettes. So how do people go about buying a pack of cigarettes from a 7/11 NYC without paying the tax? They can't, can they?

For your position to hold, the operative decision must be the decision to buy the tobacco or not, and not the question of whether or not someone can choose to pay the tax independent of choosing to buy the tobacco. To you, it's voluntary even if the only way to avoid the tax is to avoid the product.



Careful. This runs headlong into the attack on income taxes, because there is also an all-or-nothing choice there.

You could choose to get a job and thus be subject to income tax. Or you could choose not to work and thus avoid paying income tax. Under your view regarding tobacco taxes, the fact that you cannot get a job but choose not to pay taxes does not affect the analysis. Because remember, your view was you could avoid the tobacco tax by not buying tobacco.

So if you're right about tobacco tax, you're wrong about income tax. And if you're right about income tax, you're wrong about tobacco tax.




(Though really, you're wrong on both. Taxes are involuntary, but calling them "theft" is silly, not that you'll ever have to face the consequences of actually putting this broken "voluntary payments only" idea into practice.

This post just pinpoints the logical flaw in your argument).
 
Deuce said:
Raising revenue would help deal with that debt.
Click to expand...
Only if it is larger than spending. Otherwise we have to borrow more. And Congress spends over 200 days a year finding new ways to spend. :eek:
 
Mr Person said:
The problem with a wealth tax beyond any broad ideological objection is an administrative one. So much property of the wealthiest is indeterminate in value, essentially being worth whatever someone buys it for. Think: art, houses, other collectibles.

So, first, what are people supposed to do? Have all their **** appraised as an estimate, then report that? And how do we know they're telling the truth? They'd have to send around an army of IRS assessors to double-check reported values. And if they didn't, people would just massively under-report and "forget" to mention various things.


Go back to Clinton income tax/corporate tax rates and reassess. Before we begin talking about this kind of stuff we should start paying for what we have. But for the last few decades, the GOP has been happy to have us borrowing a pile of cash so that their richest donors can have tax breaks that in no way cause said donors to meaningfully invest. It's just a handout sold to fools by inverting reality, that is, that borrowing more to give a tax cut to the richest isn't a handout but is "letting them keep more of their money"....just... :doh


If dynasty-ism is the problem, why not focus on estate tax AND getting rid of the myriad ways the richest evade it while passing on wealth to the next generation? Why so something as unworkable as a yearly wealth tax, with all it would require?
Click to expand...

Craig234 said:
You mean, the Estate tax Republicans are trying to eliminate, and have currently eliminated for amounts under $22.4 million for couples while providing more ways to 'evade' it. Having said that, you ask fair and important questions about the practicalities of a wealth tax.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well, the GOP is going to try to get rid of any taxes they can when they have the political power to do so. Apparently borrowing a trillion a year to fund bush and Trump tax cuts is fiscal responsibility these days...

But on the feasibility point: I don't see any reason to think it would be any easier to impose a new wealth tax than it would simply to bump us back to rates at which we're actually paying for what we spend out of pocket rather than by borrowing.

Either one would be a major uphill battle. The GOP does not care because just about every single one of them will either be retired or dead when the U.S. finally runs into real trouble getting new funding. As it is, debt is about 102% GDP. Japan tolerated 200%ish for quite a while. Yes, the economies are different. We may even be able to push it higher. But at some point, we're hitting the bottom of the well and whenever that is, the politicians responsible won't be around to answer for it.
 
Bullseye said:
Only if it is larger than spending. Otherwise we have to borrow more. And Congress spends over 200 days a year finding new ways to spend. :eek:
Click to expand...

Either way, the debt is better off with the additional revenue than it is without the additional revenue. Increase spending by $200 billion, increase revenue by $100 billion, deficit grows by $100 billion. But if you don't increase the revenue by $100 billion, your deficit growth is $200 billion. Since 200 is objectively larger than 100, if deficit is a concern one would surely agree that 100 is better.
 
Deuce said:
Convenient that your "fair share" of taxes is exactly what you've already paid. What about me? I've paid more than my fair share. So I've been stolen from, right?

End of the day, your entire objection is based on subjective feelings of what you think is fair.

Wealth taxes don't create "equal outcomes."

I've often said the difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals in America want equal opportunity, conservatives think we have equal opportunity.
Click to expand...

Wrong. A wealth tax would be a theft, not income, gains, sales or property taxes.

No it is not subjective, not what I feel. It is double dipping, taxing the same money twice.

No one in this life is truly equal, yet our system of government and economics provide the most equal of opportunities for those who try, with no guarantee for outcome.
 
Mr Person said:
Paying a tobacco tax is voluntary? If the tax were voluntary, you could opt out of the tax while buying the cigarettes. So how do people go about buying a pack of cigarettes from a 7/11 NYC without paying the tax? They can't, can they?

For your position to hold, the operative decision must be the decision to buy the tobacco or not, and not the question of whether or not someone can choose to pay the tax independent of choosing to buy the tobacco. To you, it's voluntary even if the only way to avoid the tax is to avoid the product.



Careful. This runs headlong into the attack on income taxes, because there is also an all-or-nothing choice there.

You could choose to get a job and thus be subject to income tax. Or you could choose not to work and thus avoid paying income tax. Under your view regarding tobacco taxes, the fact that you cannot get a job but choose not to pay taxes does not affect the analysis. Because remember, your view was you could avoid the tobacco tax by not buying tobacco.

So if you're right about tobacco tax, you're wrong about income tax. And if you're right about income tax, you're wrong about tobacco tax.




(Though really, you're wrong on both. Taxes are involuntary, but calling them "theft" is silly, not that you'll ever have to face the consequences of actually putting this broken "voluntary payments only" idea into practice.

This post just pinpoints the logical flaw in your argument).
Click to expand...

You should try reading what I've already written before showing up with egg on your face. The tobacco tax, just like the alcohol tax, is completely voluntary. I choose to pay those taxes if I choose to buy tobacco or to buy alcohol. It's isn't being forced on me unless I purchase those goods. I also already made the point about choosing to work. Maybe next time instead of speaking about that of which you obviously don't know, do a little research so you don't look so ignorantly uninformed next time because there is no "logical flaw" in my argument.
 
Mr Person said:
Paying a tobacco tax is voluntary? If the tax were voluntary, you could opt out of the tax while buying the cigarettes. So how do people go about buying a pack of cigarettes from a 7/11 NYC without paying the tax? They can't, can they?

For your position to hold, the operative decision must be the decision to buy the tobacco or not, and not the question of whether or not someone can choose to pay the tax independent of choosing to buy the tobacco. To you, it's voluntary even if the only way to avoid the tax is to avoid the product.



Careful. This runs headlong into the attack on income taxes, because there is also an all-or-nothing choice there.

You could choose to get a job and thus be subject to income tax. Or you could choose not to work and thus avoid paying income tax. Under your view regarding tobacco taxes, the fact that you cannot get a job but choose not to pay taxes does not affect the analysis. Because remember, your view was you could avoid the tobacco tax by not buying tobacco.

So if you're right about tobacco tax, you're wrong about income tax. And if you're right about income tax, you're wrong about tobacco tax.




(Though really, you're wrong on both. Taxes are involuntary, but calling them "theft" is silly, not that you'll ever have to face the consequences of actually putting this broken "voluntary payments only" idea into practice.

This post just pinpoints the logical flaw in your argument).
Click to expand...



RedAkston said:
You should try reading what I've already written before showing up with egg on your face.

The tobacco tax, just like the alcohol tax, is completely voluntary. I choose to pay those taxes if I choose to buy tobacco or to buy alcohol. It's isn't being forced on me unless I purchase those goods. I also already made the point about choosing to work.

Maybe next time instead of speaking about that of which you obviously don't know, do a little research so you don't look so ignorantly uninformed next time because there is no "logical flaw" in my argument.
Click to expand...

Is this your idea of what "political debate" is? The first bit is a snotty attack. The middle bit is simply you claiming that you are right because you are saying you are right. The last bit is more snotty attacks.

If there were no logical flaw, you could demonstrate it by addressing what I actually said. You can't address an argument why what you said doesn't work, so instead you just repeat what you said. And to try to cough over that particular fart, you bookend it with haughty attacks having nothing at all to do with the subject.
 
Mr Person said:
Is this your idea of what "political debate" is? The first bit is a snotty attack. The middle bit is simply you claiming that you are right because you are saying you are right. The last bit is more snotty attacks.

If there were no logical flaw, you could demonstrate it by addressing what I actually said. You can't address an argument why what you said doesn't work, so instead you just repeat what you said. And to try to cough over that particular fart, you bookend it with haughty attacks having nothing at all to do with the subject.
Click to expand...

Everything I said just went flying over your head didn't it? To the surprise of no one...
 
Mr Person said:
The problem with a wealth tax beyond any broad ideological objection is an administrative one. So much property of the wealthiest is indeterminate in value, essentially being worth whatever someone buys it for. Think: art, houses, other collectibles.

So, first, what are people supposed to do? Have all their **** appraised as an estimate, then report that? And how do we know they're telling the truth? They'd have to send around an army of IRS assessors to double-check reported values. And if they didn't, people would just massively under-report and "forget" to mention various things.


Go back to Clinton income tax/corporate tax rates and reassess. Before we begin talking about this kind of stuff we should start paying for what we have. But for the last few decades, the GOP has been happy to have us borrowing a pile of cash so that their richest donors can have tax breaks that in no way cause said donors to meaningfully invest. It's just a handout sold to fools by inverting reality, that is, that borrowing more to give a tax cut to the richest isn't a handout but is "letting them keep more of their money"....just... :doh


If dynasty-ism is the problem, why not focus on estate tax AND getting rid of the myriad ways the richest evade it while passing on wealth to the next generation? Why so something as unworkable as a yearly wealth tax, with all it would require?
Click to expand...


OscarLevant said:
Your comment makes no sense. Estates are appraised for inheritance taxes. Surely, they could come up with a good method to determine the tax, and even if it's not entirely accurate, it doesnt' have to be, really, it's just a tax. So, as long as the same methods for appraisal are applied to everyone, that is what counts.

As for focusing on the inheritance tax, that's a one shot deal. A wealth tax, in my view, is yearly right along with the income tax. so, first tax, should be a a big one based on the whole, for the first time, then subsequent taxes be based on the net appreciation from the year before.
Click to expand...

Once. Estate tax is applied once. You are talking about a yearly set of assessments. An incredibly burdensome thing where the targets of this tax have to constantly update the value of just about everything they own, and an army of assessors if it has any hope of being enforced in a remotely equitable manner. How on Earth is there any reasonable hope of this working let alone working in a fair manner when we can't even properly police income tax payments?

Plus, the stuff targeted was purchased with already-taxed money and will be taxed again for capital gain if sold.

But that last point verges on the ideological basis which I avoided due to seeing it as entirely unpragmatic, especially where we have tried methods of raising revenue. More pragmatism would be to point out that the probability of getting a yearly tax on all possessions passes is probably far lower than simply bumping tax rates up a bit (not that that will happen).

I can pretty much guarantee that if the Dems get a supermajority and pass a wealth tax, they're losing that supermajority (and then the tax itself) in the next election or two at least. And then we won't ever raise taxes to where we need to to pay for what we're spending.
 
Deuce said:
Either way, the debt is better off with the additional revenue than it is without the additional revenue. Increase spending by $200 billion, increase revenue by $100 billion, deficit grows by $100 billion. But if you don't increase the revenue by $100 billion, your deficit growth is $200 billion. Since 200 is objectively larger than 100, if deficit is a concern one would surely agree that 100 is better.
Click to expand...
And once again, for possible comprehension - revenue HAS INCREASED. It's time to work on the spending side of the equation. Let's put Congress on a pork-free diet.
 
This nation has never not been in debt. Its most egregious debt after the American Revolution. That debt was repaid with tariffs. Both on import and export. Other taxing schemes were experimented with, however none were as successful as tariffs for the Federal Government. Not even the leasing of government lands for mining, oil and forest harvesting, brought as much Federal revenues. The only tax that came close was whiskey taxes. Since this nation was built by booze and prostitution, sin taxes made the most sense, and totally voluntary. One could indulge, or not. The income tax was to be a temporary experiment with the purpose of resolving WWI debt. We all know how temporary it was and is. We still prohibit prostitution, outlawed because of the intolerance movement which brought us prohibition and organized crime. Another failure, and we refuse the tax revenues prostitution could generate, just as we refuse the tax revenue from recreational drugs, another sin market that refuses to go away. Sin taxes on tobacco don't punish the big tobacco companies, they punish the user already suffering addiction to tobacco. The hypocrisy is unlimited. Taxers want to have their cake and eat it as well.

The inherent dishonesty of wealth taxes, nothing more than a euphemism for theft from the rich to appease the poor, a Robin Hood syndrome is a form of double taxation forbidden by our laws.

NFIB Legal Center to Court: Double-Taxation of Income is Unconstitutional
Double Taxation

After two years of decrying Trump's tax cuts, democrats and wall street are now claiming the $31 million to be generated Tariffs is unacceptable, a burden on America with its $1.7 trillion dollar budget spending. Under Obama, the Treasury Dept. suggested a wealth tax would generate $131 million annually, however within ten years an expected drop to $11 million annually as wealth fled the nation and investment dried up, netting a loss of greater than $500 billion annually.
 
OldFatGuy said:
There is no such thing as "ethical." This is an illiterate use of a word which means the study of morals, and which is judgment free. There is no moral justification for closing any perceived "growing" disparity of wealth. Morals are always a convenience, not written in stone. Your morals are not my morals, and you cannot impose your morals on anyone else. I do understand, this conversation is now over your head. Justice is blind, in many ways. I doubt you would recognize justice if she slapped you in the face. All you stand for is thievery.
Click to expand...

I stand for justice. We just disagree on what that is.

Someone once asked Ron Paul, (paraphrased, I don't remember the exact quote, but this is the gist of it, and the answer, I believe, is correct)

Q to Paul:

"if someone were bleeding in the road and dying, was poor, had no health care plan, you believe that the government should not help that person? "

Paul's reply, "Well, that's a testament to freedom, isn't it".

Perhaps (if you are a libertarian, I don't know) you would believe that his answer was moral and just, but in my view, it's reprehensible and not in accordance with the majority of people in America.

So

My opinion is just an opinion. It doesn't matter what your morals are or mine are, it only matters what is legislated. The vote and it's consequences is all that matters. The rest is just disputes on what should be, and shouldn't be, or whatever reason.

If the majority says it is, and it's legislated that way, that's it. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that it is moral and just. That it differs from yours, fine, and that's a given.

Also, calling someone a thief, which is a crime, is not respectful when it is a policy dispute ( policies are not crimes) , so apparently you are a hypocrite for demanding it of me. You speak of misusing language, like "ethical", uttering the preposterous notion that it does not exist, when your usage of the word "thievery" is wholly and factually incorrect. If you want to claim you are waxing poetic, not being literal, fine, then I should have the same license of word usage when I use the word "ethical", you can't deny me what you claim for yourself.

Moreover, you accuse me of arrogance, you chide me for not being respectful, yet what you accuse me of, you exude in your comments in spades, your comments reek of the stench of self-righteous indignation, reeks of arrogance, you belittle in order to puff yourself up, under the misguided and foollish notion that this improves your argument.

All it does, really, is reveal what a hypocrite you are, not just on one point, but on many levels.
 
TurtleDude said:
That is why the wealth tax won't be passed and it is malignant. It forces you buy non-income producing property over and over just to keep the envious happy
Click to expand...


I disagree, but if we take over both houses and the prez, it might happen.
 
Mr Person said:
Once. Estate tax is applied once. You are talking about a yearly set of assessments. An incredibly burdensome thing where the targets of this tax have to constantly update the value of just about everything they own, and an army of assessors if it has any hope of being enforced in a remotely equitable manner. How on Earth is there any reasonable hope of this working let alone working in a fair manner when we can't even properly police income tax payments?

Plus, the stuff targeted was purchased with already-taxed money and will be taxed again for capital gain if sold.

But that last point verges on the ideological basis which I avoided due to seeing it as entirely unpragmatic, especially where we have tried methods of raising revenue. More pragmatism would be to point out that the probability of getting a yearly tax on all possessions passes is probably far lower than simply bumping tax rates up a bit (not that that will happen).

I can pretty much guarantee that if the Dems get a supermajority and pass a wealth tax, they're losing that supermajority (and then the tax itself) in the next election or two at least. And then we won't ever raise taxes to where we need to to pay for what we're spending.
Click to expand...


The target of the wealth tax, really is a small crowd. Noting that the IRS handles what, some 100 million or so tax returns, and you're telling me that taxing a small crowd is not doable? That makes no sense.
 
OscarLevant said:
The target of the wealth tax, really is a small crowd. Noting that the IRS handles what, some 100 million or so tax returns, and you're telling me that taxing a small crowd is not doable? That makes no sense.
Click to expand...

That is one of those over-simplifications of what someone else has said that amounts to misrepresentation.
 
OscarLevant said:
I stand for justice. We just disagree on what that is.
Click to expand...

You don't know what justice is. Wealth redistribution is not justice. It is theft. Simple and plain.

Raising healthcare as an issue when the subject is a wealth tax, only serves to obfuscate the issue in question, beggar off from your failure, and conclude nothing close to truth. Had you respect for your fellow posters you would know from many of my posts, I favor universal healthcare. And I take it further than anyone else here has ever done so, justified by the fact that a healthy America is a productive America, a more secure America. The socialist/communist vision of wealth distribution has failed. It is archaic. It is useless, except for crooked politicians to line their own pockets as did Lenin, Stalin, Castro and all the rest while the everyman starves and suffers. George Orwell spoke the truth, "some are more equal than others" when he warned us of socialism and communism. Erewhon, not just a natural food brand.

Ethics is defined as the study of morals in the OED, which is where you will also find a definition of thievery. Do not brag about your illiteracy. You'll find usage of thievery in prose by Shakespeare, Milton, Blake, Dreiser, Dickens, Barth, Brautigan, Hemingway, Faulkner, Heller, Dumas pere et fils, and countless other respected auteurs. Nothing Poetic about it. You'll find concurrent definition of ethics in Descartes, Wittgenstein, Acquinos, Foucalt, Hume, Dos Passos, Kierkegarde, Aristotle, Rousseau, Sartre, Camus, among hundreds who define modern philosophies. Hypocrisy is your own path, as evidenced by your illiteracy which you have revealed for all to observe.
 
Mason66 said:
Because it is their money that you have no say over how they use it.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they can't have a billion dollar yacht, I said they can't use it as an excuse not to pay a wealth tax.
 
OldFatGuy said:
You don't know what justice is. Wealth redistribution is not justice. It is theft. Simple and plain.
Click to expand...

And yet you support, presumably, EVERY wealth redistribution from everyone to the most rich, trillions of dollars - cut their taxes, add to the public debt; let them pollute for free, pay the cleanup costs from tax dollars, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom