For the 'Raise Taxes on the Rich', OWS Crowd

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
75 percent marginal tax on any income over 2 million how about that, capital gains or wages. You think he’d drop out of the economy and try not to earn to that level? Which seems to be the backside of his argument. People pick weird economic policy heroes.

Perhaps we should run the 9 9 9 and the free enterprise zones pushed by Cain?(This is the plan endorsed by your man here) They seem pretty strong. Certainly seems like a fair plan. I do like the part about the free enterprise zones in the inner cities it has a little je nais se quoi.[/quote]
Would never happen. If they taxed individuals this aggressively, imagine corporate tax.

Even if adjusted to allow revenue flow to support jobs that grant people an income to begin with, there would undoubtedly be some assassinations at hand.

In 2010, our GDP was estimated at $14.7 Trillion. Largely cultivated in private industry.

You try to steal $11 trillion dollars and see if you live.

Hell a lowly millionare with $2mil at risk of being cut to $500k would be able to contract a kill for less than his taxes would take from him.

Conjecture perhaps but totally realistic and likely.

[/quote]

Do you really want to hold that taxation is theft? I know you like to portray yourself a jovial fool, but this is moving away from simply playing the fool. Taxation is the cost of playing by the government’s rules.

If you want no taxation and no government the anarchists will meet you there. However assuming we agree that taxation is the acceptable cost of choosing the follow the rules of government then its not theft. You could remove yourself from being taxed after all if you chose.

On the other end why should a democratic society support a system if a majority feels it unjust? Obviously if we believe in democracy the masses should largely get the government they want even if it were to erode property rights and wealth accumulation. This is the crux of why people paint libertarians as fascists, because when push comes to shove they don’t hold that a democracy should be able to choose to redistribute wealth and property as it chooses.

75 percent was the marginal rate once upon a time. Corporations no matter what swill people want to feed anyone shouldn’t be treated as people especially not under the tax code. Corporate taxes should largely be lowered but made exemption free. This would help the myriad small corporations out there do business better while ensuring the mega corps pay their share.

[/quote]

Um, since when are we a mob rule democracy?

Last time I checked, our government was established only for the preservation of individual rights. Here in America, other places may be different.

I know some people seem to think taxes should pay for services for others, but that is not the case, In the U.S. taxes should only be levied to provide basic infrastructure.

Otherwise you are using violent force of the government to violate individual rights.

So in short, if you want the services and programs you pay for them, but no you cannot use the government o extort money from people to support your agenda. [/quote]

The only right to property is because the government allows you to hold it. There is no right by being born to hold property. Prior to that it was your own ability to use violence to hold it.

The entire point of a government is more or less using force to follow the will of those in power. Supposedly the people in the USA.

If a president were elected on the position of restoring a 75 percent marginal rate and the house and senate similarly filled with candidates backing this position, since its the will of the people the representatives should enact it in a representative democracy.
[/quote]

That’s all well and good, but the US is a CONSTITUTIONAL republic not a straight up representative democracy. The people and the government are NOT endowed with ultimate power. The US is specifically designed and set up to prevent the majority from being able to do what they want at the expense of others.

Learn some history.[/quote]

There is nothing about high marginal tax rates in the constitution so it would be fine to work for legislation for it.

The people are in fact endowed with the ultimate power perhaps its you that might want to bone up on some history, along with some economics…though I am not particularly sure why you should bother think you think no one knows anything definitively.
[/quote]

Wrong. The individual is. God gives individuals rights that no one can remove from them. That is the foundation of the US form of government. Period.

For example. If the people (majority) voted to round up and kill all black people, it would be denied by the constitution. The constitution’s codified rights of individuals are the ultimate power in the land. You cannot do anything you want, no matter how popular. You have no idea what you are talking about.

42

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
I think a lot of people would be surprised to learn when exactly income taxes started being collected (hint for those that don’t know: check the ratification of the 16th ammendment). So technically we’ve been without an income tax longer than we’ve had one in this country’s history.[/quote]
As a separate aside to this I’d say almost every student of history would agree most of the amendments would never get ratified today.

43

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
75 percent marginal tax on any income over 2 million how about that, capital gains or wages. You think he’d drop out of the economy and try not to earn to that level? Which seems to be the backside of his argument. People pick weird economic policy heroes.

Perhaps we should run the 9 9 9 and the free enterprise zones pushed by Cain?(This is the plan endorsed by your man here) They seem pretty strong. Certainly seems like a fair plan. I do like the part about the free enterprise zones in the inner cities it has a little je nais se quoi.[/quote]
Would never happen. If they taxed individuals this aggressively, imagine corporate tax.

Even if adjusted to allow revenue flow to support jobs that grant people an income to begin with, there would undoubtedly be some assassinations at hand.

In 2010, our GDP was estimated at $14.7 Trillion. Largely cultivated in private industry.

You try to steal $11 trillion dollars and see if you live.

Hell a lowly millionare with $2mil at risk of being cut to $500k would be able to contract a kill for less than his taxes would take from him.

Conjecture perhaps but totally realistic and likely.

[/quote]

Do you really want to hold that taxation is theft? I know you like to portray yourself a jovial fool, but this is moving away from simply playing the fool. Taxation is the cost of playing by the government’s rules.

If you want no taxation and no government the anarchists will meet you there. However assuming we agree that taxation is the acceptable cost of choosing the follow the rules of government then its not theft. You could remove yourself from being taxed after all if you chose.

On the other end why should a democratic society support a system if a majority feels it unjust? Obviously if we believe in democracy the masses should largely get the government they want even if it were to erode property rights and wealth accumulation. This is the crux of why people paint libertarians as fascists, because when push comes to shove they don’t hold that a democracy should be able to choose to redistribute wealth and property as it chooses.

75 percent was the marginal rate once upon a time. Corporations no matter what swill people want to feed anyone shouldn’t be treated as people especially not under the tax code. Corporate taxes should largely be lowered but made exemption free. This would help the myriad small corporations out there do business better while ensuring the mega corps pay their share.

[/quote]

Um, since when are we a mob rule democracy?

Last time I checked, our government was established only for the preservation of individual rights. Here in America, other places may be different.

I know some people seem to think taxes should pay for services for others, but that is not the case, In the U.S. taxes should only be levied to provide basic infrastructure.

Otherwise you are using violent force of the government to violate individual rights.

So in short, if you want the services and programs you pay for them, but no you cannot use the government o extort money from people to support your agenda. [/quote]

The only right to property is because the government allows you to hold it. There is no right by being born to hold property. Prior to that it was your own ability to use violence to hold it.

The entire point of a government is more or less using force to follow the will of those in power. Supposedly the people in the USA.

If a president were elected on the position of restoring a 75 percent marginal rate and the house and senate similarly filled with candidates backing this position, since its the will of the people the representatives should enact it in a representative democracy.
[/quote]

That’s all well and good, but the US is a CONSTITUTIONAL republic not a straight up representative democracy. The people and the government are NOT endowed with ultimate power. The US is specifically designed and set up to prevent the majority from being able to do what they want at the expense of others.

Learn some history.[/quote]

There is nothing about high marginal tax rates in the constitution so it would be fine to work for legislation for it.

The people are in fact endowed with the ultimate power perhaps its you that might want to bone up on some history, along with some economics…though I am not particularly sure why you should bother think you think no one knows anything definitively.
[/quote]

Wrong. The individual is. God gives individuals rights that no one can remove from them. That is the foundation of the US form of government. Period.

For example. If the people (majority) voted to round up and kill all black people, it would be denied by the constitution. The constitution’s codified rights of individuals are the ultimate power in the land. You cannot do anything you want, no matter how popular. You have no idea what you are talking about.[/quote]
So lets go into the wayback machine when slavery was legal. What did god have to say about the rights then? What if the people got a constitutional amendment ratified to round up all the black people? That would be a hard sell…but maybe to round up all the arabs… would it be legal then? What if we stored all these arabs out of the country for as long as we chose…would that be legal?

Did god change his mind about women voting? So god thought it important we not drink alcohol for a bit then he changed it back? Did god sign off on the declaration of independence as well? What other documents did god write for us?

44

Where did god lay down the right to own property?

45

I kinda thought god would be against usury as well which would make a modern free market economy impossible, but I don’t have the same discerning eye into his economic positions as you do DD. Please enlighten me on god’s current position on usury. Perhaps also his position on financial transactions taxes and the current derivatives markets.

46

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
He took a camera crew into a crowd of angry protesters with a sign that says, “I am the 1%” and picked a fight. Sorry guys, I’m calling it like I see it.
[/quote]

He seemed calm and reasonable to me, there was no fighting. He asked how much he should be taxed and they said 35% to which he answered he’s paying 50%. Saying that getting taxed to much more would put him out of business and would add 150 to the number of unemployed. He’s completely right.
People go in to business to make money, if not they are running a charity. If aren’t making money, you shut the business down. It’s no more complicated than that.
If raise taxes on these people, unemployment and inflation will rise. For as much hooping and hollering obama does not the bush tax cuts, he will resign them in to law, he has no choice and he knows it. [/quote]
Schiff is an excellent salesman, you won’t get any argument on that, his real economic credentials are rather less though. He is being less than truthful in the 50 percent number since thats higher than his marginal rate. Clearly hes throwing other taxes in like self employment or his companies share of social security, which is fine as I am sure he pays it but its not exactly what he’s asking the crowd what his total tax burden should be and expecting specialized knowledge of what he pays personally is sort of silly.

As an aside people throwing out theft and violence are being a bit simple as well though this hasn’t been you, the fact that he can walk out there unmolested shows it to be a fairly nonviolent protest. If they really wanted to string up the rich there would have been some ample opportunity.[/quote]

Actually, if he is talking about combination of taxes on his income and his business which I am quite certain are married than it’s probably right around 50%, if not a little more. Now I don’t know his actual numbers, but I know 35% is the starting point for income alone for someone in his bracket. If you considers sales taxes, property taxes, various business taxes, capitol gains taxes, luxury etc. The amount of taxation can easily exceed 50%.

We are looking for a ‘fairly non-violent’ protest. It needs to be completely non-violent.
The squatting and living there I find pretty unappealing too. They have a right to peaceably assemble, not move in and in live on public or someone’s private property.
They need to live somewhere else and come and protest and leave.
The end of the assembly will be when the free kitchen ends. The free shit stops, so do the protests. People aren’t as different as you think…These protesters are just as greedy as the people they are protesting.

47

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
He took a camera crew into a crowd of angry protesters with a sign that says, “I am the 1%” and picked a fight. Sorry guys, I’m calling it like I see it.
[/quote]

He seemed calm and reasonable to me, there was no fighting. He asked how much he should be taxed and they said 35% to which he answered he’s paying 50%. Saying that getting taxed to much more would put him out of business and would add 150 to the number of unemployed. He’s completely right.
People go in to business to make money, if not they are running a charity. If aren’t making money, you shut the business down. It’s no more complicated than that.
If raise taxes on these people, unemployment and inflation will rise. For as much hooping and hollering obama does not the bush tax cuts, he will resign them in to law, he has no choice and he knows it. [/quote]
Schiff is an excellent salesman, you won’t get any argument on that, his real economic credentials are rather less though. He is being less than truthful in the 50 percent number since thats higher than his marginal rate. Clearly hes throwing other taxes in like self employment or his companies share of social security, which is fine as I am sure he pays it but its not exactly what he’s asking the crowd what his total tax burden should be and expecting specialized knowledge of what he pays personally is sort of silly.

As an aside people throwing out theft and violence are being a bit simple as well though this hasn’t been you, the fact that he can walk out there unmolested shows it to be a fairly nonviolent protest. If they really wanted to string up the rich there would have been some ample opportunity.[/quote]

Actually, if he is talking about combination of taxes on his income and his business which I am quite certain are married than it’s probably right around 50%, if not a little more. Now I don’t know his actual numbers, but I know 35% is the starting point for income alone for someone in his bracket. If you considers sales taxes, property taxes, various business taxes, capitol gains taxes, luxury etc. The amount of taxation can easily exceed 50%.

We are looking for a ‘fairly non-violent’ protest. It needs to be completely non-violent.
The squatting and living there I find pretty unappealing too. They have a right to peaceably assemble, not move in and in live on public or someone’s private property.
They need to live somewhere else and come and protest and leave.
The end of the assembly will be when the free kitchen ends. The free shit stops, so do the protests. People aren’t as different as you think…These protesters are just as greedy as the people they are protesting. [/quote]

Oh I know he was combining his taxes but perhaps the woman didn’t know is what I mean. For example if you ask me my tax rate I’ll give you my marginal rate I won’t tie in property tax or sales tax or any tax from gambling winnings say(and a particularly regressive tax that where you aren’t allowed to deduct expenses or most losses :P).

48

Groo, I think people harass you because you try to sound intelligent, but philosophically, you are completely in error as to the founding document and the way the government is supposed to work in the U.S. So from this I take you are either not from the U.S., or educated under false pretenses.

Our founding documents give us protections from government in violating our rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. With which is the right to ownership of private property, which you would understand if you would read any of John Adams economic theory.

The entire premise of this being a constitutional republic was to keep groups of people ( ie., masses or corporations or unions or special interests) from being able to EXTORT private property from others.

Now if you are a foreigner that is fine, but this our battle; to regain control of our system.

If you are form the U.S. then you are seriously delusional in your thinking.

There is a large divide between the way the country is currently operating and how the laws say it should be operating. And we need is a group of politicians to go in and start treason trials for all predecessors both elected and non elected that have acted unlawfully in their post according to the constitution.

49

[quote]groo wrote:

Oh I know he was combining his taxes but perhaps the woman didn’t know is what I mean. For example if you ask me my tax rate I’ll give you my marginal rate I won’t tie in property tax or sales tax or any tax from gambling winnings say(and a particularly regressive tax that where you aren’t allowed to deduct expenses or most losses :P).
[/quote]

No you moron, if he tied in property and sales tax he would be closer to 70% are kidding me.

If you would open a book you would see most of the founders explicity stated to tax both income and goods is unconstitutional. Now to tax the corporation separately is in essence taxing the goods, you should only tax the individuals that gain income from part ownership of the corporations.

You are so idiotic you don’t even realize that taxes on businesses hurt the middle class and poor more than the rich, it just gets passed along in cost.

Seriously get off the bong and back to reality. Learn some real econ theory and impact of costs on goods.

50

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

Oh I know he was combining his taxes but perhaps the woman didn’t know is what I mean. For example if you ask me my tax rate I’ll give you my marginal rate I won’t tie in property tax or sales tax or any tax from gambling winnings say(and a particularly regressive tax that where you aren’t allowed to deduct expenses or most losses :P).
[/quote]

No you moron, if he tied in property and sales tax he would be closer to 70% are kidding me.

If you would open a book you would see most of the founders explicity stated to tax both income and goods is unconstitutional. Now to tax the corporation separately is in essence taxing the goods, you should only tax the individuals that gain income from part ownership of the corporations.

You are so idiotic you don’t even realize that taxes on businesses hurt the middle class and poor more than the rich, it just gets passed along in cost.

Seriously get off the bong and back to reality. Learn some real econ theory and impact of costs on goods.[/quote]
What is the highest marginal income tax? If thats what he is using he’s not paying 50 percent. :slight_smile:
The founders had no conception of a modern corporation and its use to limit liability.
I’d say its you that doesn’t have an understanding of macro, but I’d never call you idiotic.
The cost of goods always approaches the cost of capital in the long run assuming a free market if there is any demand except in rare special cases.

51

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
75 percent marginal tax on any income over 2 million how about that, capital gains or wages. You think he’d drop out of the economy and try not to earn to that level? Which seems to be the backside of his argument. People pick weird economic policy heroes.

Perhaps we should run the 9 9 9 and the free enterprise zones pushed by Cain?(This is the plan endorsed by your man here) They seem pretty strong. Certainly seems like a fair plan. I do like the part about the free enterprise zones in the inner cities it has a little je nais se quoi.[/quote]
Would never happen. If they taxed individuals this aggressively, imagine corporate tax.

Even if adjusted to allow revenue flow to support jobs that grant people an income to begin with, there would undoubtedly be some assassinations at hand.

In 2010, our GDP was estimated at $14.7 Trillion. Largely cultivated in private industry.

You try to steal $11 trillion dollars and see if you live.

Hell a lowly millionare with $2mil at risk of being cut to $500k would be able to contract a kill for less than his taxes would take from him.

Conjecture perhaps but totally realistic and likely.

[/quote]

Do you really want to hold that taxation is theft? I know you like to portray yourself a jovial fool, but this is moving away from simply playing the fool. Taxation is the cost of playing by the government’s rules.

If you want no taxation and no government the anarchists will meet you there. However assuming we agree that taxation is the acceptable cost of choosing the follow the rules of government then its not theft. You could remove yourself from being taxed after all if you chose.

On the other end why should a democratic society support a system if a majority feels it unjust? Obviously if we believe in democracy the masses should largely get the government they want even if it were to erode property rights and wealth accumulation. This is the crux of why people paint libertarians as fascists, because when push comes to shove they don’t hold that a democracy should be able to choose to redistribute wealth and property as it chooses.

75 percent was the marginal rate once upon a time. Corporations no matter what swill people want to feed anyone shouldn’t be treated as people especially not under the tax code. Corporate taxes should largely be lowered but made exemption free. This would help the myriad small corporations out there do business better while ensuring the mega corps pay their share.

[/quote]

Um, since when are we a mob rule democracy?

Last time I checked, our government was established only for the preservation of individual rights. Here in America, other places may be different.

I know some people seem to think taxes should pay for services for others, but that is not the case, In the U.S. taxes should only be levied to provide basic infrastructure.

Otherwise you are using violent force of the government to violate individual rights.

So in short, if you want the services and programs you pay for them, but no you cannot use the government o extort money from people to support your agenda. [/quote]

The only right to property is because the government allows you to hold it. There is no right by being born to hold property. Prior to that it was your own ability to use violence to hold it.

The entire point of a government is more or less using force to follow the will of those in power. Supposedly the people in the USA.

If a president were elected on the position of restoring a 75 percent marginal rate and the house and senate similarly filled with candidates backing this position, since its the will of the people the representatives should enact it in a representative democracy.
[/quote]

That’s all well and good, but the US is a CONSTITUTIONAL republic not a straight up representative democracy. The people and the government are NOT endowed with ultimate power. The US is specifically designed and set up to prevent the majority from being able to do what they want at the expense of others.

Learn some history.[/quote]

There is nothing about high marginal tax rates in the constitution so it would be fine to work for legislation for it.

The people are in fact endowed with the ultimate power perhaps its you that might want to bone up on some history, along with some economics…though I am not particularly sure why you should bother think you think no one knows anything definitively.
[/quote]

Wrong. The individual is. God gives individuals rights that no one can remove from them. That is the foundation of the US form of government. Period.

For example. If the people (majority) voted to round up and kill all black people, it would be denied by the constitution. The constitution’s codified rights of individuals are the ultimate power in the land. You cannot do anything you want, no matter how popular. You have no idea what you are talking about.[/quote]
So lets go into the wayback machine when slavery was legal. What did god have to say about the rights then? What if the people got a constitutional amendment ratified to round up all the black people? That would be a hard sell…but maybe to round up all the arabs… would it be legal then? What if we stored all these arabs out of the country for as long as we chose…would that be legal?

Did god change his mind about women voting? So god thought it important we not drink alcohol for a bit then he changed it back? Did god sign off on the declaration of independence as well? What other documents did god write for us?[/quote]

No, they still had the rights, but they weren’t specifically laid out as specifically protected by the constitution yet. Many of the founders didn’t even believe the bill of rights was necessary, because all those things were implied. If you lay out what the government can do and can ONLY do, everything else is protected.

Yes it is entirely possible people ignore the system and do bad things. That doesn’t mean it was condoned or created by the system. I can walk over and deprive my neighbor of life by shooting him, but that doesn’t mean that a persons life isn’t protected by the constitution.

It’s pretty obvious you don’t even know what kind of government the US is. At least do yourself the favor of reading the Wiki article on it: Republic - Wikipedia

52

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Groo, I think people harass you because you try to sound intelligent, but philosophically, you are completely in error as to the founding document and the way the government is supposed to work in the U.S. So from this I take you are either not from the U.S., or educated under false pretenses.

Our founding documents give us protections from government in violating our rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. With which is the right to ownership of private property, which you would understand if you would read any of John Adams economic theory.

The entire premise of this being a constitutional republic was to keep groups of people ( ie., masses or corporations or unions or special interests) from being able to EXTORT private property from others.

Now if you are a foreigner that is fine, but this our battle; to regain control of our system.

If you are form the U.S. then you are seriously delusional in your thinking.

There is a large divide between the way the country is currently operating and how the laws say it should be operating. And we need is a group of politicians to go in and start treason trials for all predecessors both elected and non elected that have acted unlawfully in their post according to the constitution.
[/quote]

This is a complete hash but property is always held through force and only that. There is no inherent right to private property.

I think a lot of your problem is you take what is largely a neoclassical view of econ that is passed out through political mouthpieces so the lowest common denominator can understand instead of looking at the premises of this school of thought.

53

[quote]groo wrote:

Oh I know he was combining his taxes but perhaps the woman didn’t know is what I mean. For example if you ask me my tax rate I’ll give you my marginal rate I won’t tie in property tax or sales tax or any tax from gambling winnings say(and a particularly regressive tax that where you aren’t allowed to deduct expenses or most losses :P).
[/quote]

Well if you are protesting and complaining, should you have knowledge on what are protesting?

54

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Groo, I think people harass you because you try to sound intelligent, but philosophically, you are completely in error as to the founding document and the way the government is supposed to work in the U.S. So from this I take you are either not from the U.S., or educated under false pretenses.

Our founding documents give us protections from government in violating our rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. With which is the right to ownership of private property, which you would understand if you would read any of John Adams economic theory.

The entire premise of this being a constitutional republic was to keep groups of people ( ie., masses or corporations or unions or special interests) from being able to EXTORT private property from others.

Now if you are a foreigner that is fine, but this our battle; to regain control of our system.

If you are form the U.S. then you are seriously delusional in your thinking.

There is a large divide between the way the country is currently operating and how the laws say it should be operating. And we need is a group of politicians to go in and start treason trials for all predecessors both elected and non elected that have acted unlawfully in their post according to the constitution.
[/quote]

This is a complete hash but property is always held through force and only that. There is no inherent right to private property.

I think a lot of your problem is you take what is largely a neoclassical view of econ that is passed out through political mouthpieces so the lowest common denominator can understand instead of looking at the premises of this school of thought.

[/quote]

All property, communal or private, is held by force. You can’t even grow a crop to feed your family (forget profit for a minute), without the implication of force. “Nice crop, but I’m going to put a baseball field right here.”

55

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
75 percent marginal tax on any income over 2 million how about that, capital gains or wages. You think he’d drop out of the economy and try not to earn to that level? Which seems to be the backside of his argument. People pick weird economic policy heroes.

Perhaps we should run the 9 9 9 and the free enterprise zones pushed by Cain?(This is the plan endorsed by your man here) They seem pretty strong. Certainly seems like a fair plan. I do like the part about the free enterprise zones in the inner cities it has a little je nais se quoi.[/quote]
Would never happen. If they taxed individuals this aggressively, imagine corporate tax.

Even if adjusted to allow revenue flow to support jobs that grant people an income to begin with, there would undoubtedly be some assassinations at hand.

In 2010, our GDP was estimated at $14.7 Trillion. Largely cultivated in private industry.

You try to steal $11 trillion dollars and see if you live.

Hell a lowly millionare with $2mil at risk of being cut to $500k would be able to contract a kill for less than his taxes would take from him.

Conjecture perhaps but totally realistic and likely.

[/quote]

Do you really want to hold that taxation is theft? I know you like to portray yourself a jovial fool, but this is moving away from simply playing the fool. Taxation is the cost of playing by the government’s rules.

If you want no taxation and no government the anarchists will meet you there. However assuming we agree that taxation is the acceptable cost of choosing the follow the rules of government then its not theft. You could remove yourself from being taxed after all if you chose.

On the other end why should a democratic society support a system if a majority feels it unjust? Obviously if we believe in democracy the masses should largely get the government they want even if it were to erode property rights and wealth accumulation. This is the crux of why people paint libertarians as fascists, because when push comes to shove they don’t hold that a democracy should be able to choose to redistribute wealth and property as it chooses.

75 percent was the marginal rate once upon a time. Corporations no matter what swill people want to feed anyone shouldn’t be treated as people especially not under the tax code. Corporate taxes should largely be lowered but made exemption free. This would help the myriad small corporations out there do business better while ensuring the mega corps pay their share.

[/quote]

Um, since when are we a mob rule democracy?

Last time I checked, our government was established only for the preservation of individual rights. Here in America, other places may be different.

I know some people seem to think taxes should pay for services for others, but that is not the case, In the U.S. taxes should only be levied to provide basic infrastructure.

Otherwise you are using violent force of the government to violate individual rights.

So in short, if you want the services and programs you pay for them, but no you cannot use the government o extort money from people to support your agenda. [/quote]

The only right to property is because the government allows you to hold it. There is no right by being born to hold property. Prior to that it was your own ability to use violence to hold it.

The entire point of a government is more or less using force to follow the will of those in power. Supposedly the people in the USA.

If a president were elected on the position of restoring a 75 percent marginal rate and the house and senate similarly filled with candidates backing this position, since its the will of the people the representatives should enact it in a representative democracy.
[/quote]

That’s all well and good, but the US is a CONSTITUTIONAL republic not a straight up representative democracy. The people and the government are NOT endowed with ultimate power. The US is specifically designed and set up to prevent the majority from being able to do what they want at the expense of others.

Learn some history.[/quote]

There is nothing about high marginal tax rates in the constitution so it would be fine to work for legislation for it.

The people are in fact endowed with the ultimate power perhaps its you that might want to bone up on some history, along with some economics…though I am not particularly sure why you should bother think you think no one knows anything definitively.
[/quote]

Wrong. The individual is. God gives individuals rights that no one can remove from them. That is the foundation of the US form of government. Period.

For example. If the people (majority) voted to round up and kill all black people, it would be denied by the constitution. The constitution’s codified rights of individuals are the ultimate power in the land. You cannot do anything you want, no matter how popular. You have no idea what you are talking about.[/quote]
So lets go into the wayback machine when slavery was legal. What did god have to say about the rights then? What if the people got a constitutional amendment ratified to round up all the black people? That would be a hard sell…but maybe to round up all the arabs… would it be legal then? What if we stored all these arabs out of the country for as long as we chose…would that be legal?

Did god change his mind about women voting? So god thought it important we not drink alcohol for a bit then he changed it back? Did god sign off on the declaration of independence as well? What other documents did god write for us?[/quote]

No, they still had the rights, but they weren’t specifically laid out as specifically protected by the constitution yet. Many of the founders didn’t even believe the bill of rights was necessary, because all those things were implied. If you lay out what the government can do and can ONLY do, everything else is protected.

Yes it is entirely possible people ignore the system and do bad things. That doesn’t mean it was condoned or created by the system. I can walk over and deprive my neighbor of life by shooting him, but that doesn’t mean that a persons life isn’t protected by the constitution.

It’s pretty obvious you don’t even know what kind of government the US is. At least do yourself the favor of reading the Wiki article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic[[/quote]
Its you that doesn’t understand. The constitution has been changed through amendment. That would be the current law of the land. Even if you completely throw judicial activism out the window as being incorrect rights given by the constitution have changed.

Its amusing that in this thread you argue the government’s ability to tax should be circumscribed by the constitution, yet in the other thread protesters right to freely assemble should be able to be limited by regulation. So which is it? People have god given rights like free assembly and free speech or they don’t? You see no conflict in your two positions?

56

I know property is held by force, so is your life,

Hence the role of the government to preserve those rights.

57

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
I know property is held by force, so is your life,

Hence the role of the government to preserve those rights. [/quote]
So help us out here educated guy…life is the same as property?

58

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

Oh I know he was combining his taxes but perhaps the woman didn’t know is what I mean. For example if you ask me my tax rate I’ll give you my marginal rate I won’t tie in property tax or sales tax or any tax from gambling winnings say(and a particularly regressive tax that where you aren’t allowed to deduct expenses or most losses :P).
[/quote]

Well if you are protesting and complaining, should you have knowledge on what are protesting? [/quote]
Yah that would be nice, but maybe she had no idea who he was. I am not particularly in agreement with a lot of the wide ranging claims coming from the protesters but I’d say the knowledge gap is equal on both sides.

One of the premises of modern conservative economic thought would be that hard work is always rewarded and that everyone is a rational actor in the market with complete knowledge. This is likely not true and I’d say the average person that subscribes to the neoclassical econ view wouldn’t even completely agree with it.

59

[quote]groo wrote:

Its you that doesn’t understand. The constitution has been changed through amendment. That would be the current law of the land. Even if you completely throw judicial activism out the window as being incorrect rights given by the constitution have changed.

Its amusing that in this thread you argue the government’s ability to tax should be circumscribed by the constitution, yet in the other thread protesters right to freely assemble should be able to be limited by regulation. So which is it? People have god given rights like free assembly and free speech or they don’t? You seen no conflict in your two positions?

[/quote]

I see you refuse to even read the basics huh?

The amendments can change (though it is en credibly difficult) but even those are somewhat limited by the founding documents.

And please quote where I ever made any claim about taxes. The only thing I ever did is correct your ignorant statement about the us system of governance.

Taxes are necessary, but at a point it becomes extortion.

60

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:

Its you that doesn’t understand. The constitution has been changed through amendment. That would be the current law of the land. Even if you completely throw judicial activism out the window as being incorrect rights given by the constitution have changed.

Its amusing that in this thread you argue the government’s ability to tax should be circumscribed by the constitution, yet in the other thread protesters right to freely assemble should be able to be limited by regulation. So which is it? People have god given rights like free assembly and free speech or they don’t? You seen no conflict in your two positions?

[/quote]

I see you refuse to even read the basics huh?

The amendments can change (though it is en credibly difficult) but even those are somewhat limited by the founding documents.

And please quote where I ever made any claim about taxes. The only thing I ever did is correct your ignorant statement about the us system of governance.

Taxes are necessary, but at a point it becomes extortion.[/quote]

What ignorant statement that its a representative democracy? And that they should elect congress and a president sympathetic to their views to pass legislation? I believe thats where I said raising the highest marginal tax rate would be ok. I never claimed there would be some national vote on a marginal tax rate.

Listen its you that have been making ignorant statements that would I believe include that god has endowed us with an inalienable right to own property…or is that incorrect?

I believe this was my exact statement

If a president were elected on the position of restoring a 75 percent marginal rate and the house and senate similarly filled with candidates backing this position, since its the will of the people the representatives should enact it in a representative democracy.

This is where you started arguing that I didn’t know what our government is. I think this is the exact definition of our government. Then if the laws were found to be unconstitutional by the judicial branch they could be thrown out.

Since my point of changing the law was solely about taxation that is where I assumed that was the topic…