|
HunterCA -> RE: What qualifies Hilary to govern? (6/3/2015 10:37:34 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
Do you favor the government stealing from the successful and giving it to the unsuccessful?
How do you arrive at the claim that a legally elected Govt imposing and collecting legally instituted taxes is "stealing"? 'Stealing refers to illegal acts. A legally elected Govt imposing and collecting legally instituted taxes cannot be accurately or honestly described as "stealing".
I am guessing that you also agree with the odd notion that any individual's success is entirely the result of that individual's efforts alone, and that no one or nothing else contributed to that success. This notion is obviously incorrect and insupportable, as a cursory glance at any successful individual's case will demonstrate. Most (financially) successful individual's supply services or goods that others want - so how their success is a uniquely individual achievement defies logic. There are always other people and other institutions involved at every stage of any individual's 'success'.
This kind of billionaire friendly position only makes sense if you want the already rich to get even richer and the already poor to remain so or get further impoverished, though why anyone who isn't already rich might desire such a situation also defies logic - it runs directly against the doctrine of 'enlightened self interest', a doctrine that many on the right claim as their 'inspiration'.
Gees, such ignorance. So if we legally passed a law that placed a 100% tax on you and everything you made or already owned, you wouldn't consider that stealing because it was legally implemented and collected? If you don't pay the tax, the government sends a person with a gun to take stuff from you. Now in this theoretical case a 100% tax on just you alone is obviously not going to happen. But, where is the line between stealing and simple tax? We in this country fought a revolution agains Britain largely over that thing. You want to pick out groups to tax more than others. You want to tax the "rich" more because they're a small and easy target for your hate. I'm sure you're fine with taxing tobacco users more because we can hate them as a small group as well. I consider that stealing just the same as I would consider a 100% tax on you stealing. The state here says I have to pay $0.48 a gallon tax on gasoline because I'm obviously using the roads and the gasoline tax will go to fixing the roads. Then, like clockwork, every year the elected officials dump all that money into the general fund and the roads don't get fixed. That's stealing. They're just not sneaky about it. They'll steal from you while looking you in the eye.
Oh, what a prissy little hateful thing. The odd notion that a person's success is not result of the individuals actions. I'm sure a lot of logic defies you. And basically, that logic that escapes you is probably going to keep you a mean, small thinker for ever. When any business person accesses any institution, that business person always pays for the services received. You buy a house, you pay for the cost of installing the road in front of the house. Here, a business person wants to rezone land and build something, it's going to take three years and at least two million dollars to get government permission. Your ignorant little thoughts believe all of that is given to business. No, the business pays for it and when "it" is built, whatever it is, it is all the singular product of that person or that business. Unless of course you're running over there with a hammer and pounding nails for free.
Really, enlightened self interest. Is this something you also teach that you don't understand.
|
|
|
|
