The_Patriot
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 28, 2010
- Messages
- 1,488
- Reaction score
- 206
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
I believe if someone takes your property by force you have a duty to give them another piece of your property
delivered at 3200 FPS
Here is the best way to answer this
Morally no one has a just claim to your property merely because they exist within the same geo-political boundary as you do unless you are somehow responsible for their existence (such as a paternity matter) or their condition (such as injurying someone due to negligence)
in some cases, you have a legitimate duty to provide for someone else if that person has become disabled due to service to a group you are a member of--such as a police officer in your municipality who is injured on the job
legally of course-the situation is different. Liberal realize that they can win the votes of the many by promising them the wealth of the few. but it certainly is not morally just or proper
:lamo: You quoted it.
No. If you are claiming that you encourged discussion by telling me that you thought you my first answer was a good one, it would have happened in your response to my first answer... not here, many posts later. I've told you I'm not a mind reader. How did I know, THEN?
Did you see me say I disagreed with your answer? Nope, so that should give an idea that I liked it.
You did not react to it at all. I'm not a mind reader.
DAMN IT JIM, I'M A DOCTOR NOT A MAGICIAN!!
"bones" in Star Trek
"I'm just an old country doctor."
I saw DeForrest Kelly at a Star Trek convention many years ago. Good guy.
yeah so is Shatner-he is big into horses and was once a big archery fan-one of my best friends is probably the best target archer in history and said Shatner used to show up at the big Vegas Pro archery shoot
I knew he was big into horses, but I didn't know about archery. Always regretted not getting more into that sport when I was younger.
we have US target nationals 20 minutes from my house starting wednesday. friends of mine are running the tournament-members of my family compete
I was into it as a kid, but didn't stay with it. There's a small target range about 20 minutes from my house. I've been thinking...
I'm curious. What do you mean by someone taking another person's property though the use of government? How could that happen?
I'm quite Able to answer .. as I always do to the "class warfare" contingent, who don't realize (after watching Faux News/Hannity for the few years of their adult life) that the battle has already been won by the Rich, and what we have now is the mere beginnings of a Counter war.Misattribution of the original position I posited in that thread. I asked if being taxed at 90% was slavery. To date no one has been able to reply to that. Again you have nothing of substance to bring forth so I'll ignore your statements regarding the actual point of the thread, but will pay attention to your comments as moderator.
So, as you can see we had high Top marginal rates for 50 of the above 90 years without 'slavery'. Including rates of 84%-94% for 22 years under FDR, Truman, Eisenhower (8), and Kennedy. I just don't remember the Rockefellers hard up either.Historical rates (married couples, filing jointly)
Year/ Top Rate%/ Over
1913 --- 7% 500,000
1914 --- 7% 500,000
1915 --- 7% 500,000
1916 --- 15% 2,000,000
1917 --- 67% 2,000,000
1918 --- 77% 1,000,000
1919 --- 73% 1,000,000
1920 --- 73% 1,000,000
1921 --- 73% 1,000,000
1922 --- 58% 200,000
1923 --- 43.5% 200,000
1924 --- 46% 500,000
1925 --- 25% 100,000
1926 --- 25% 100,000
1927 --- 25% 100,000
1928 --- 25% 100,000
1929 --- 24% 100,000
1930 --- 25% 100,000
1931 --- 25% 100,000
1932 --- 63% 1,000,000
1933 --- 63% 1,000,000
1934 --- 63% 1,000,000
1935 --- 63% 1,000,000
1936 --- 79% 5,000,000
1937 --- 79% 5,000,000
1938 --- 79% 5,000,000
1939 --- 79% 5,000,000
1940 --- 81% 5,000,000
1941 --- 81% 5,000,000
1942 --- 88% 200,000
1943 --- 88% 200,000
1944--- 94 200,000
1945 --- 94% 200,000
1946 --- 86% 200,000
1947 --- 86% 200,000
1948 --- 82.% 400,000
1949 --- 82% 400,000
1950 --- 84.36% 400,000
1951 --- 91% 400,000
1952 --- 92% 400,000
1953 --- 92% 400,000
1954 --- 91% 400,000
1955 --- 91% 400,000
1956 --- 91% 400,000
1957 --- 91% 400,000
1958 --- 91% 400,000
1959 --- 91% 400,000
1960 --- 91% 400,000
1961 --- 91% 400,000
1962 --- 91% 400,000
1963 --- 91% 400,000
1964 --- 77% 400,000
1965 --- 70% 200,000
1966 --- 70% 200,000
1967 --- 70% 200,000
1968 --- 75.25% 200,000
1969 --- 77% 200,000
1970 --- 71.75% 200,000
1971 --- 70% 60% 200,000
1972 --- 70% 50 200,000
1973 --- 70% 50 200,000
1974 --- 70% 50 200,000
1975 ----70% 50 200,000
1976 --- 70% 50 200,000
1977 --- 70% 50 203,200
1978 --- 70% 50 203,200
1979 --- 70% 50 215,400
1980 --- 70% 50 215,400
1981 --- 69% 50 215,400
1982 --- 50% 85,600
1983 --- 50% 109,400
1984 --- 50% 162,400
1985 --- 50 % 169,020
1986 --- 50 % 175,250
1987 --- 38.5% 90,000
1988 --- 28% <8> 29,750 <8>
1989 --- 28% <8> 30,950 <8>
1990 --- 28% <8> 32,450 <8>
1991 --- 31% 82,150
1992 --- 31% 86,500
1993 --- 39.6% 89,150
1994 --- 39.6% 250,000
1995 --- 39.6% 256,500
1996 --- 39.6% 263,750
1997 --- 39.6% 271,050
1998 --- 39.6% 278,450
1999 --- 39.6% 283,150
2000 --- 39.6% 288,350
2001 --- 39.1% 297,350
2002 --- 38.6% 307,050
2003 --- 35% 311,950
I'm quite Able to answer .. as I always do to the "class warfare" contingent, who don't realize (after watching Faux News/Hannity for the few years of their adult life) that the battle has already been won by the Rich, and what we have now is the mere beginnings of a Counter war.
If you tax someone who makes say 50k or less 90%, obviously you have a starving citizen; 'slave' if you will.
But since we've ALREADY Had the Rate you profer (and even higher and only a little lower; 70%-94%) for 45 Years as the TOP marginal rate without 'slavery', the answer is... No.
Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)
So, as you can see we had high Top marginal rates for 45 years without slavery. Including rates of 84%-94% for 21 years under FDR, Truman, Eisenhower (8), and Kennedy. I just don't remember the Rockefellers hard up either.
I'm quite Able to answer .. as I always do to the "class warfare" contingent, who don't realize (after watching Faux News/Hannity for the few years of their adult life) that the battle has already been won by the Rich, and what we have now is the mere beginnings of a Counter war.
If you tax someone who makes say 50k or less 90%, obviously you have a starving citizen; 'slave' if you will.
But since we've Already/Ooops Had the Rate you profer (and even higher and only a little lower; 70%-94%) for 50 Years as the Top marginal rate without 'slavery', the answer is... No.
Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)
So, as you can see we had high Top marginal rates for 50 of the above 90 years without 'slavery'. Including rates of 84%-94% for 21 years under FDR, Truman, Eisenhower (8), and Kennedy. I just don't remember the Rockefellers hard up either.
EDIT : The below of course is Not an answer.
An Answer as I just gave to 'The Patriot' refuting his assertion.
But since we've Already (Ooops!) Had the Rate you profer (and even higher and only a little lower; 70%-94%) for 50 Years as the Top marginal rate without 'slavery', the answer is... 'No'.
EDIT : The below of course is Not an answer.
An Answer as I just gave to 'The Patriot' refuting his assertion. [/b]
I'm curious. What do you mean by someone taking another person's property though the use of government? How could that happen?
A simple question. Do you have the right to other people's property and to enforce the taking of it through the use of the government?
Another absurdity and no vote.
of course not, providing the property is actually yours.
Land, I question...
Excess money, I question...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?