Do You Have The Right To Other People's Property?

[Ikari]

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?

For myself, I will say no because it is your property and you can do with it as you see fit as long as it doesn't infringe the rights of others or harm them. I will state that property includes money, real property, and personal property.

Well if you mean things like taxes in general (since you included money), then yes I do. Because we've aggregated certain services over government which is, in some cases, best able to handle the high degree of aggregation and sophistication in our society. As such, we all use these services and are all offered these services, so we all pay for these services. If you don't think you should pay, then tough noogies because we ain't going the route of opting out of certain services to avoid certain taxes. It gets well too complicated for crap like that and we're just deal with the reality of the situation. Everyone pays, there's no such thing as a free lunch. If you refuse to pay, you've essentially robbed the rest of us, and that is something we are well within our rights to use government force to use.

 

[lizzie]

Excess money, I question...

Excess as determined by whom? Someone who wants it? Someone who needs it? A government who determines that someone else deserves it?

 

[Vader]

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?

For myself, I will say no because it is your property and you can do with it as you see fit as long as it doesn't infringe the rights of others or harm them. I will state that property includes money, real property, and personal property.

Yet more anti-American republicanazi propaganda.

This poll is disgraceful.

 

[TurtleDude]

What seems to be missing here is that in the years when top marginal rates skyrocketed, the percentage of the population who were paying exhorbitant rates was a very select few. What we currently have is people like my husband and I, who both make barely above median income, paying high rates. Instead of the rich becoming richer, the median are now considered rich.

The top rate of 77% during WWI was those who made the equivalent of $16 million (in 2007 dollars). The 75% top rate in WWII was for those making the equivalent of $75 million (in 2007 dollars). The 1913 top rate of 7% was for those making the equivalent of $10 million (in 2007 dollars).

excellent post and that is why next year the taxes will be at the highest in US history. The clinton tax hike hits anyone making more than 200K a year which is far far more people than what happened in the FDR socialist periods

 

[lizzie]

that is why next year the taxes will be at the highest in US history. The clinton tax hike hits anyone making more than 200K a year which is far far more people than what happened in the FDR socialist periods

Interesting (to me), in 1913, only one percent of the population paid federal income taxes. During the first half of the 1900's, financing wars was the reason for the tax hikes we had. Nowadays, financing war doesn't hold a candle to social program expenditures, and those are permanent, so no matter how much taxes keep getting hiked, we can't sustain them. If everyone today who is considered "rich", as defined by our government, was taxed 100% of their income, it still coudn't pay the bills we have. I personally believe that our populace is willfully ignorant of the realities of what we are facing, and the huge implications for all of us if we don't stop the spending and drastically cut back the programs.

 

[TurtleDude]

Interesting (to me), in 1913, only one percent of the population paid federal income taxes. During the first half of the 1900's, financing wars was the reason for the tax hikes we had. Nowadays, financing war doesn't hold a candle to social program expenditures, and those are permanent, so no matter how much taxes keep getting hiked, we can't sustain them. If everyone today who is considered "rich", as defined by our government, was taxed 100% of their income, it still coudn't pay the bills we have. I personally believe that our populace is willfully ignorant of the realities of what we are facing, and the huge implications for all of us if we don't stop the spending and drastically cut back the programs.

the dems are the party that MAINLY caters to those seeking income redistribution. the dems would lose almost all their ability to garner votes if we seriously cut back on spending/ since so many voters don't currently pay income taxes or suffer tax increases when the dems spend more, they have no incentive to reign in excessive spending

 

[lizzie]

the dems are the party that MAINLY caters to those seeking income redistribution. the dems would lose almost all their ability to garner votes if we seriously cut back on spending/ since so many voters don't currently pay income taxes or suffer tax increases when the dems spend more, they have no incentive to reign in excessive spending

Absolutely, but the Republicans won't touch Medicare and SS with a 10 ft pole. Because we have a government (and I do agree it's primarily a democrat problem, but both are in it up to their necks), that refuses to be honest with the American people about where we are headed, we will keep sailing this ship until it crashes into the rocks.

 

[The_Patriot]

the dems are the party that MAINLY caters to those seeking income redistribution. the dems would lose almost all their ability to garner votes if we seriously cut back on spending/ since so many voters don't currently pay income taxes or suffer tax increases when the dems spend more, they have no incentive to reign in excessive spending

If you look at history the Republicans were the first to use entitlements starting with good ol' Abe. The democrats just jumped on board in the last part of the 19th century. Both parties are for socialism.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Absolutely, but the Republicans won't touch Medicare and SS with a 10 ft pole. Because we have a government (and I do agree it's primarily a democrat problem, but both are in it up to their necks), that refuses to be honest with the American people about where we are headed, we will keep sailing this ship until it crashes into the rocks.

Hey now - don't know the government.
We're unsinkable like the might Titanic!

Do away with your rafts and your life preservers, nothing is going to bring us down.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

we have an 80 year old guy who shoots with our club-does OK. doesn't miss the bale at 60Meters and most of them are in the center.

I had a student that took it up at 45 and got up to top 15 in the USA by the time she was 48 and won a couple national age group events.

I have tons to keep me busy, but I would like that to be my next hobby.

 

[obvious Child]

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?

For myself, I will say no because it is your property and you can do with it as you see fit as long as it doesn't infringe the rights of others or harm them. I will state that property includes money, real property, and personal property.

Absolutely. Your argument is that if the property is not infringing upon other's rights and not harming them it is off limits. That means that we cannot levy fines, penalties or compensation from the assets of criminals if the assets were not involved in the crime. So everything Bernie Madoff bought that was not used in Ponzi Scheme is off limits to confiscation. That I cannot support in any way.

If I steal from you and the assets I have other then the assets used in the crime are off limits to confiscation to make you whole. Does that sound reasonable? Because that's what your argument is arguing. You probably weren't thinking that, but that's where your argument is heading.