The 2 percent rich can absorb a higher tax, the other 98 percent can't

[ksu_aviator]

That's not what anyone really wants. What is desired is to stop rampant profiteering at the expense of those who cannot afford it. It's certainly reasonable for doctors to make more money than librarians, but no one should want for their basic needs. Nor should anyone be denied the opportunity to pursue any career or position due to the circumstances of their birth.

Well, obviously the goal isn't full redistribution. But, I just want to see if you, and others that believe like you, understand the ramifications of redistribution.

 

[Guy Incognito]

What I do not understand is, what part of "It's not your money" do you not understand? The left always talks like not taking money from producers in our society is no different from cutting them a check.

And the right always talks like the rich receive no government largesse. I'd like to see how much money that businessman is making when he no longer has a government-enforced tort liability shield to prevent the victims of his wrongdoings from recovering what is due them? I'd also like to see how much of that money that businessman would keep without police protecting him. It could keep going, but you get the idea.

The reason it is fair and right to tax the rich (under our current system) is because the rich benefit far more from government coercion than the poor do.

 

[Harshaw]

And the right always talks like the rich receive no government largesse. I'd like to see how much money that businessman is making when he no longer has a government-enforced tort liability shield to prevent the victims of his wrongdoings from recovering what is due them? I'd also like to see how much of that money that businessman would keep without police protecting him. It could keep going, but you get the idea.

The reason it is fair and right to tax the rich (under our current system) is because the rich benefit far more from government coercion than the poor do.

And you continue to prove that you're diametrically opposed to libertarianism.

 

[TurtleDude]

And the right always talks like the rich receive no government largesse. I'd like to see how much money that businessman is making when he no longer has a government-enforced tort liability shield to prevent the victims of his wrongdoings from recovering what is due them? I'd also like to see how much of that money that businessman would keep without police protecting him. It could keep going, but you get the idea.

The reason it is fair and right to tax the rich (under our current system) is because the rich benefit far more from government coercion than the poor do.

That is a complete lie. Government created the tort system so if the is a tort shield its part of the same system the government created. its not like people could sue corporations without the government. What a moronic claim. And rich corporations can hire "pinkertons" or other private police forces. Most police calls in big cities are to the poor areas and most victims of crime are poor or lower middle class

as usual, you are wrong Guy-and government coercion is a restraint on the wealthy not the poor.

 

[TurtleDude]

And you continue to prove that you're diametrically opposed to libertarianism.

its is a rather pathetic form of trolling isnt it?

 

[Guy Incognito]

It constantly cracks me up how right-wingers refuse to admit that the rich take more government cheese than the poor. It just comes in a different wrapper.

Well, obviously the goal isn't full redistribution. But, I just want to see if you, and others that believe like you, understand the ramifications of redistribution.

Speaking for myself, the goal shouldn't be full redistribution, but merely enough to correct the artificial manipulation of government coercion that benefits the rich. In an ideal world, no government would be interfering with anybody's personal autonomy. But the minute the government steps in and says a victim of a tort can't recover what is owed to him because the businessman who injured him has an imaginary friend called a "corporation" to take all the liability, then the market is no longer free and becomes grossly, and immorally, distorted. This distortion should be corrected by taxing the rich for the value of the largesse they receive from the government.

 

[ksu_aviator]

It constantly cracks me up how right-wingers refuse to admit that the rich take more government cheese than the poor. It just comes in a different wrapper.



Speaking for myself, the goal shouldn't be full redistribution, but merely enough to correct the artificial manipulation of government coercion that benefits the rich. In an ideal world, no government would be interfering with anybody's personal autonomy. But the minute the government steps in and says a victim of a tort can't recover what is owed to him because the businessman who injured him has an imaginary friend called a "corporation" to take all the liability, then the market is no longer free and becomes grossly, and immorally, distorted. This distortion should be corrected by taxing the rich for the value of the largesse they receive from the government.

Please, just play the hypothetical game for one moment and explain what you believe would happen if all the world was made equal.

 

[TurtleDude]

It constantly cracks me up how right-wingers refuse to admit that the rich take more government cheese than the poor. It just comes in a different wrapper.



Speaking for myself, the goal shouldn't be full redistribution, but merely enough to correct the artificial manipulation of government coercion that benefits the rich. In an ideal world, no government would be interfering with anybody's personal autonomy. But the minute the government steps in and says a victim of a tort can't recover what is owed to him because the businessman who injured him has an imaginary friend called a "corporation" to take all the liability, then the market is no longer free and becomes grossly, and immorally, distorted. This distortion should be corrected by taxing the rich for the value of the largesse they receive from the government.

the top 1% pay 40% of the income tax meaning they fund 40% of the programs paid for by the income tax. They also pay almost all the estate tax

the bottom 47% pay none of the income tax and none of the estate tax. For Guy to be correct, the rich would have to use more than 40% of what is paid for by those taxes and the bottom 47% would have to use none of it

that is clearly an impossibility. Thus Guy is not being truthful

if there were no government, the rich would have even more

 

[TurtleDude]

the concept of tort liablity would not exist without government. and if a corporation is a fraud, the victim of a corporate tort can pierce the corporate veil and sue the owners

so Guy again is wrong and FAILS

 

[justabubba]

Who said he is denying himself? A small business man will do one of three things with his profits. He will reinvest it, either in his business or someone else's or he will spend it. If that profit is reduced by extra taxes, ha cannot reinvest for growth or spend it on products from other businesses. If his margin is thin enough (and many are), he may be forced to reduce costs, like employee salaries, just to pay the tax.

if the business earns no profits then it incurs no tax obligations
no matter how many employees the company does or does not have

What I do not understand is, what part of "It's not your money" do you not understand? The left always talks like not taking money from producers in our society is no different from cutting them a check.

no one is taking anyone's money
the business pays taxes on its profits just as the wage earner pays taxes on his income. that is the cost of living in this great country
pity you are unaware of this

 

[Donc]

here is my view on wealth redistribution, from 2 Thessalonians 3:10

For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

It would be a big mistake for you to go down this path so I wont put up the full quote.:2wave:


Deuteronomy 15:7, 11
If there is a poor man among your brothers…………………….

 

[TurtleDude]

if the business earns no profits then it incurs no tax obligations
no matter how many employees the company does or does not have


no one is taking anyone's money
the business pays taxes on its profits just as the wage earner pays taxes on his income. that is the cost of living in this great country
pity you are unaware of this

you tax hikers use that claim to justify confiscatory tax rates.

why are you so opposed to a flat tax

 

[Guy Incognito]

Please, just play the hypothetical game for one moment and explain what you believe would happen if all the world was made equal.

I'm not advocating that. I'm talking about morality. How about instead let's play a hypothetical game where nobody ever coerced anyone into doing anything against their will, and nobody's liberty was ever violated.

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm not advocating that. I'm talking about morality. How about instead let's play a hypothetical game where nobody ever coerced anyone into doing anything against their will, and nobody's liberty was ever violated.

more weasel words-morality. there is nothing moral about taking the wealth of some to buy political powers for others

 

[Guy Incognito]

the concept of tort liablity would not exist without government.

TD fails to muster a rational argument once again. Let me explain how wrong you are.

In a state of natural liberty there would be self help, and what is owed to a victim can be extracted from the wrongdoer, forcibly if necessary. Government stands in the way of this sort of self help, and replaces it with tort. Then it says certain torts won't be honored because an imaginary business entity absorbs tort liability.

That's what is unlibertarian about tort liability shields. Tort law as a replacement for violent self help is minarchism, and thus libertarian. Tort shields go way beyond the minimal level of government necessary envisioned by the libertarian ideal.

 

[Harshaw]

TD fails to muster a rational argument once again. Let me explain how wrong you are.

In a state of natural liberty there would be self help, and what is owed to a victim can be extracted from the wrongdoer, forcibly if necessary. Government stands in the way of this sort of self help, and replaces it with tort. Then it says certain torts won't be honored because an imaginary business entity absorbs tort liability.

That's what is unlibertarian about tort liability shields. Tort law as a replacement for violent self help is minarchism, and thus libertarian. Tort shields go way beyond the minimal level of government necessary envisioned by the libertarian ideal.

There is not a word of that which actually makes the slightest lick of sense to anyone who actually understands the terms you're flinging about.

 

[TurtleDude]

TD fails to muster a rational argument once again. Let me explain how wrong you are.

In a state of natural liberty there would be self help, and what is owed to a victim can be extracted from the wrongdoer, forcibly if necessary. Government stands in the way of this sort of self help, and replaces it with tort. Then it says certain torts won't be honored because an imaginary business entity absorbs tort liability.

That's what is unlibertarian about tort liability shields. Tort law as a replacement for violent self help is minarchism, and thus libertarian. Tort shields go way beyond the minimal level of government necessary envisioned by the libertarian ideal.

your lack of legal training is obvious to me. you cannot avoid tort liability with corporations. try again. tort damage is one of money. again you demonstrate you don't understand the issue

 

[TurtleDude]

There is not a word of that which actually makes the slightest lick of sense to anyone who actually understands the terms you're flinging about.

agreed, he has no clue about tort law. having actually tried a couple dozen tort cases in both state and federal courts I suspect I have more knowledge than he does --but then again anything is more than nothing

 

[Harshaw]

Or any other kind of law, for that matter.

 

[Technocrat]

And the right always talks like the rich receive no government largesse. I'd like to see how much money that businessman is making when he no longer has a government-enforced tort liability shield to prevent the victims of his wrongdoings from recovering what is due them? I'd also like to see how much of that money that businessman would keep without police protecting him. It could keep going, but you get the idea.

No, I do not get the idea. "government-enforced tort liability shield"? Not in any industry where I have worked.
The cost of product liability insurance is the biggest single item in the cost of a single engine airplane. Why? Because Aircraft Manufactures can be held responsible for accidents on products they built up top 50 years ago. Other industries have similar issues.

So, just who is shield protected and for what amount? Please document.

The reason it is fair and right to tax the rich (under our current system) is because the rich benefit far more from government coercion than the poor do.

Really? And just what do we give them?

Everybody should pay taxes to cover essential services. Sadly, the portion of the population that receives the most in services, pays little or no tax. That section is not the top 2%, it is the bottom 50%

I am not one of the "evil rich" nor will I ever be. I just do not feel I have any right to their money.

If it is wrong for me to walk into their house (or yours for that matter) & take what I need, it is equally wrong to hire a politician to use the force of law to take it for me.

 

[Technocrat]

I'm not advocating that. I'm talking about morality. How about instead let's play a hypothetical game where nobody ever coerced anyone into doing anything against their will, and nobody's liberty was ever violated.

Maybe after The Lord returns. Not until then.

That sounds like an idealized form of anarchy to me. It sounds nice until you realize that the stronger would force the weaker to their will. That is just human nature.
It is also how how feudalism developed.

For an example of true anarchy, as opposed to the idealized version you like to portray, visit Somalia, where the government controls part Mogadishu & anarchy is the name of the game everywhere else.
Who knows, you might like it.

 

[RightinNYC]

Every dollar devoted to the middle class causes the economy to grow three times faster than a dollar for the rich, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The reason why is the 98 percent spend 95 percent of what they earn.

ricksfolly

Crackheads spend 100% of what they acquire. Accordingly, we should institute Cash for Crackheads.

 

[RightinNYC]

Or any other kind of law, for that matter.

You mean they skipped Tort Shields in your 1L classes?

I wrote my Note on Contract Swords.

 

[justabubba]

Crackheads spend 100% of what they acquire. Accordingly, we should institute Cash for Crackheads.

exactly the right approach - if we are trying to stimulate the drug trade on the street

unfortunately for your weak argument, that is not the objective we are addressing in this thread

 

[RightinNYC]

exactly the right approach - if we are trying to stimulate the drug trade on the street

unfortunately for your weak argument, that is not the objective we are addressing in this thread

Crackheads (or the people they buy crack from) don't purchase things in the regular economy?

Fine, fight the hypo. Let's create a program that gives huge stimulus checks to law abiding citizens who have more than $50k in credit card debt. Does that sound better?