I was rich when Clinton was president, I was rich when Reagan was president and I was richer when W was president and I am richer now than at any time
Taking money out of circulation is simply a 100% equitable (and extremely cheap!) method to redistribute wealth. When a dollar is destroyed those that are left are worth just a tiny bit more than they used to be. I'm sure you know this, Turtle, don't act so shocked. No, I do not condone burning down a mansion or crushing a 1930 Duesenberg.so let me understand this rant of yours
you want all wealth to be destroyed after someone dies or just the property of the rich. I have often termed left wing views on wealth as "economic vandalism" and that seems to sure fit my definition. Pest control? I think that term is best reserved for the parasites who want to take the wealth of others and the pimps in political office who pander to them
Your question inspires me to suggest you as a likely example of the answer__bye-bye!
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat falsehoods and collectivist tripe, its still wrong.
I am not being obtuse, you are. I am not being absurd, the consequences of not paying your taxes are LAW.
No, its meant to be accurate. Government IS force, and unless you can justify the use of force for the sake of your political agenda, wealth redistribution you are a liar.
I would never support any law that wasn't worth enforcing, you are quick to.
Thats always the answer for your lot, if ya don't like it leave. No, given that your lot doesn't respect state's rights and would have the federal government enforce your redistribution of wealth changing states would make little difference. This is a democracy, its better to try to change bad laws than give up this once great country or states to looters like you.
btw - this IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. Its a democratic republic.
Wrong.
Its a federation of republics. Correct people correctly.
Using force to take what doesn't belong to you is the law of the jungle. What one does with the loot does not justify the initial act of aggression. If you wish to take care of the poor or elderly do it on your own dime, not with other people's property.So social safety nets for the poor and the elderly are the "law of the jungle"?
Then your only option is to run the US government on donations.Using force to take what doesn't belong to you is the law of the jungle. What one does with the loot does not justify the initial act of aggression. If you wish to take care of the poor or elderly do it on your own dime, not with other people's property.
You might have a case of America circa 1787. However, the last 200 years have seen many changes bringing parts of democracy into our system and changing the fundamental nature of it.
As proof I would advise you to look at hundreds, perhaps thousands of posts from right wingers lamenting this reality. You could also compare the America of 1787 to that of today for an additional dose of reality.
Then your only option is to run the US government on donations.
Enlighten me.Not necessarily.
Great, than it won't hurt you to start paying your fair share of taxes again!
Taking money out of circulation is simply a 100% equitable (and extremely cheap!) method to redistribute wealth. When a dollar is destroyed those that are left are worth just a tiny bit more than they used to be. I'm sure you know this, Turtle, don't act so shocked. No, I do not condone burning down a mansion or crushing a 1930 Duesenberg.
Just trying to emphasize that giving the money to someone else is not my primary goal. I would prefer it be put to good use by establishing an education fund or something to benefit all but it's not required.that sure wasn't the way your rant came off
Just trying to emphasize that giving the money to someone else is not my primary goal. I would prefer it be put to good use by establishing an education fund or something to benefit all but it's not required.
To answer your other question, I still approve a limit but I think that should be tied into the poverty level. At the current time the inheritance "deduction" is about 500 times the poverty level. I'd think living off someone else's work for 50 years at a level 10 times better than poverty is pretty good. I've heard enough people squawking in this thread about people living off someone else for a couple of years AT poverty level so I can't see them objecting to this.
I'm sure donations would always be welcomed. But as I said above, if people expect their life, liberty, and property to be defended and protected, then they will have to pay for that service. People don't just give you stuff for free, and neither should the government. However, as I also said before, if someone wishes to forego having any particular government protect them, then that's their business.Then your only option is to run the US government on donations.
I'm well aware of what people like yourself have attempted to do. That doesn't change what the country actually is.
I would end all taxes on income, estates inheritances etc and tax only consumption
captures far more income and prevents the extra-constitutional power congress gets by playing groups of tax payers against tax consumers etc
and gives Turtle one hell of a tax cut.
Which is consistent with every one of the tax positions you have ever advanced here. Even the schemes which contradict your previous positions. They all have the same result - a big tax cut for Turtle.
Actually, reality changes everything. You can cling to your own beliefs - but in the end reality always turns them to compost.
I think we all know what you want. It's too bad it won't work.I would end all taxes on income, estates inheritances etc and tax only consumption
captures far more income and prevents the extra-constitutional power congress gets by playing groups of tax payers against tax consumers etc
Who the hell is going to invade Missouri? And if my State can't be invaded then why bother to pay for protective services from Uncle Sam? In fact, that brings up another point. What if Alaska or Maine preferred paying Canada for protection, would that be OK? It's not like the US military is going to be the super-mean fighting machine it is now because no one will want to pay for that much firepower. Corporations might be willing to pay for protection of shipping lanes, though, you can give that a shot.I'm sure donations would always be welcomed. But as I said above, if people expect their life, liberty, and property to be defended and protected, then they will have to pay for that service. People don't just give you stuff for free, and neither should the government. However, as I also said before, if someone wishes to forego having any particular government protect them, then that's their business.
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?