Mwa ha ha. My little plan is succeeding...
Instigate wrote:Quote:For example, let me point out that in this country (and probably every other) there is no correlation between hard work and wealth.
So a man that flips burgers for 50 hours a week is not likely to have more wealth than the man that flips 'em for 30 hours? Would you say that a man that works 50 hours/week works harder than a man that works 30 hours/week? Have you failed to consider ingenuity and invention?
You can argue your assertion on an individual basis only. The "general rule" which you have presented it as is false.
I would say in the case you mention that neither burger flipper is wealthy and that there is no amount of waking hours a burger flipper could work that would make him so. And no, I haven't failed to consider ingenuity and invention because folks who strike it rich with such are the exception and not the rule.
Quote:Quote:People who are in the upper class echelons enjoy myriad benefits other than just their wealth and power. Therefore they should accept their portion of responsibility.
They already shoulder most of the burden.
How so?
Quote:There is no logical or moral justification for a progressive taxation system. It doesnt bring in more money than a flat tax would. Its only purpose is to screw the people that have money.
A flat tax is regressive in that it harms those on the lower end of the pay scale more than those on the upper. Its only purpose is to punish people for not being wealthy.
Quote:Quote:I'm going to show my pinko colors and quote someone I can't remember who said "Behind every great fortune is a great crime." That may or may not be true right now, but there was a time when it was probably the rule
Can you provide evidence of this, or are you just echoing unproven Socialist maxims designed to vilify rich people? If it werent such a pervasive attitude, it would be funny that you people have to justify your confiscatory taxes by calling people criminals.
I was thinking specifically of the industrial age here in the US and folks like
Jay Gould specifically. But I could give examples throughout history and from different countries. Slavery was a great crime that made many a plantation owner rich. I could probably make the argument about contemporary fortunes made off of Enron and Worldcom and others, but that's not really my point. My point is that implying that people are in the positions they are in solely on the basis of merit is demonstrably false -- and that goes for both the rich and the poor. Then there is the majority of us, those of us in the middle that are carrying the weight of both other sectors.
Quote:The obvious disparity in wealth among individuals doesnt fit well into the leftist Theory of Human Equality. This little problem is solved by your declaration above which, conversely, serves to bestow victim status upon poor people.
A clever trick to say the least.
Hmmm. I don't know the Theory of Human Equality -- seems you know more about that than I do -- so I'm not sure what the clever trick is. What I do know is that we are all affected by our neighbors. I don't believe that everyone has to be, or even can be, equal. But I do believe that if we neglect whole segments of the population, tell ourselves they are poor because they want to be poor or are too lazy to work, that will not make the problem go away. You can't just flush them down the toilet. We have to make sure that everyone has a minimum standard of living if we want to protect our own private property. There is, indeed there has to be, a balance between "damn the poor" and "screw the rich".
Quote:Just remember JazzFreak: You're no better than anybody else, private property is just an fancy, outdated concept and if you dont pay higher taxes your children may beaten, your house robbed and your car stolen.
Hmmm. Methinks maybe you're responding to an imaginary communist rather than my post, which was intended to be thought provoking and not an argument for progressive taxation or against private property. Nevertheless, good to at least have some opinions.