Remember How Great California Was? (sales tax, food, car)

[payutenyodagimas]

I have a lot of respect to those entrepreneurs who got rich but i could not imagine how they could have done it without employees. Am sure Gates, Zuckerberg, Jobs had partners and employees to develop their products that made them rich


So how could you justify that only the rich or wealthy only have the privilege to vote? In business and society, everybody have to play their part. You cant get rich on your own unless you won the lottery or had inheritance.

If only the rich can vote, then we are back to feudalism. Master and serfs. Didnt the french hang their ruling class because of this situation?

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

Aren't you too poor to come back to California?

No

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

Doesn't make a lick of difference to the point made. Those huge numbers of non-taxpayers referred to include millions and millions and millions of retired, students, disabled,... and low paid workers without whom the taxpayers could not thrive.

Does make a difference as Rich and Tax payers are two separate groups. Not all tax payers are rich. That was my point. The change is not what was said by the poster. Beyond that I did not comment.

Just pointing out the usual twist made.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

I have a lot of respect to those entrepreneurs who got rich but i could not imagine how they could have done it without employees. Am sure Gates, Zuckerberg, Jobs had partners and employees to develop their products that made them rich


So how could you justify that only the rich or wealthy only have the privilege to vote? In business and society, everybody have to play their part. You cant get rich on your own unless you won the lottery or had inheritance.

If only the rich can vote, then we are back to feudalism. Master and serfs. Didnt the french hang their ruling class because of this situation?

Aside from Owl who said that?

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by expatCA

No

A year ago you sure whined about it

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Does make a difference as Rich and Tax payers are two separate groups. Not all tax payers are rich. That was my point. The change is not what was said by the poster. Beyond that I did not comment.

Just pointing out the usual twist made.

No it doesnt. The concept of "taxpayers" as wealthy is in the definition of wealth inferred by the poster and his referenced chart. That poster iis known here in particular for his lauding of personal wealth as the only meaningful metric of the electorate. All those people represented as not paying are either low-income workers or non-earners. Yet, as pointed out, the taxpayers could not thrive to pay taxes as they do without the labor and consumption of those paying little to no taxes. THAT reality is the only meaningful point at hand relative to the post of CR.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Notice how he switched it from tax payers to rich?

As to voting, "Bread and Circus" has been the way to get votes since Roman times. Politicians have learned to use that, not do the job they were voted into office to do, just to get the power they want.

Yes I did but Tulemutt only did that because he knows that he can't morally, spiritually, or logically counter the point I made without looking like a Bolshevik. Voting to redistribute OTHER people's money to yourself is theft. You can't justify it unless you admit that it's simply redistribution of wealth through the force of the state's gun to appease a certain class of people at the EXPENSE of another class.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Yes I did but Tulemutt only did that because he knows that he can't morally, spiritually, or logically counter the point I made without looking like a Bolshevik. Voting to redistribute OTHER people's money is theft. You can't justify it unless you admit that it's simply redistribution of wealth through the force of the state's gun to appease a certain class of people at the EXPENSE of another class.

And KazChasey overlooks that StanleysOwl just did "morally, spiritually, and logically counter the point CR made without looking like a Bolshevik". Bolshevik has zip to do with the logic just presented. The "taxpayers," being a minority, cannot account for / equal the productivity and consumption of the masses. Therefore the taxpayer class relies on the low-to-no-tax-payers for their well being. As such, cutting the majority of productive consumers out of the process is grossly inequitable and unwise ... completely from a capitalist position of growth consumerism.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by silverkris

Thank you.

Oh for heavens sake: when the right women runs for president she will have every opportunity to be elected and probably will be, but so far we haven't seen her. and it bothers me when I think someone would even consider voting for a person based on their gender, race, sexual orientation or religious beliefs.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by payutenyodagimas

In business and society, everybody have to play their part.

Yet about half the adult population pays no federal income tax -- they're benefitting from society but they are not paying their share.