A morality question for liberals (salaries, generation, dollars, politician)

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

Read this thread through again.

Why, has it been modified?

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by JasonF

See, if we don't phrase it exactly, to the letter and punctuation marks, like pnwmdk wants, then we're all a bunch of commies who want to steal everything the rich have and leave them penniless. And if we do, the pnwmdk will simply ignore reality or shift the goalposts again and again. It's a troll question and there is literally no answer that would satisfy.

I suspect you wish you could recall your answer now.

If you think you stated it wrong, please use this opportunity to say what you mean.

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

Why, has it been modified?

Nope.

Because someone DID say precisely what was denied would be said.

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by jacqueg

No, I wouldn't. But I would return our tax system to one that demands more of the 1%.

Anti-tax people will bring up JFK who campaigned for a cut in income tax rates, because they were confiscatory. What a lot of people leave out is that those marginal rates were that high because americans were still paying for WWII during the 50s. You can make the argument that the elites benefit more from war because wars tend to preserve the system in which the existing elites maintain their position, so therefore they ought to pay more.

The idea that we can fight wars, maintain the most technologically sophisticated military in the world, and cut taxes is ludicrous. Also there is plenty of evidence to suggest that income inequality is very destablizing in a society. I would argue that our entire public discourse is being distorted, in part because of this inequality. Americans no longer feel that we are all in this together.

No, they don't. About a half of us don't pay any taxes, and vote for people who promise to take someone else's earnings for things they want to be given.

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

I suspect you wish you could recall your answer now.

If you think you stated it wrong, please use this opportunity to say what you mean.

Why would I recall my answer? You asked and I said no, of course not. We can have reasonable taxation without coming up with some completely stupid confiscatory scheme like you've suggested in the original post.

[TheDusty]

Originally Posted by Odo

You're ignoring the fact that when someone HAS something, they are actively depriving other people from ever getting it.

If someone makes their fortune in an oil well, and then all the oil dries up, that means no one else will ever have an opportunity to benefit from that well. They can buy the useless, worthless land... but even if they were willing to do the work, they can never, ever profit from that oil again.

So the capitalist here is in effect STEALING the opportunity to profit from everyone else.

That's not really how it works. Someone who owns an oil well is probably selling the oil. Having wealth is not just having money. I'd argue that someone who has access to oil still has something. This means the consumer who loses money to the oil is still getting something, that something being oil which was purchased for their own personal use.

To put in a different context, let's say I have an apple seed. Just for fun, the only apple seed on Earth. No one else has it. I plant it. It grows into a tree and I harvest 20 apples from the tree. I then sell 18 of those apples to people who did not previously have access to apples and keep two for myself, to which I can use to grow even more apples and thus allow it to be possible for more and more people to have access to apples. Obviously, oil is a finite resource and apples are capable of mass reproduction, but the core idea is the same. Selling a good is still offering something. The problem with the 1% isn't what you think it is, it's that their untouchable. The problem you described and the problem we're actually facing don't exist in a free market system (capitalism). Why then are we suffering? It's not a free market. It's a corporate government, basically. These two powerful entities work together to grow their own wealth while keeping the poor, poor. The problem is, they tell us all the time that we are capitalist so many people believe that without reason.

Originally Posted by pnwmdk;36664493\

Please address that.

This guy already has:

Originally Posted by burdell

No, I wouldn't. Because I don't covet anyone else's material goods and am quite content with the simple life at the beach that I earned.

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

Nope.

Because someone DID say precisely what was denied would be said.

Who said everything from top 1% should be confiscated? If someone said it, that person would not be liberal, because it is not something liberals would support.

So, again, I have never heard a liberal suggest something like that should be done.

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by JasonF

Why would I recall my answer? You asked and I said no, of course not. We can have reasonable taxation without coming up with some completely stupid confiscatory scheme like you've suggested in the original post.

Ok, so I'll put you in the "we don't need quite that drastic of theft" column.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

Ok, so I'll put you in the "we don't need quite that drastic of theft" column.

No, we shouldnt confiscate anyone property or assets within the context of the Question you posed in the OP.

Its that simple. However, based on your subsequent posts, you seem to be arguing that taxation is theft. it isnt.

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

Ok, so I'll put you in the "we don't need quite that drastic of theft" column.

Of course you will.

I haven't given any indication at all of what I think those reasonable taxation levels should be, but you go right ahead putting people into boxes of your own creation.