Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe so, but they sure will send you to prison for not complying.
Having a Libertarian mindset, I have a big problem with taxation and redistribution of wealth. I do not envy the rich. I wish I was that wealthy sometimes, but as I realize I did not do what it takes to become uber-wealthy, then that is my problem. Either I do something about it or I must be content with where I am in life (which I am). The rich earned where they are (for the most part) and deserve to keep the fruits of their labor and do with it what they deem fit.
Part of my problem with redistribution is that I was poor at one time. I was also very close to going down a bad path. Then one day, I said, "BS!" From there I straightened up and decided that I deserved better than that, but I was the one who had to make it happen. I got my education and working from the bottom to get where I am now. I have asked nothing from anyone and did this on my own. I hate when the do-nothings or bleeding hearts say things like "you were fortunate" or "you were lucky." No I wasn't. I made a plan, set goals, worked hard and stayed the course. Everyone else in this country can do it too.
I remember when my second daughter was born some bozo from the hospital said that it was time to sign up for WIC. The wife and I both said, "No thank you." The lady said, "But you are eligible!" We said, "So? We don't need it." We were a single income family and did this CRAZY idea of living within our means. If we wanted something, we saved up for it. Imagine that....you mean you didn't rack up credit debt? I couldn't believe how long it took to get her out of there. She was truly trying to force us to take government handouts that I did not need or want.
I truly believe that this country owes us nothing except to do the things enumerated in the Constitution...nothing more...nothing less. I honestly despise the entitlement mentality that goes on here. I owe nothing to anyone in this country other than my family and those I choose to give to such as my tribe.
This county is to provide opportunity for success and not success itself. It is up to individuals to make their own success. I think that people can do whatever they set their minds to. It offends me that a bunch of rich clowns in Washington decide for us what we can and cannot keep of our hard labor, yet seem to exempt themselves from these same rules. In addition to giving it away to the so many do nothings of this country, they squander it away on foolish pork-barrel projects and their own pockets.
I did the work and I earned it. For the bureaucrats and politicians who do nothing to confiscate what should go to my family is what I call legalized theft.
You are basically right and in the shoes of most of us.
Sumptuary laws are designed to prevent exactly what you are complaining about.
Justifiably complaining about that is.
This kind of law is the only way I know of to bring the elite to heel.
Have you noticed how those that govern us have become a relatively high class on our hard earned wealth?
It's amazing how people have convinced themselves that armed thuggery is righteous if it's wearing a uniform, but earning a luxury in the private sector is immoral.
It's a good thing none of our politicians would possibly think to benefit from such a mindset.
LOL.
Have you noticed how those that govern us have become a relatively high class on our hard earned wealth?
Your right of course, they would never ever think of taking benefits from us. Not.
Law can only by fighting it, breaking it, or replacing it with a better law.
I offer one.
Laiser faire has not served us well. Time to take it back.
Regards
DL
Translation: I'm angry at successful people because they're more successful than I am, and I think because I wasn't motivated/smart/educated/lucky enough in my life that they should pay me. After all, it's a fitting punishment for them because they worked harder than I did.
It is a fact that the spread in wealth between the rich and the poor is getting wider and that the middles classes are also not doing as well as they possibly should. http://library.thinkquest.org/C00229...sent/stats.htm
As we look about today, we see the rich spend on such things as a 25 million dollar rides into space for a few minutes, as one example, of what I think is pure waste when done while people starve to death.
I could go on and make a long list but should not need to name other frivolities of dubious worth that the idol rich do.
I do not want to just pick on individuals here when speaking of waste.
Corporations like NASA and Governments world wide waste resources that, in my view, could be better spent.
At one time, laws such as sumptuary laws were enacted to curb what the poor and middle classes saw as a total waste of their contributions and efforts to grow their countries by their elite.
If all are fed, I do not mind a 25 million bill wasted.
When all are not fed and some starve and die daily, then I do mind.
Economic conditions are poor at present.
We as tax payers, now finding ourselves in a position where it is we who must pay huge bonuses and salaries to those who rule us and to my mind, abuse us.
Should we consider new sumptuary laws to reign in those elites who are basically having a great time while most of the rest of us must struggle while paying their exorbitant salaries.
Just how high do we want our high rollers to be while others starve?
Okay, so you recognize that taxation is a form of legitimized theft. You recognize that the people you want to pass laws are using their position of power for personal gain.
Yet you want them to pass more laws to punish themselves for making too much money from the laws they passed to make them money.
It's a bit like begging your mugger to change the rules he uses to mug you.
If you want to fix people getting *too* rich, you have to loosen their influence on the marketplaces. Contrary to popular opinion this does not mean getting the government involved, because the government is the one that *grants* the influence (under the table, of course).
For example, Phizer can charge what it wants because *it* dictates to the FDA what drugs it wants to come to market, and the FDA "allows" Pfizer to conduct its own studies on its own products. The FDA then grants the exclusive rights to market and sell the drug... a monopoly if you will, for a certain number of years, during which Pfizer charges exorbitant sums of money for each dose.
Want to fix that? Eliminate the power structure that makes it possible, primarily the FDA, secondarily, the idea that government can grant protections and rights to "corporations" greater than those of individuals.
Of course, this won't happen because the government politicians make too much money by leveraging the marketplace for or against different corporations, and they have the special rights that they have granted to corporations as leverage.
More laws is not the answer. We have too many already.
For example, Phizer can charge what it wants because *it* dictates to the FDA what drugs it wants to come to market, and the FDA "allows" Pfizer to conduct its own studies on its own products. The FDA then grants the exclusive rights to market and sell the drug... a monopoly if you will, for a certain number of years, during which Pfizer charges exorbitant sums of money for each dose.
Want to fix that? Eliminate the power structure that makes it possible, primarily the FDA, secondarily, the idea that government can grant protections and rights to "corporations" greater than those of individuals.
The problem with the example specifically is that it's pretty obscenely expensive to do all the research, development, and testing to bring a new drug to market. If the rights of the company to have a monopoly on the product for a certain amount of time were NOT protected, then R&D of new drugs would plummet dramatically, because they wouldn't recoup those expenses.
Not good for medical advances and health care, ya know?
Location: where the moss is taking over the villages
2,184 posts, read 5,551,065 times
Reputation: 1270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercury Cougar
The problem with the example specifically is that it's pretty obscenely expensive to do all the research, development, and testing to bring a new drug to market. If the rights of the company to have a monopoly on the product for a certain amount of time were NOT protected, then R&D of new drugs would plummet dramatically, because they wouldn't recoup those expenses.
Not good for medical advances and health care, ya know?
Tax incentives help with the most expensive R&D's.
Definition: orphan drug designation (http://www.antigenics.com/glossary/definition.phtml?word=317 - broken link)
Tax incentives help with the most expensive R&D's.
Definition: orphan drug designation (http://www.antigenics.com/glossary/definition.phtml?word=317 - broken link)
They do now, yes. The OP is wanting to take away all those sorts of things.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
