Taxes Avoided by the Rich Could Pay Off the Deficit

[Roy L]

The wealth gap! It's not fair that my junior high schooler's smart phone isn't a nice as John Kerry's. And all 5 of us had to wait for the Google $199 tablet to come out, because there's no way we could afford iPads for the whole family, like the Romney clan.

It's not fair, I tell you!!!

Were you under an erroneous impression that you were saying something relevant to the issue?

 

[awake]

No. If the productive did not have to pay taxes to government to fund services and infrastructure, and then pay landowners for access to the services and infrastructure their taxes just paid for, they'd have a lot more money than they do.

Blatant strawman fallacy.

Straw man nothing; I just summed up the tax the rich fallacy in an easy to understand analogy.

 

[Roy L]

Every one less richer than you is making the same argument to make the rich guy pay.

No, they are mostly stupid, ignorant sheep, and are happy to toil their lives away on the treadmill that powers the escalator the privileged ride up at their leisure. You are probably a typical example.

The principle is simply theft.

Yep. By the rich, with government's help.

The "rich" need to be sorted properly(the justly rich from the unjustly rich)...

"Behind every great fortune there is a great crime." -- Balzac

this can only be done when you cut government so it fits in a closet that locks.

If that meant anything, which it doesn't, it would be wrong.

All other attempts to do anything simply grows the state and erodes property rights.

Property "rights"? See the quote from Patrick Edward Dove re property "rights."

 

[angelatc]

you don't own the words you use because someone else created them

Yes, but that happened so long ago that they're now in the public domain. I do however, own them in a manner when I arrange them in a certain order.

be consistant at least. either ideas or property or they or not.

THey are.

shakespeare created some of the words you are using, why aren't you sending checks to his estate's heirs?

I'm not performing or even quoting Shakespeare. And even if I were, while I'm not familiar with British copyright law, I assume that it's because his words have existed so long they've entered the public domain. (And I'm not even sure that Shakespeare created words, but perhaps he did.)

and this how nothing to do with progressive income tax and everything to do with state/fed laws giving privileges to some and punishing others.

The only legitimate function is to protect our property. I'd be pissed of I wrote something that was 5% the genius of a Shakespeare work, only to have a Hollywood liberal turn it into a script, make a box office smash, and not pay me a dime for the story.

 

[angelatc]

Were you under an erroneous impression that you were saying something relevant to the issue?

Absolutely not. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-the-Deficit&p=4609789&viewfull=1#post4609789

 

[awake]

No, they are mostly stupid, ignorant sheep, and are happy to toil their lives away on the treadmill that powers the escalator the privileged ride up at their leisure. You are probably a typical example.

Yep. By the rich, with government's help.

"Behind every great fortune there is a great crime." -- Balzac

If that meant anything, which it doesn't, it would be wrong.

Property "rights"? See the quote from Patrick Edward Dove re property "rights."

Why are you here?

 

[angelatc]

No, they are mostly stupid, ignorant sheep, and are happy to toil their lives away on the treadmill that powers the escalator the privileged ride up at their leisure. You are probably a typical example.

There's the liberal tripe again. "You're too stupid to take care of yourself!"

 

[angelatc]

Why are you here?

He's an ecowarrior or something.

 

[torchbearer]

Yes, but that happened so long ago that they're now in the public domain. I do however, own them in a manner when I arrange them in a certain order.



THey are. I'm not performing or even quoting Shakespeare. And even if I were, while I'm not familiar with British copyright law, I assume that it's because his words have existed so long they've entered the public domain. (And I'm not even sure that Shakespeare created words, but perhaps he did.)

The only legitimate function is to protect our property. I'd be pissed of I wrote something that was 5% the genius of a Shakespeare work, only to have a Hollywood liberal turn it into a script, make a box office smash, and not pay me a dime for the story.

so property has a limit?
if your property has been in your family for so long it becomes public domain?
please tell me you have family land that has been in the family for more than one generation. i will be sending people to settle into the public domain of your property.
if a government can say when a property is yours and when it isn't- it is not a natural right, but a privilege grant by a politician.
I was waiting for you to bring in the time limit. for natural rights are unlimited. government granted privileges are limited.
which would you say the words you are using fall under?

 

[Roy L]

You don't know that to be true, and I am guessing his heirs don't feel the same.

Who cares how much his heirs want to be parasites on the productive? It is effectively certain to be true. The story of how Watt's steam engine patent prevented progress in steam technology is instructive:

http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

I happen to think people should profit off their innovations.

I happen to think they should, too -- if they can do so in the free market, without violating others' rights.

Do you claim ANYTHING government does to make sure people "profit off their innovations" is justified? What about levying a special tax on all patented products and distributing the revenue to all patent holders equally? Why are the monopoly privileges of the patent system justified to ensure people profit from their innovations, but not a tax on those who use the innovations?

 

[angelatc]

so property has a limit?
if your property has been in your family for so long it becomes public domain?

According to the government, yes, but they're not really very good at protecting rights.

please tell me you have family land that has been in the family for more than one generation. i will be sending people to settle into the public domain of your property.

Nope, the family lands got sold off so that the estate could be divided.

if a government can say when a property is yours and when it isn't- it is not a natural right, but a privilege grant by a politician.

The answer is having the government protect more property, not less.

I was waiting for you to bring in the time limit. for natural rights are unlimited. government granted privileges are limited.
which would you say the words you are using fall under?

If I had my druthers, I'd enjoy government protection of my property rights in perpetuity, and my heirs would assume it from me upon my death. In the real world, I have no idea how long it lasts. I know Disney got it changed, to keep Mickey out of the public domain.

 

[angelatc]

Who cares how much his heirs want to be parasites on the productive? It is effectively certain to be true. The story of how Watt's steam engine patent prevented progress in steam technology is instructive:

http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm

I happen to think they should, too -- if they can do so in the free market, without violating others' rights.

Do you claim ANYTHING government does to make sure people "profit off their innovations" is justified? What about levying a special tax on all patented products and distributing the revenue to all patent holders equally? Why are the monopoly privileges of the patent system justified to ensure people profit from their innovations, but not a tax on those who use the innovations?

No special tax needed. That's what dividends are for.

 

[angelatc]

Who cares how much his heirs want to be parasites on the productive?

I know, right? The government should get all that cash!

 

[torchbearer]

I know Disney got it changed, to keep Mickey out of the public domain.

it must not have been theirs to begin with if they had to bargain for it.
perhaps these subtle hints are missing you.
still, with your property of ideas mentality, you owe quite a bit to someone else for the text you are writing. this didn't come out of nothing.
the words you are using are part of someone else's thinking first. you are stealing from them. have you no shame?

 

[Roy L]

I mean seriously, if we are going to start cutting spending, it makes sense to cut welfare spending, Medicaid, section 8 housing, education, etc before we start cutting spending on police and firefighters.

Rich, greedy takers get an order of magnitude more from government and the community than the poor, yet they number an order of magnitude fewer.

As far as Geonomics, I think we all can tell how that would turn out.

1) Everyone is ordered to pay X% of tax per every tenth of an acre they own.

Wrong. That's not geonomics. Pay attention.

2) Along comes a poor man who’s poor wife has caught the pregnancy virus for a fifth time and he can’t afford his taxes. He is given a free pass and no longer pays taxes.

No, EVERY resident citizen gets an equal individual land tax exemption for enough good land to live on.

3) Along comes a rich company looking for a break. They claim they shouldn’t pay as much for some reason or another (Starbucks did this when they claimed that since they were manufacturing, they should have to pay a lower tax rate).

Claiming some other system will be implemented instead is not an argument against geonomics.

4) Taxes and prices of goods and services go up as businesses and landowners are squeezed to make up for lost revenue.

A tax on land rent cannot, repeat, CANNOT be passed on to consumers, employees, suppliers, or anyone else. It is paid exclusively by the landowner. Economists do not agree about much, but they do agree about that. Google "Law of Rent" and start reading.

5) Repeat steps 1-4

Refuted above.

Hats off to the person on this board who said “the problem isn't revenue. it's spending.” It’s too bad we couldn’t just cut spending.

I have explained why that is impossible: the unjust and harmful tax system makes the spending necessary.

 

[idiom]

The rich could not avoid tax if we had Land valuation taxation (LVT). The location of land is known to the inch. Freeloaders are eliminated. Land cannot be taken to off-shore banking havens. LVT means no income tax, sales tax or inheritence tax. What people earn they keep.

Look up Geonomics. Using commonwealth to pay for common services.

Freeloaders are eliminated? Hark at the man!

Land rent makes the Kuomintang (KMT), the corrupt ruling party that has been in power since Chiang Kai-shek took refuge on Formosa over fifty years ago, the richest political party in the world. Not only does the KMT own about a quarter of the island's economy legally, they also collect an enormous amount of graft.

 

[Steven Douglas]

"Excessive, rapacious desire for more than one needs or deserves."

Thought so. Now define "needs" and "deserves" -- in your statist-intended context. The reason that's important: "needs" isn't qualified. What kind of needs? A prison can satisfy basic human needs. I can erect a tent city, with just enough "good land" for everyone to sleep on, and provide water and a nutritious gruel for sustenance.

What, specifically, are the "needs" of people, a desire beyond which you would consider evil, dirty, pernicious filthy greed?

And while we're at it, what does "deserves" mean, exactly -- to you? How do you define "deserves", and more specifically, who are you that you should define it for everyone?

...excessive, rapacious desire for something they neither need nor deserve usually means they intend to violate others' rights to get it...

Oh, is that what it "usually" means? Absolutely meaningless, as you haven't defined "need" or "deserve" yet. Need means "require", and "require" is qualified "to a given objective, or purpose". I may not NEED a metric ton of rice for dinner, but I may feel that I need ten tons of rice if I am storing up rice with the intent of preparing for a famine, or to feed a lot of people going into the future. I may not NEED a hundred thousand dollars THIS MONTH, not that it's any of your collectivist statist poop-pants concern, but I may NEED a hundred thousand dollars as part of my retirement savings. Who is going to establish the criteria used to judge "needs" and "deserves", you 'n yer brand-o-gubmint?

Your thoughts about legal privilege and what it means to you: coming soon, to a woodshed near you.

 

[angelatc]

it must not have been theirs to begin with if they had to bargain for it.
perhaps these subtle hints are missing you.

Just because the government had taken it away does not mean it was never theirs to begin with.

 

[angelatc]

Freeloaders are eliminated? Hark at the man!

Commonwealth - LOL! Everything that I want shall be deemed commonwealth!

 

[idiom]

This seems appropriate.