PDA

View Full Version : The Estate Tax & The Mindset Of The Left



NJCardFan
12-15-2010, 11:11 AM
I just heard one of the stupidest(I was going to say the stupidest but these leftists trump themselves on a minutely basis) comment concerning the estate tax. Some Democrat congressman, don't care who as I forgot, said that not raising the estate tax was a "giveaway to the wealthiest among us". Um, what? How is allowing a family to keep what they already have a giveaway? This is the mindset of the left. They believe that all wealth belongs to the government, or the people as it were, and the very notion that some government hack believes that allowing a family to keep wealth they already have a giveaway is laughable. How can any of you leftists idiots legitimize seizing what someone already has? Simple really. Pure, unadulterated, blind jealousy. Not to mention that it's right out of the Communist Manifesto. "The abolition of all rights of inheritance." This is why leftists are the worst people alive.

Wei Wu Wei
12-15-2010, 11:43 AM
OP what's your opinion on Aristocracy? After all, it's their wealth, what's wrong with keeping it within the family?

Apache
12-15-2010, 11:48 AM
OP what's your opinion on Aristocracy? After all, it's their wealth, what's wrong with keeping it within the family?

You are a joke, a bad one, but a joke nonetheless...

Wei Wu Wei
12-15-2010, 12:02 PM
It's a serious question. Estate taxes came about, in part, to combat Aristocracies, but what's wrong with an Aristocracy?

You can still use democratic councils, but this way you make sure only the most intelligent, productive, successful people are participating (since they drive society forward) and the economic structure makes sure that your wealth stays in your family.

It is the perfect representative and property system for protecting the personal wealth and power of the most "successful" members of society.

Apache
12-15-2010, 12:20 PM
It's a serious question. Estate taxes came about, in part, to combat Aristocracies, but what's wrong with an Aristocracy?

You can still use democratic councils, but this way you make sure only the most intelligent, productive, successful people are participating (since they drive society forward) and the economic structure makes sure that your wealth stays in your family.

It is the perfect representative and property system for protecting the personal wealth and power of the most "successful" members of society.

It's another money grab from dear leader & party. You paint it however you feel comfortable. We already know that you want to perpetuate class warfare....

PoliCon
12-15-2010, 12:29 PM
I just heard one of the stupidest(I was going to say the stupidest but these leftists trump themselves on a minutely basis) comment concerning the estate tax. Some Democrat congressman, don't care who as I forgot, said that not raising the estate tax was a "giveaway to the wealthiest among us". Um, what? How is allowing a family to keep what they already have a giveaway? This is the mindset of the left. They believe that all wealth belongs to the government, or the people as it were, and the very notion that some government hack believes that allowing a family to keep wealth they already have a giveaway is laughable. How can any of you leftists idiots legitimize seizing what someone already has? Simple really. Pure, unadulterated, blind jealousy. Not to mention that it's right out of the Communist Manifesto. "The abolition of all rights of inheritance." This is why leftists are the worst people alive.

And one hell of a give away it is too! Extending the estate tax cut "costs" $68 billion over 10 years, or $6.8 billion/year. That is 0.1% of spending this year. HOLY SHIT! They're EXPLOITING US!!!!:rolleyes:

PoliCon
12-15-2010, 12:30 PM
OP what's your opinion on Aristocracy? After all, it's their wealth, what's wrong with keeping it within the family?

Money does not make someone an aristocrat you fucktard. :rolleyes: BIRTHRIGHT makes someone an aristocrat.

PoliCon
12-15-2010, 12:37 PM
It's a serious question. Estate taxes came about, in part, to combat Aristocracies, but what's wrong with an Aristocracy?

You can still use democratic councils, but this way you make sure only the most intelligent, productive, successful people are participating (since they drive society forward) and the economic structure makes sure that your wealth stays in your family.

It is the perfect representative and property system for protecting the personal wealth and power of the most "successful" members of society.

No the HIGH estate tax rates came about as a way to punish the nouveau riche. Please do us the favor of learning your fucking history. FDR used it as a way to punish people who had the business acumen to actually be able to make a profit during his new deal socialist experiment which was supposed to prevent that from happening.

The estate tax - which this is the FOURTH such tax to be passed was created as a way to pay for various wars - FIRST to rebuild the Navy after the War for Independence - the 2nd to fund the civil war - the 3rd to fund the Spanish American war - the last was meant to fund WWI - and was never repealed - even then the highest rate was 25% until FDR raised it to 60%. So get your fucking facts straight before you open your dumbass mouth again. FDR did not care about the old rich - only the new which is why he allowed for exemptions and the creation of TRUST FUNDS - which is where the OLD money aristocrats who have the birthright to rule were allowed to hide their money from taxation.

NJCardFan
12-15-2010, 12:39 PM
OP what's your opinion on Aristocracy? After all, it's their wealth, what's wrong with keeping it within the family?

Um, we don't have an aristocracy in this country so what's your point? And it IS their wealth. They EARNED it. You didn't. Before you can comment any further, you need to learn the meaning of the word earn. Until then, shut the hell up.

wilbur
12-15-2010, 12:40 PM
Aristocracy is bad, because it makes for a very unstable society.

Eventually the poor get sick eating cake, storm the castle, and cut their heads off.

wilbur
12-15-2010, 12:43 PM
Um, we don't have an aristocracy in this country so what's your point?

Why don't we have an aristocracy (though it seems like we are well on our way sometimes)?

Rebel Yell
12-15-2010, 12:44 PM
Aristocracy is bad, because it makes for a very unstable society.

Eventually the poor get sick eating cake, and cut their heads off.

If "the poor" want some of "the wealthy's" money, then go to work for the wealthy and earn some of it. Don't sit on your lazy fucking ass and wait for someone to hand it to you.

wilbur
12-15-2010, 12:49 PM
If "the poor" want some of "the wealthy's" money, then go to work for the wealthy and earn some of it. Don't sit on your lazy fucking ass and wait for someone to hand it to you.

False assumption #1 - one is poor because of laziness
False assumption #2 - the aristocracy will *want* to hire you
False assumption #3 - the aristocracy would pay you the wage you deserve, if they did hire you

Wei Wu Wei
12-15-2010, 12:54 PM
Um, we don't have an aristocracy in this country so what's your point? And it IS their wealth. They EARNED it. You didn't. Before you can comment any further, you need to learn the meaning of the word earn. Until then, shut the hell up.

You're talking about earned money in a thread about inheritance taxes? lol

NJCardFan
12-15-2010, 01:07 PM
False assumption #1 - one is poor because of laziness


True Fact-Many are poor due to choices they made in life i.e not working harder in school, choosing to abuse drugs, acting irresponsibly(being promiscuous and getting pregnant), etc.



False assumption #2 - the aristocracy will *want* to hire you

True Fact-There is no aristocracy in this country(unless there are dukes and lords I don't know about). Also, If you make yourself a marketable employee, employers will hire you. Achieve a good work ethic and don't show up expecting a paycheck simply by showing up to work.



False assumption #3 - the aristocracy would pay you the wage you deserve, if they did hire you

True Fact-If you are a marketable employee i.e. someone with a reputation of a good work ethic, employers seek you out and will pay you what you are worth. If not, you're free to go work for someone who will. This is how it works. Simply showing up doesn't grant you anything but a minimum wage. Also, an employer is only obligated to pay you a minimum wage. This is thanks to your ilk. However, if businesses had to bid for your services based on your work reputation, rest assured you will be paid very well. Just like in sports. In my work life, I've never been paid minimum wage for very long. I always worked hard, hard enough to get the attention of management. Even as a teen working at Wendy's. I got a raise within 6 months working there. I've carried this work ethic all my life and have always risen up the ranks quickly. The only time I didn't si when I worked in a union shop where I got the same as everyone else no matter how hard I worked. I suppose you think that's fair that if you're a lazy fuck who comes to work and sits around and hides when there's work to do should get paid the same as a person who works every bit of the 8 hours on the job. This is why you will never amount to anything and will demonize anyone who has more than you.

PoliCon
12-15-2010, 01:12 PM
You're talking about earned money in a thread about inheritance taxes? lol

Where did said money come from?

Wei Wu Wei
12-15-2010, 01:19 PM
Aristocracy is bad, because it makes for a very unstable society.

Eventually the poor get sick eating cake, storm the castle, and cut their heads off.

Not necessarily, this only happens if the working class becomes unified against the ruling class. This doesn't always or necessarily happen, and when it doesn't you have a failed revolution. In the void left by the failed revolution, there is a fertile ground for far-right fascists who offer a starkly different framework for the working class to make sense out of what is happening to their society. This hAs happened many times in history and we need to be educated to learn this crucial lesson.

wilbur
12-15-2010, 01:23 PM
True Fact-Many are poor due to choices they made in life i.e not working harder in school, choosing to abuse drugs, acting irresponsibly(being promiscuous and getting pregnant), etc.


Do you know this because you just pulled it out of your ass? Or do you have actual facts or studies to cite?

PoliCon
12-15-2010, 01:24 PM
Not necessarily, this only happens if the working class becomes unified against the ruling class. This doesn't always or necessarily happen, and when it doesn't you have a failed revolution. In the void left by the failed revolution, there is a fertile ground for far-right fascists who offer a starkly different framework for the working class to make sense out of what is happening to their society. This hAs happened many times in history and we need to be educated to learn this crucial lesson.

You mean like how you're educated about the facts surrounding estate taxes and aristocracy:rolleyes:?

Gingersnap
12-15-2010, 01:45 PM
Why don't we have an aristocracy (though it seems like we are well on our way sometimes)?

Probably because we're Democratic Republic.

If the government wants to penalize kin for the death of a family member, we can certainly discuss that option because that's essentially what an estate tax is: a penalty against surviving kin and friends. The taxes have already been paid, often many times.

Wei Wu Wei
12-15-2010, 02:05 PM
This penalty mindset towards taxes is ridiculous.

We must abolish sales taxes because if we punish people for buying or selling goods then they will stop and our economy will crumble!!!

Wei Wu Wei
12-15-2010, 02:06 PM
Taxing cigarettes is a great idea though because that'll make people stop, right?

PoliCon
12-15-2010, 02:20 PM
This penalty mindset towards taxes is ridiculous.

We must abolish sales taxes because if we punish people for buying or selling goods then they will stop and our economy will crumble!!!

You yourself made the argument that the estate tax exists to punish the aristocrats. :rolleyes: An incorrect argument I might add - and don't think it hasn't been noticed that you dodged the correct of your false assumptions either. :rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
12-15-2010, 02:33 PM
You yourself made the argument that the estate tax exists to punish the aristocrats. :rolleyes: An incorrect argument I might add - and don't think it hasn't been noticed that you dodged the correct of your false assumptions either. :rolleyes:

Not to punish Aristocracies, but to reduce their stronghold on power. Because they kept their wealth concentrated in the hands of a few families through inheritance, and their wealth was the source of their social power, a tax on inheritance was useful for breaking up the power hold they had on the rest of the society. It wasn't a punishment though. There is no paternal Law-figure needed to enforce "lessons" on people, it's not about that.


The punishment argument is used all the time by conservative economists saying that a progressive tax system "punishes" the successful, and will therefore prevent anyone from trying to be successful (as if anyone who can become a billionaire will decide to be poor and work at Barnes & Noble because they only have $8 Billion rather than $14 Billion).

The argument is silly because as Sin Taxes prove, if people want to participate in an activity, whether it's drug use or wealth accumulation, a tax isn't going to stop them.

NJCardFan
12-15-2010, 02:33 PM
This penalty mindset towards taxes is ridiculous.

We must abolish sales taxes because if we punish people for buying or selling goods then they will stop and our economy will crumble!!!
Just when I thought you couldn't get any stupider. For starters, sales tax is bullshit because you're being taxed on income you've already been taxed on(when I say you, I'm generalzing because we all know you do nothing to earn a living). 2nd, an inheritance was earned by someone, no? Let me break it down for you so maybe, it's a long shot, but maybe you'll understand:

I own a farm. I grow tomatoes. The tomatoes I grow, I grew through hard work and determination. I tilled and weeded my fields. I planted the seeds. I watered them, and cared for them. I have 100 plants and I worked 12 hours a day making sure they grew ok. Each plant yielded 20 tomatoes each(in case you're math is sketchy, that means I'm going to have 2,000 tomatoes). Unfortunately, I died in my sleep the day before I was to harvest my crop. The plants and tomatoes now go to my heirs. But according to you, the government has the right to come in and take 60% of those tomatoes. They did nothing to cultivate it yet you believe they have a claim on something I worked for. Please explain to me this logic.


Do you know this because you just pulled it out of your ass? Or do you have actual facts or studies to cite?

I have these 2 little orbs in my skull called eyes and even though I wear glasses, they work pretty well. And I'm just talking about people I know personally. Hell, in another thread I told you all about my brother-in-law who quit a decently paying job with benefits for his family because he didn't want to lose his sec. 8 housing. I'm quite certain his situation isn't unique.

PoliCon
12-15-2010, 02:40 PM
It's a serious question. Estate taxes came about, in part, to combat Aristocracies, but what's wrong with an Aristocracy?

You can still use democratic councils, but this way you make sure only the most intelligent, productive, successful people are participating (since they drive society forward) and the economic structure makes sure that your wealth stays in your family.

It is the perfect representative and property system for protecting the personal wealth and power of the most "successful" members of society.


No the HIGH estate tax rates came about as a way to punish the nouveau riche. Please do us the favor of learning your fucking history. FDR used it as a way to punish people who had the business acumen to actually be able to make a profit during his new deal socialist experiment which was supposed to prevent that from happening.

The estate tax - which this is the FOURTH such tax to be passed was created as a way to pay for various wars - FIRST to rebuild the Navy after the War for Independence - the 2nd to fund the civil war - the 3rd to fund the Spanish American war - the last was meant to fund WWI - and was never repealed - even then the highest rate was 25% until FDR raised it to 60%. So get your fucking facts straight before you open your dumbass mouth again. FDR did not care about the old rich - only the new which is why he allowed for exemptions and the creation of TRUST FUNDS - which is where the OLD money aristocrats who have the birthright to rule were allowed to hide their money from taxation.


Not to punish Aristocracies, but to reduce their stronghold on power.

So what you're going to claim is that in order to COMBAT - to penalize them for collecting "power" you're going to confiscate their wealth to the state who will then exercise . . . power . . . . :rolleyes: Will you please just admit that you were wrong and that the estate tax was not created to stop aristocracy? Are you big enough to face the truth when confronted with it?

Wei Wu Wei
12-15-2010, 02:46 PM
Just when I thought you couldn't get any stupider. For starters, sales tax is bullshit because you're being taxed on income you've already been taxed on(when I say you, I'm generalzing because we all know you do nothing to earn a living). 2nd, an inheritance was earned by someone, no? Let me break it down for you so maybe, it's a long shot, but maybe you'll understand:

I own a farm. I grow tomatoes. The tomatoes I grow, I grew through hard work and determination. I tilled and weeded my fields. I planted the seeds. I watered them, and cared for them. I have 100 plants and I worked 12 hours a day making sure they grew ok. Each plant yielded 20 tomatoes each(in case you're math is sketchy, that means I'm going to have 2,000 tomatoes). Unfortunately, I died in my sleep the day before I was to harvest my crop. The plants and tomatoes now go to my heirs. But according to you, the government has the right to come in and take 60% of those tomatoes. They did nothing to cultivate it yet you believe they have a claim on something I worked for. Please explain to me this logic.

No. Nobody is interested in taking your family farm or your tomatoes. In fact, I am all in favor of policies that benefit small family farms and small business owners, giving them a competitive edge against megacorporations. If we do not encourage competition we end up with corporate entities that are "too big to fail", which entirely undermines the Free Market ideas that so many conservatives hold dear.

However, if you had a huge farm, so huge that you could not work it yourself. Instead, you get the help of hundreds of people, who each work full time or more than full time to keep your farm operating. Every step along the production is manned and operated by workers because this is a huge operation. Your farm is so big that you're able to buy out small family farms and you dominate the market. Your workers put all the labor into producing your crops, but you only pay them a portion of their labor, and you keep the rest for yourself. They grow the crops, you take the money. You do this until your farm dominates your entire state, and you're able to purchase huge areas of land that would otherwise be used for small family farms. You approach a near-monopoly thanks to your organizational skills and the combined labor of hundreds or thousands of workers. You are now able to help shape the laws in order to further your business. Your local congressmen is on your payroll.

According to property laws, you have about $6 Billion dollars in wealth in the form of your farmlands, materials, ect. and now, if local people want to make a living they cannot just farm the land because you own it all, instead they have to work for you and get paid a fraction of their labor value so you can pocket the rest and call it your profit.

At This Point, yes I am perfectly happy letting your taxes go up. I am perfectly happy with huge chunks of your business being taxed. Your children want to continue the family tradition? Well even after all the taxes they will not have to work from the ground up they were born wealthy or at least raised wealthy. Sucks for them boohoo they will only inherit $2.5 Billion rather than $5 billion. This. This is true injustice

One day these poor victims will overcome. One day.

I have a dream......

Wei Wu Wei
12-15-2010, 02:47 PM
So what you're going to claim is that in order to COMBAT - to penalize them for collecting "power" you're going to confiscate their wealth to the state who will then exercise . . . power . . . . :rolleyes: Will you please just admit that you were wrong and that the estate tax was not created to stop aristocracy? Are you big enough to face the truth when confronted with it?

Estate taxes are a LOT older than the United States.

PoliCon
12-15-2010, 02:48 PM
Estate taxes are a LOT older than the United States.

:rolleyes: do you ever get dizzy spinning your bullshit like this? Admit it - you're fucking wrong. OUR estate tax has NOTHING to do with aristocracy.

NJCardFan
12-15-2010, 02:50 PM
Estate taxes are a LOT older than the United States.

So was the Inquisition but you don't see that still going on do you. :rolleyes:

malloc
12-15-2010, 02:54 PM
No. Nobody is interested in taking your family farm or your tomatoes.

*SNIP*

I have a dream......



So you are admitting that the only difference between the two analogies is the size of their business and the size of their pocket books? The moral relativism is strong with you.

So the small farmer with his 2,000 tomatoes hasn't made enough money to offend you yet. What if he provided one job, hired one hand and grew 4,000 tomatoes, is that a big enough pile of cash to offend your sensitive class jealousy? What about 20 workers and 40,000 tomatoes with the expansion of an two acres of land?

Basically what is your tipping point? The point at which you get so jealous of other peoples' money that you scream for the government to come and get some of that sweet, sweet money and "spread it around"? Since you refuse to accept the notion that everyone should be treated the same, regardless of the amount in their pocketbooks, how much is too much for you? There's got to be a well defined, finite point, otherwise you are just making up these rules for social and moral justice as you go along, and you don't want anyone to think that do you?

Wei Wu Wei
12-15-2010, 02:59 PM
This taxation system is based more on practicality than it is on ideology. If it were up to me, businesses would be run co-operatively, so the workers would be paid fairly, the workers would direct their own work for the business that they have a real stake in rather than just being "a job", and owners wouldn't be able to sit and take massive profits from their workers because the workers would be the owners.

I could elaborate but I'm not talking about a real hard and fast ideological rule. I'm saying in general, in terms of practicality, those who benefit the very most from our society and who need money the least should pay higher taxes than those who suffer from our society and who need money the most. These are just band-aids though, and they do not address the root issue.

Wei Wu Wei
12-15-2010, 03:01 PM
For practicality's sake, the governemnt should work today to provide true equality of opportunity. Even this isn't realistically possible because you are always influenced by your parents and everyone will be raised differently or have different things or different resources, but we should make it so that someone born into a rich family. middle class family, or poor family has just as good of a chance of "making it". Again this isn't realistically possible in our society but that's the proper direction to be headed.

Apache
12-15-2010, 03:02 PM
One day these poor victims will overcome. One day.

I have a dream......

Chavez is waiting for comrade.

PoliCon
12-15-2010, 03:03 PM
For practicality's sake, the governemnt should work today to provide true equality of opportunity. Even this isn't realistically possible because you are always influenced by your parents and everyone will be raised differently or have different things or different resources, but we should make it so that someone born into a rich family. middle class family, or poor family has just as good of a chance of "making it". Again this isn't realistically possible in our society but that's the proper direction to be headed.

You're not advocating equal opportunity - you're advocating equal OUTCOMES. :rolleyes:

Apache
12-15-2010, 03:07 PM
You're not advocating equal opportunity - you're advocating equal OUTCOMES. :rolleyes:

No he's not. He's advocating that only the "right people" need to be rich. Too bad he doesn't realize he's not one of "those people"... :rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
12-15-2010, 03:07 PM
You're not advocating equal opportunity - you're advocating equal OUTCOMES. :rolleyes:

No I'm not. I have no illusions that America will ever be a classless society, ever, let alone in my lifetime.

Jfor
12-15-2010, 03:12 PM
No I'm not. I have no illusions that America will ever be a classless society, ever, let alone in my lifetime.

We are a classless society dipshit. It is you and your ilk that want to define people people by class. Hmmm... I wonder who came up with your ideas? Comrade Marx is strong in you.

We do have to kinds of people in this country. Producers and moochers. I would definitely define you as a moocher.

Gingersnap
12-15-2010, 03:16 PM
So you are admitting that the only difference between the two analogies is the size of their business and the size of their pocket books? The moral relativism is strong with you.

So the small farmer with his 2,000 tomatoes hasn't made enough money to offend you yet. What if he provided one job, hired one hand and grew 4,000 tomatoes, is that a big enough pile of cash to offend your sensitive class jealousy? What about 20 workers and 40,000 tomatoes with the expansion of an two acres of land?

Basically what is your tipping point? The point at which you get so jealous of other peoples' money that you scream for the government to come and get some of that sweet, sweet money and "spread it around"? Since you refuse to accept the notion that everyone should be treated the same, regardless of the amount in their pocketbooks, how much is too much for you? There's got to be a well defined, finite point, otherwise you are just making up these rules for social and moral justice as you go along, and you don't want anyone to think that do you?

I'd love to know this tipping point myself. Being fairly well acquainted with family farming/ranching operations, I'd like to know the cut-off point where "successful" veers into "evil".

Instead of re-taxing estates, people who are genuinely worried about family farms would do better to get rid of the bewildering array of agricultural subsidies that reward small-time incompetence and big-time greed. That would do more to protect and invigorate small operations than anything else.

malloc
12-15-2010, 03:23 PM
This taxation system is based more on practicality than it is on ideology. If it were up to me, businesses would be run co-operatively, so the workers would be paid fairly, the workers would direct their own work for the business that they have a real stake in rather than just being "a job", and owners wouldn't be able to sit and take massive profits from their workers because the workers would be the owners.

Oh, so your ideal form of government is feudalism where all the peasants of a tract ran the tract's production cooperatively, then rendered unto the feudal lord his dues. You can say you don't want the feudal lord there, but in order for your example to work, he has to be there otherwise your cooperative society would 'degenerate' into capitalism. There needs to exist a force to keep all the labor equal, so you have a feudal lord, which our big government would be happy to play that role.

There is another problem as well. Business models, modern organizations and specializations of businesses and labor, didn't just pop into existence one day because some guy had a revolutionary idea about how to structure a business. These business models have evolved for centuries, and they've evolved well past this feudal society you envision. Since the world is in competition of resources and these modern corporations are much more efficient with their resources than your feudal society is, your society would be swallowed up by the economics of freer societies and your feudal experiment would go the way of the dodo.

In other words, your little dream business is just that, a dream, and it will never exist anywhere but inside your imagination. It's a dumb-ass, half-baked idea which doesn't stand a chance in a global market.



I could elaborate but I'm not talking about a real hard and fast ideological rule. I'm saying in general, in terms of practicality, those who benefit the very most from our society and who need money the least should pay higher taxes than those who suffer from our society and who need money the most. These are just band-aids though, and they do not address the root issue.


I don't know why you just won't admit that you are a true, red, indoctrinated communist. I mean, every statement you make about taxes, money and society reveals this, why won't you just admit it? There are communes all over California you could go live in, and be happy in your little moonbat paradise. Why don't you do that?

NJCardFan
12-15-2010, 03:43 PM
This taxation system is based more on practicality than it is on ideology. If it were up to me, businesses would be run co-operatively, so the workers would be paid fairly, the workers would direct their own work for the business that they have a real stake in rather than just being "a job", and owners wouldn't be able to sit and take massive profits from their workers because the workers would be the owners.
And again, wee wee digs deeper into the stupid pit. For starters, who decides what a fair wage is? Also, if the employees didn't invest one dime of capital into the business, what right is it of their to decide how it is run? You have zero business sense...or any sense for that matter. Tell you what, you take your panhandling business somewhere else because we don't want you here. You go live in Greece and see what happens when your ilk get their way and what happens when there is no one left to pull the cart. Oh, and just to make a quick point, the employees already have a real stake, it's called a job and a job that the employer gave them out of the goodness of their heart. No one has a right to a job. Also, the employees have a stake in working hard. Work poorly and the business fails, everybody loses. Unfortunately you're too stupid to get this.

Molon Labe
12-15-2010, 03:57 PM
True Fact-Many are poor due to choices they made in life i.e not working harder in school, choosing to abuse drugs, acting irresponsibly(being promiscuous and getting pregnant), etc.

That's getting less and less true every year. Sure some want a handout and we have a big problem with that, thus the culture of entitlement we have......

But not everyone's poor because their lazy either. The system is rigged against the little guy. I busted my ass to get through school and get my job.

I guess there's little convincing some that people who aspire to high government postion and social elitism might just have a stake in keeping the power in their hands. You can translate that into wealth if you want to and other types of power as you like.....but that doesn't make the way some have reached their wealth as "lawful" or "honest" either.

I'm no socialist. I'm a free market type guy and even then I can see how that free market and big government have twisted it all up.

Lager
12-15-2010, 04:20 PM
You're not advocating equal opportunity - you're advocating equal OUTCOMES. :rolleyes:

Bingo! that's it in a nutshell. That's exactly the rabid lib position. :)

AmPat
12-15-2010, 06:34 PM
Aristocracy is bad, because it makes for a very unstable society.

Eventually the poor get sick eating cake, storm the castle, and cut their heads off.

Share the wealth is worse, it leads to legal thievery and eventually everybody is poor---Except for those you are deemed more equal than the rest of us.

NJCardFan
12-15-2010, 07:09 PM
Share the wealth is worse, it leads to legal thievery and eventually everybody is poor---Except for those you are deemed more equal than the rest of us.

"Share the wealth" never brings anyone up. It does, however, bring people down.

m00
12-15-2010, 09:35 PM
OP what's your opinion on Aristocracy? After all, it's their wealth, what's wrong with keeping it within the family?

I'm actually pretty offended that you are an American. Yes, I get the 'gotcha' you are trying to set up. No, I don't think they are the same thing. You are a Communist, and proud of it. Yes, eliminating a mechanism for inheritance is pure commie nonsense.

NJCardFan
12-15-2010, 11:34 PM
I'm actually pretty offended that you are an American. Yes, I get the 'gotcha' you are trying to set up. No, I don't think they are the same thing. You are a Communist, and proud of it. Yes, eliminating a mechanism for inheritance is pure commie nonsense.

Right in the communist manifesto.

Tecate
12-16-2010, 06:23 PM
This penalty mindset towards taxes is ridiculous.

We must abolish sales taxes because if we punish people for buying or selling goods then they will stop and our economy will crumble!!!
If the government took everything you've got, I can guarantee they would find a way to say that it isn't enough at some point down the road. Also, where does the mindset come from that government somehow knows best where and how to spend money? Do you believe the government spends our money (yes, OUR money) wisely?

Give a 12 year old kid $100/week allowance for one year, then cut him back to $20 and see what happens. lol He'll throw a fit and give you 1001 reasons why he needs that $100/week and can't get by without it.

PoliCon
12-17-2010, 12:10 AM
Is wee wee on vacation again? or did he do his usual abandon ship when he's losing an argument?