02-20-2012, 12:43 AM“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”
-Adam Smith, Wealth of NationsGovernment is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.
We could say they are spending like drunken sailors. That would be unfair to drunken sailors, they're spending their OWN money.
02-20-2012, 02:27 AM--Odysseus
Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.
Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Southwest Michigan (in Exile)
02-20-2012, 01:59 PM
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
You state that the wealthy pay the lions share of certain taxes, which is true, but that's because they also own the vast majority of the nation's wealth. This would be like a guy going to dinner with five friends, and being outraged that he has to pay a larger percentage of the bill, because he ordered $80 worth of steak and lobster with a $300 bottle of wine, while the five friends ate $10 appetizers and water. Of course he has to pay more back.
If the system were modestly different, resulting in a more equitable distribution of wealth (and no this does not mean everyone is paid the exact same),
These are fairly modest ideas that most nations consider rather conservative in nature.
It's only within an extremely desperate far-right ideological framework that these ideas appear radical.
Nationalizing all property in the country and executing the wealthy to permanently change the very coordinates of the system as we know it is an extreme radical proposal. Adjusting tax rates and expanding social programs so that the system that currently exists can continue to function is actually conservative in nature.
Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
C. S. Lewis
Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:
02-21-2012, 12:07 AM
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
- South Florida
WW3, You contradict yourself. You can not have "robust social programs" without the wealthy, who become wealthy through PROFITS. Without profits, something you seem to dislike with a passion, there would be no social programs. If you continue to chop the wealthy at the knees and PUNISH them for being profitable, you will cease to receive the BENEFIT they provide. You seem to think money falls from the sky and not that it is EARNED. You basically want to reward success with pain. What do you think the outcome of that will be?
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|