Flat Tax

[PaintMyHouse]

Let's try it, and find out. ;-)

You could always just start killing them and take it. I know you want to.

Nah, but it's an option. The rich do eventually get beheaded, and eaten, when things get too unfair.

Be proud of your hatred of people smarter than you. Be proud of your jealousy of other's success. Be proud of your selfish desire to have others pay for your wants, because you're too fisking lazy to get a job.

You're a loser. Wear the badge with honor.

Money isn't success, although in a capitalist world it's certainly a nice thing, and I'm not jealous of anyone since very few are smarter than I am, and no one here, by miles.

None of that, BTW, matters a damn to this debate.

If money doesn't matter, then why do you insist on taking it from those who have more than you?

Money matters greatly, to a society and to many people, I'm just not one of them. With taxes we get civilization, decency, moral society, and that maters, just not to you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Matters not a damn what tax he was referring to, the concept is the same. The rich can pay more and that is perfectly reasonable.

Actually, a lot of people don't mind if the rich pay more taxes. We tax luxory goods all the time and no one complains. Their are many taxes that only the rich pay because the items tax are out of the reach of the average guy. No one complains to much about those but putting a tax on income seems to increase the burden of the poor since it makes it harder to climb the latter. The governmnent is taking away money even before you can spend it and in the event you make more you taxed harder. That doesn't seem to benefit the poor at all.

Payroll taxes and the rich not paying enough creates the problems.

The only "problem" is your envy of the rich.

Nope. It's just time they started paying up agin.

Spoken just like some Mafia thug about his extortion victims.

The social contract is not extortion, it's part of your birthright.

 

[bripat9643]

His idea of a "higher proportion" was a straight property tax.

Nope. That plus some more.

Wrong. The property tax he was trying to support is all he was referring to.

Matters not a damn what tax he was referring to, the concept is the same. The rich can pay more and that is perfectly reasonable.

Yes it does matter, because on thing he was not doing was supporting a progressive income tax. The tax he was supporting is one that modern liberals would call regressive.

Actually it was progressive, the rich paying thier share plus some, but it wasn't a tax on wages. He didn't support that but he supported taxing rents and wealth, including inherited wealth, which he thought was a generational crime.

It was a property tax, no different that the liberals of today call "regressive."

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Nope. That plus some more.

Wrong. The property tax he was trying to support is all he was referring to.

Matters not a damn what tax he was referring to, the concept is the same. The rich can pay more and that is perfectly reasonable.

Yes it does matter, because on thing he was not doing was supporting a progressive income tax. The tax he was supporting is one that modern liberals would call regressive.

Actually it was progressive, the rich paying thier share plus some, but it wasn't a tax on wages. He didn't support that but he supported taxing rents and wealth, including inherited wealth, which he thought was a generational crime.

It was a property tax, no different that the liberals of today call "regressive."

Flat taxes are regressive. Smith knew that so why don't you? And the rich, have money to spare. Smith knew that as well...

 

[bripat9643]

Actually, a lot of people don't mind if the rich pay more taxes. We tax luxory goods all the time and no one complains. Their are many taxes that only the rich pay because the items tax are out of the reach of the average guy. No one complains to much about those but putting a tax on income seems to increase the burden of the poor since it makes it harder to climb the latter. The governmnent is taking away money even before you can spend it and in the event you make more you taxed harder. That doesn't seem to benefit the poor at all.

Payroll taxes and the rich not paying enough creates the problems.

The only "problem" is your envy of the rich.

Nope. It's just time they started paying up agin.

Spoken just like some Mafia thug about his extortion victims.

The social contract is not extortion, it's part of your birthright.

The "social contract" is a myth. It's propaganda designed to convince people the government is entitled to take their money. A contract can't be a "birthright" because no contract signed by someone who isn't of legal age is binding.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. The property tax he was trying to support is all he was referring to.

Matters not a damn what tax he was referring to, the concept is the same. The rich can pay more and that is perfectly reasonable.

Yes it does matter, because on thing he was not doing was supporting a progressive income tax. The tax he was supporting is one that modern liberals would call regressive.

Actually it was progressive, the rich paying thier share plus some, but it wasn't a tax on wages. He didn't support that but he supported taxing rents and wealth, including inherited wealth, which he thought was a generational crime.

It was a property tax, no different that the liberals of today call "regressive."

Flat taxes are regressive. Smith knew that so why don't you? And the rich, have money to spare. Smith knew that as well...

Smith had a different definition of "progressive" than you have.

 

[bripat9643]

You could always just start killing them and take it. I know you want to.

Nah, but it's an option. The rich do eventually get beheaded, and eaten, when things get too unfair.

Be proud of your hatred of people smarter than you. Be proud of your jealousy of other's success. Be proud of your selfish desire to have others pay for your wants, because you're too fisking lazy to get a job.

You're a loser. Wear the badge with honor.

Money isn't success, although in a capitalist world it's certainly a nice thing, and I'm not jealous of anyone since very few are smarter than I am, and no one here, by miles.

None of that, BTW, matters a damn to this debate.

If money doesn't matter, then why do you insist on taking it from those who have more than you?

Money matters greatly, to a society and to many people, I'm just not one of them. With taxes we get civilization, decency, moral society, and that maters, just not to you.

We don't get any of that from taxes. What we get is crime, corruption, moral degeneracy and chaos.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Matters not a damn what tax he was referring to, the concept is the same. The rich can pay more and that is perfectly reasonable.

Yes it does matter, because on thing he was not doing was supporting a progressive income tax. The tax he was supporting is one that modern liberals would call regressive.

Actually it was progressive, the rich paying thier share plus some, but it wasn't a tax on wages. He didn't support that but he supported taxing rents and wealth, including inherited wealth, which he thought was a generational crime.

It was a property tax, no different that the liberals of today call "regressive."

Flat taxes are regressive. Smith knew that so why don't you? And the rich, have money to spare. Smith knew that as well...

Smith had a different definition of "progressive" than you have.

He and I both had the rich paying more, as a percentage. End of debate.

 

[bripat9643]

Even if it destroys America, eh?

That has always been, and always will be, only a matter of time. The reason we regulate capitalism is because it eventually destroys itself. Regulation rounds off the rougher edges and delays that for a time but it can never stop it. Eventually it can no longer create value, and becomes completely unbalanced. After the crash, we try again. That is its nature.

I think you're admitting that you would tax the rich into oblivion even if it destroyed America. You're admitting that you hate America and you want to destroy it.

Thanks for that.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Nah, but it's an option. The rich do eventually get beheaded, and eaten, when things get too unfair.

Be proud of your hatred of people smarter than you. Be proud of your jealousy of other's success. Be proud of your selfish desire to have others pay for your wants, because you're too fisking lazy to get a job.

You're a loser. Wear the badge with honor.

Money isn't success, although in a capitalist world it's certainly a nice thing, and I'm not jealous of anyone since very few are smarter than I am, and no one here, by miles.

None of that, BTW, matters a damn to this debate.

If money doesn't matter, then why do you insist on taking it from those who have more than you?

Money matters greatly, to a society and to many people, I'm just not one of them. With taxes we get civilization, decency, moral society, and that maters, just not to you.

We don't get any of that from taxes. What we get is crime, corruption, moral degeneracy and chaos.

Utter nonsense, my little infant. Save the dogma, I'm not interested.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Even if it destroys America, eh?

That has always been, and always will be, only a matter of time. The reason we regulate capitalism is because it eventually destroys itself. Regulation rounds off the rougher edges and delays that for a time but it can never stop it. Eventually it can no longer create value, and becomes completely unbalanced. After the crash, we try again. That is its nature.

I think you're admitting that you would tax the rich into oblivion even if it destroyed America. You're admitting that you hate America and you want to destroy it.

Thanks for that.

Nope. And America doesn't need my help to destroy it, it needs my help to save it, but it's no longer worthy...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Payroll taxes and the rich not paying enough creates the problems.

The only "problem" is your envy of the rich.

Nope. It's just time they started paying up agin.

Spoken just like some Mafia thug about his extortion victims.

The social contract is not extortion, it's part of your birthright.

The "social contract" is a myth. It's propaganda designed to convince people the government is entitled to take their money. A contract can't be a "birthright" because no contract signed by someone who isn't of legal age is binding.

The soul is a myth, as is heaven, hell, God, etc., but the social contract is alive and well, and you were born with it stamped on your head.

 

[OnePercenter]

My passport says I'm an American born in Boston MA, numskull.

I see.

 

[bripat9643]

The only "problem" is your envy of the rich.

Nope. It's just time they started paying up agin.

Spoken just like some Mafia thug about his extortion victims.

The social contract is not extortion, it's part of your birthright.

The "social contract" is a myth. It's propaganda designed to convince people the government is entitled to take their money. A contract can't be a "birthright" because no contract signed by someone who isn't of legal age is binding.

The soul is a myth, as is heaven, hell, God, etc., but the social contract is alive and well, and you were born with it stamped on your head.

Where is it then? When did I sign it?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Nope. It's just time they started paying up agin.

Spoken just like some Mafia thug about his extortion victims.

The social contract is not extortion, it's part of your birthright.

The "social contract" is a myth. It's propaganda designed to convince people the government is entitled to take their money. A contract can't be a "birthright" because no contract signed by someone who isn't of legal age is binding.

The soul is a myth, as is heaven, hell, God, etc., but the social contract is alive and well, and you were born with it stamped on your head.

Where is it then? When did I sign it?

Your signature was never required, just this:

Welcome to your birthright, and the social contract.

 

[bripat9643]

Spoken just like some Mafia thug about his extortion victims.

The social contract is not extortion, it's part of your birthright.

The "social contract" is a myth. It's propaganda designed to convince people the government is entitled to take their money. A contract can't be a "birthright" because no contract signed by someone who isn't of legal age is binding.

The soul is a myth, as is heaven, hell, God, etc., but the social contract is alive and well, and you were born with it stamped on your head.

Where is it then? When did I sign it?

Your signature was never required, just this:

Welcome to your birthright, and the social contract.

That's not a valid contract, numskull.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The social contract is not extortion, it's part of your birthright.

The "social contract" is a myth. It's propaganda designed to convince people the government is entitled to take their money. A contract can't be a "birthright" because no contract signed by someone who isn't of legal age is binding.

The soul is a myth, as is heaven, hell, God, etc., but the social contract is alive and well, and you were born with it stamped on your head.

Where is it then? When did I sign it?

Your signature was never required, just this:

Welcome to your birthright, and the social contract.

That's not a valid contract, numskull.

Oh, butt (pun/bun intended), it is. Right and Responsibilities. It's a package deal, that you were born to my little infant.

 

[bripat9643]

The "social contract" is a myth. It's propaganda designed to convince people the government is entitled to take their money. A contract can't be a "birthright" because no contract signed by someone who isn't of legal age is binding.

The soul is a myth, as is heaven, hell, God, etc., but the social contract is alive and well, and you were born with it stamped on your head.

Where is it then? When did I sign it?

Your signature was never required, just this:

Welcome to your birthright, and the social contract.

That's not a valid contract, numskull.

Oh, butt (pun/bun intended), it is. Right and Responsibilities. It's a package deal, that you were born to my little infant.

A contract you haven't explicitly agreed to is invalid. That's a fundamental principle of law.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The soul is a myth, as is heaven, hell, God, etc., but the social contract is alive and well, and you were born with it stamped on your head.

Where is it then? When did I sign it?

Your signature was never required, just this:

Welcome to your birthright, and the social contract.

That's not a valid contract, numskull.

Oh, butt (pun/bun intended), it is. Right and Responsibilities. It's a package deal, that you were born to my little infant.

A contract you haven't explicitly agreed to is invalid. That's a fundamental principle of law.

Not in this case. You didn't have to agree to be American, you were simply born that way. The same with being a member of American society, like it or not.

 

[bripat9643]

Where is it then? When did I sign it?

Your signature was never required, just this:

Welcome to your birthright, and the social contract.

That's not a valid contract, numskull.

Oh, butt (pun/bun intended), it is. Right and Responsibilities. It's a package deal, that you were born to my little infant.

A contract you haven't explicitly agreed to is invalid. That's a fundamental principle of law.

Not in this case. You didn't have to agree to be American, you were simply born that way. The same with being a member of American society, like it or not.

You belief that being born within certain political boundaries imposes any obligations on me is fallacious. It has no support in fact or logic. It's pure political mythology.