Why is wanting to keep what you earned greed, but wanting what you didn't earn isn't?

[Wyatt earp]

I don't get it liberals, please explain

How do we fund the government if you keep all your money?

How do we fund government if folks dont work? I know the fed, keep the printing press on at full steam ahead...

 

[bripat9643]

Of course the $20 million figure is not carved in stone and is subject to review. I arrived at that figure because it is a sum which enables one to afford a comfortable, secure, healthy, and reasonably luxurious life minus the kind of extravagance which is typically associated with aristocracy and the ability to influence legislation.

Where did you get the idea that you or anyone else has the right to decide how much other people are allowed to have?

I could ask who you are to suggest a 70% bracket, but I won't because it's a stupid question. I will ask why you don't think wealth should be subject to taxation. Do you not believe inequitable distribution of this Nation's wealth resources has damaged the social structure and has led to extreme corruption in government?

Why do you think wealth should be subject to taxation? What "moral" principle is that based on?

In the first place, wealth does not belong to "the nation." It belongs to individual people. The nation has no right to anyone's wealth, period. And, no, there isn't the slightest smidgeon of evidence that allowing people to keep what they have earned damages the "social structure" or leads to "extreme corruption" in government. The later is caused entirely by putting wealth in the hands of politicians for them to dispense.

 

[bripat9643]

You give that "consent" to your elected representatives. Those representatives have a Constitutional power to collect taxes for the greater good of the society

Wrong. I never gave "consent" to my elected representative for anything.

Don't you like the circular argument, bripat? Majority vote is compelling because we gave "consent" to a majority vote. And how did we give consent? A majority vote!

Liberalism is just an endless series of logical fallacies.

 

[Spoonman]

I don't get it liberals, please explain

How do we fund the government if you keep all your money?

he's not questioning funding a government, he's questioning enabling a non productive segment of society. Real big difference. don't try to confuse them

 

[Dragonlady]

I love how conservatives don't see any similarity between investors, who don't work but put up cash, and sit back and live on the work of others, and those on welfare who don't work, but sit back and live on the work of others.

The difference of course being that the investors aren't spending their profits to help drive sales, which the poor do, since they spend every $$ they get. How are those rich people who live off their dividends and don't work, any better than those who get other forms of social assistance.

 

[Antares]

I don't get it liberals, please explain

How do we fund the government if you keep all your money?

Let's fund "Government" but unfund all the bullshit people like believe "Government" is.

 

[Antares]

I love how conservatives don't see any similarity between investors, who don't work but put up cash, and sit back and live on the work of others, and those on welfare who don't work, but sit back and live on the work of others.

The difference of course being that the investors aren't spending their profits to help drive sales, which the poor do, since they spend every $$ they get. How are those rich people who live off their dividends and don't work, any better than those who get other forms of social assistance.

A really seriously dumb ***** here.

 

[bripat9643]

I love how conservatives don't see any similarity between investors, who don't work but put up cash, and sit back and live on the work of others, and those on welfare who don't work, but sit back and live on the work of others.

The difference of course being that the investors aren't spending their profits to help drive sales, which the poor do, since they spend every $$ they get. How are those rich people who live off their dividends and don't work, any better than those who get other forms of social assistance.

The difference is that everything the investors receives is through voluntary exchanges, whereas the money the welfare parasite receives is taken by force from the people who earned it

 

[MikeK]

You don't have a problem when the covetous greedily demand that someone else's "excessive wealth" be forcibly taken so that they can benefit from what they have not earned?

Let's begin with this question: How do you suppose one goes about "earning" fifty billion dollars?

Please answer that and we'll take it from there.

The exact same way someone "earns" any money. Someone "rents" out his/her labor, knowledge, skills, and/or capital, and that someone expects a reasonable "fee" for doing so. Some are stronger, smarter, more skilled, and/or have more capital to rent out, and they receive larger returns.

The question should be: Why does that bother you so much?

Is there a shortage of money that prevents you from receiving just compensation for your labor, knowledge, skills, and/or capital? Or, most likely, you are just envious of those rich bastards, with their fancy cars, and big houses.

One thing about this topic I've always found interesting is why so many of those who seem most willing to defend the contemporary version of robber barons, the ones who have via one devious means or other managed to amass and to hoard vast fortunes, are those who haven't a pot to piss in and probably will never pay off their credit card debt. I frankly believe that to you, and to others who dwell in the same superficial notion you reference, any amount of money beyond the first decimal point is an abstract idea, like something in a pornographic video. Taking such an absurd position helps get you off.

There was a time when I would have taken you seriously, but no more.

 

[Agit8r]

Without the force of state, there could be no vast accumulations of wealth.

The second part of the question seems to be some sort of non sequitur.

 

[Darkwind]

The real question is, "Why is government so greedy that they require so much in taxes?"

Incompetence, inefficiency and, mainly, corruption.

Why is government so large, that it takes so much to run it?

While some reductions in the size of the federal government are needed, mainly in the area of the Military Industrial Complex and the Pentagon, the fact remains this is a very large and complex Nation which requires a proportionally large and complex government to keep it running and prevent its coming apart.

How did government fund itself before the 16th Amendment?

Mainly from tariffs, excise taxes and various direct taxes which evolved over the years. If you're interested in learning more you can find the answers here: History of the US Tax System

Corruption would be a correct answer. The others two have nothing to do with greed. Greed is an emotion of desire unchecked by intelligence and morality.

Again, another person with the nonsense about the military industrial complex. What is it with people who just want to allow everyone to walk all over them? The military is what gives us this country. Without it, we would be vassals of other nations and the debate over government spending would end immediately. Other nations do not care what the serfs think of their governance. Now, why is it that no one can ever say to themselves or the world that we have a government that is to large because we want to do everything, regardless of whether or not we should?

Last. The questions were rhetorical. I have no need of a history lesson from anyone on this forum.

 

[Darkwind]

Why 20 million? Why not 25 million? Why not 15 million? We can't peg down an exact number, so we can't do it. Who are you to say? Bwah bwahh bwahh boo hoo wa wa wa.

Of course the $20 million figure is not carved in stone and is subject to review. I arrived at that figure because it is a sum which enables one to afford a comfortable, secure, healthy, and reasonably luxurious life minus the kind of extravagance which is typically associated with aristocracy and the ability to influence legislation.

I don't think we should be taxing wealth per se. But there should be a 70% bracket starting at 5 million.

I could ask who you are to suggest a 70% bracket, but I won't because it's a stupid question. I will ask why you don't think wealth should be subject to taxation. Do you not believe inequitable distribution of this Nation's wealth resources has damaged the social structure and has led to extreme corruption in government?

Of course, we can say that anyone who has more money than it takes to buy food and put a roof over their head is greed. We can, in fact, say that you should only be allowed to have the money necessary to purchase food that is good for you (keep you from being fat and provides the proper nutritional balance), and a place to shelter yourself. A family is excessive an therefore, greed. In fact, a person should only earn enough for sustenance and shelter. All other product of your labor should go to the State so that they can apply it to the proper programs needed to promote the society in which you are so lucky to be a part of.

The basic necessities are all we need. You do know what they are, right? You simply list them in the order that they kill you fastest...

Air
Water
Food
Shelter


Anything else is more wealth than you really need.

 

[Clementine]

I don't get it liberals, please explain

How do we fund the government if you keep all your money?

We should be able to keep more of what we earn. It's always a bit of a shock when you add up the taxes you pay each year. It's getting pretty ridiculous.

It's one thing to fund our government, though there was no income tax to start with. It wasn't until government starting finding ways to spend money on their plan to create government dependents that things began getting out of control. We also get robbed for some pretty stupid pet projects that aren't much of a contribution to society.

The worst is having to fund governments in so many other countries. That needs to be stopped.

 

[Darkwind]

I don't get it liberals, please explain

How do we fund the government if you keep all your money?

We should be able to keep more of what we earn. It's always a bit of a shock when you add up the taxes you pay each year. It's getting pretty ridiculous.

It's one thing to fund our government, though there was no income tax to start with. It wasn't until government starting finding ways to spend money on their plan to create government dependents that things began getting out of control. We also get robbed for some pretty stupid pet projects that aren't much of a contribution to society.

The worst is having to fund governments in so many other countries. That needs to be stopped.

Don't fall into the semantic trap.

No one other than anarchists want to underfund or de-fund government. They only insist upon imposed limits on government. The phrase, "Keep all of your money" by the racist is nothing more than a distraction.

Besides...government was funded just fine before the 16th Amendment.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Again, another person with the nonsense about the military industrial complex. What is it with people who just want to allow everyone to walk all over them? The military is what gives us this country. Without it, we would be vassals of other nations and the debate over government spending would end immediately. Other nations do not care what the serfs think of their governance. Now, why is it that no one can ever say to themselves or the world that we have a government that is to large because we want to do everything, regardless of whether or not we should?

Last. The questions were rhetorical. I have no need of a history lesson from anyone on this forum.

(Excerpt)

The U.S. spends more money on defense than any other nation in the world. So in an era of fiscal challenge, the Pentagon looked for ways to reduce costs.

Too bad Congress wasn’t listening.

Lawmakers have nixed several of the money-saving ideas, instead forcing the Defense Department to purchase or maintain equipment it says it doesn’t need.

Take for instance the half-billion dollars in Abrams tanks that Congress ordered up for the next two years, or the seven obsolete ships the Navy is being forced to keep.

The Pentagon says it doesn’t want them, or need them. But taxpayers will keep paying the price.

For not listening to military leaders and instead forcing unneeded spending, Congress wins this week’s Golden Hammer, a weekly distinction given by the Washington Guardian to the worst examples of government waste.

Last week, The Associated Press reported that Congress has authorized almost half-a-billion dollars over two years to build Abrams tanks for the Army. But the Army has said it currently doesn’t need any tanks, and the money would be better used elsewhere.


Read more: Lawmakers force Pentagon to buy tanks, keep ships and planes it doesn't need - Washington Times
Follow us: [MENTION=39892]Was[/MENTION]htimes on Twitter

Lawmakers force Pentagon to buy tanks, keep ships and planes it doesn't need - Washington Times

(Close)

Above is just one recent example of why the Military Industrial Complex is something other than the salvation which you've been indoctrinated to believe it is. So it seems you need a bit more than just a history lesson. I suggest you stop waving the flag and spend some time researching the Number One wasteful and corrupted burden on our economy.

 

[kaz]

I don't get it liberals, please explain

How do we fund the government if you keep all your money?

We should be able to keep more of what we earn. It's always a bit of a shock when you add up the taxes you pay each year. It's getting pretty ridiculous.

It's one thing to fund our government, though there was no income tax to start with. It wasn't until government starting finding ways to spend money on their plan to create government dependents that things began getting out of control. We also get robbed for some pretty stupid pet projects that aren't much of a contribution to society.

The worst is having to fund governments in so many other countries. That needs to be stopped.

The typical lazy liberal standard for themselves. One tax no matter how small justifies every tax no matter how large.

 

[Skull Pilot]

How do we fund the government if you keep all your money?

We don't. That's the whole point.

Why do you live here if you have no interest in being a part of society?

When everyone pays the same for that benefit of "society" I'll be happy to pay up

I should not have to subsidize the lifestyle choices of others as I do now.

 

[Katzndogz]

The greed of wanting to keep what you have and the right of someone to take it is the heart and soul of all thefts.

 

[MajorHeadrush]

the simple FACT is that this whole system was set up and enforced by the 1% who benefit wildly from it while the use it to keep us under and empty shell that never sees the pea...

I don't get it liberals, please explain

How do we fund the government if you keep all your money?

We don't. That's the whole point.

 

[Geaux4it]

Not wanting to contribute to the society that you benefit from is greed

it's not about society. It's about what's best for me and my family. For that, the current direction of this country doesn't meet that criteria

Period.

-Geaux

Do you think you can do better? If not, then you have little choice but to identify what is wrong with American society and to think about what can be done to fix it.

So what are your thoughts along that line?

Thanks for asking.. Been there done that.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/297660-the-decay-of-society-my-blog.html

-Geaux