Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Projection. Read from page one.
You have it backwards, as usual. Money belongs to the State, which printed it. The things of God belong to God, and that's not, in Teddy Roosevelt's words, "Filthy Lucre".Based upon the teachings of Jesus, he is...Smith was okay with the rich paying more than their share, since they got more out of society, wanted no taxes on necessities but was fine with taxes on luxuries, and wanted corporations to continue to be banned. That Marxist enough for you?
I don't give a rat's ass whether God himself is a Marxist.
I don't think so:
Mark 12:17
And Jesus said unto them, Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. And they marveled greatly at him.
I didn't need to. Marx was bigger on taxes than just a progressive income tax. Look it up.That was one of them alright. Keep going.What part of Marx didn't support taxes on wages but taxes on wealth and luxuries were okay did you miss?Keep at it:
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich . . . . 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."
"It must always be remembered, however, that it is the luxuries, and not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people, that ought ever to be taxed."
Here you have Smith advocating a sales tax on luxury goods. That's hardly an endorsement of a Marxist progressive income tax.
The only tax that Marx ever announced his support for is the progressive income tax.
Did you know Smith opposed the transfer of wealth through inheritance? Thought it would make you lazy and privileged. More of that Moralist again.
"With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."
The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule. North Carolina's 1784 statute explained that by keeping large estates together for succeeding generations, the old system had served "only to raise the wealth and importance of particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue influence in a republic" and promoting "contention and injustice." Abolishing aristocratic forms of inheritance would by contrast "tend to promote that equality of property which is of the spirit and principle of a genuine republic."
Estate tax and the founding fathers You can t take it with you The Economist
Smith, and Jefferson, those damned Marxists.
You didn't quote Marx supporting a tax on luxuries.
You may have thought it got kicked but that was all I needed to show that you two were nothing more than selfish and immoral infants.That is incorrect. You simply can't grasp it. Remember the discussion about running into the street to save a small child totally unrelated to you? You wouldn't do that now would you, unless you were sure of some kind of reward, and you definitely wouldn't if you thought you might die trying, but a moral person would, and they wouldn't expect a reward. You have to have morals to understand that, and you don't.Smith had morals. He would have lost his shoe in the ass of any Libertarian who said the kind of nonsense they do here. To him they would have been just what they are, immoral selfish children.Adam Smith never met American Parasites and demagogue welfare state politicians.
He never dreamt that demagogue politicians would be corrupt enough to provide welfare benefits in order to acquire power.
He never dreamt that the populace would demand to be fed, clothe, insured, educated and their thirst quenched in exchange for votes.
So if he were alive today he would be an armed to the teeth Libertarian.
.
You have utterly failed to demonstrate that self-interest is immoral when asked multiple times.
As I recall that discussion, you got your ass kicked for thinking an adult would let a small child get anywhere near a busy street. I also never said anyone should expect to get any kind of reward other than the emotional kind.
You're just trolling, so, be gone.Projection. Read from page one.
Two issues;
1. - I read page one.
2. - I am familiar with you. I already know that you are abjectly ignorant and abhorrently partisan.
These combine to leave me shaking my head at yet another moronic troll, reading a meme from KOS or ThinkProgress, then thinking you have a legitimate point to make in a forum of grown ups.
You don't/
Running into the street to save a child unrelated to you isn't logical, it's moral. They aren't the same.You may have thought it got kicked but that was all I needed to show that you two were nothing more than selfish and immoral infants.That is incorrect. You simply can't grasp it. Remember the discussion about running into the street to save a small child totally unrelated to you? You wouldn't do that now would you, unless you were sure of some kind of reward, and you definitely wouldn't if you thought you might die trying, but a moral person would, and they wouldn't expect a reward. You have to have morals to understand that, and you don't.Smith had morals. He would have lost his shoe in the ass of any Libertarian who said the kind of nonsense they do here. To him they would have been just what they are, immoral selfish children.
You have utterly failed to demonstrate that self-interest is immoral when asked multiple times.
As I recall that discussion, you got your ass kicked for thinking an adult would let a small child get anywhere near a busy street. I also never said anyone should expect to get any kind of reward other than the emotional kind.
You failed to show anything of the kind. What you really showed is that you lack the ability to commit logic.
You have it backwards, as usual. Money belongs to the State, which printed it. The things of God belong to God, and that's not, in Teddy Roosevelt's words, "Filthy Lucre".Based upon the teachings of Jesus, he is...Smith was okay with the rich paying more than their share, since they got more out of society, wanted no taxes on necessities but was fine with taxes on luxuries, and wanted corporations to continue to be banned. That Marxist enough for you?
I don't give a rat's ass whether God himself is a Marxist.
I don't think so:
Mark 12:17
And Jesus said unto them, Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. And they marveled greatly at him.
Running into the street to save a child unrelated to you isn't logical, it's moral. They aren't the same.You may have thought it got kicked but that was all I needed to show that you two were nothing more than selfish and immoral infants.That is incorrect. You simply can't grasp it. Remember the discussion about running into the street to save a small child totally unrelated to you? You wouldn't do that now would you, unless you were sure of some kind of reward, and you definitely wouldn't if you thought you might die trying, but a moral person would, and they wouldn't expect a reward. You have to have morals to understand that, and you don't.You have utterly failed to demonstrate that self-interest is immoral when asked multiple times.
As I recall that discussion, you got your ass kicked for thinking an adult would let a small child get anywhere near a busy street. I also never said anyone should expect to get any kind of reward other than the emotional kind.
You failed to show anything of the kind. What you really showed is that you lack the ability to commit logic.
I see the problem now: "What part of Smith didn't support taxes on wages but taxes on wealth and luxuries were okay did you miss?"What part of Smith didn't support taxes on wages but taxes on wealth and luxuries were okay did you miss?Keep at it:Smith opposed taxes on wages and necessities, but not on wealth, rents, and luxuries. That doesn't sound very right wing to me. The rich are taking a beating eh?
WRONG.
Smith (in Wealth of Nations) wrote:
The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.
At least one blogger noted that this is not support for a progressive taxation scheme (on income, by the way); it is SUPPORT for a scheme of taxation that is proportional to income: i.e., a FLAT TAX.
See, Ideas Misrepresenting Adam Smith
Show us how this non-expert, Friedman, is wrong.
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich . . . . 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."
"It must always be remembered, however, that it is the luxuries, and not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people, that ought ever to be taxed."
Here you have Smith advocating a sales tax on luxury goods. That's hardly an endorsement of a Marxist progressive income tax.
Really? Can you quote him supporting a tax on luxury goods?
I didn't need to. Marx was bigger on taxes than just a progressive income tax. Look it up.That was one of them alright. Keep going.What part of Marx didn't support taxes on wages but taxes on wealth and luxuries were okay did you miss?Here you have Smith advocating a sales tax on luxury goods. That's hardly an endorsement of a Marxist progressive income tax.
The only tax that Marx ever announced his support for is the progressive income tax.
Did you know Smith opposed the transfer of wealth through inheritance? Thought it would make you lazy and privileged. More of that Moralist again.
"With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."
The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule. North Carolina's 1784 statute explained that by keeping large estates together for succeeding generations, the old system had served "only to raise the wealth and importance of particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue influence in a republic" and promoting "contention and injustice." Abolishing aristocratic forms of inheritance would by contrast "tend to promote that equality of property which is of the spirit and principle of a genuine republic."
Estate tax and the founding fathers You can t take it with you The Economist
Smith, and Jefferson, those damned Marxists.
You didn't quote Marx supporting a tax on luxuries.
Jesus would say if if came from Caesar render (give) it to Caesar, and from God to God. As to what you owe, that depends, but you do owe. It's a Pay to Play game so pay up.You have it backwards, as usual. Money belongs to the State, which printed it. The things of God belong to God, and that's not, in Teddy Roosevelt's words, "Filthy Lucre".Based upon the teachings of Jesus, he is...Smith was okay with the rich paying more than their share, since they got more out of society, wanted no taxes on necessities but was fine with taxes on luxuries, and wanted corporations to continue to be banned. That Marxist enough for you?
I don't give a rat's ass whether God himself is a Marxist.
I don't think so:
Mark 12:17
And Jesus said unto them, Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. And they marveled greatly at him.
So the government owns everything I earn?
You are so pathetically servile it defies comprehension.
I see the problem now: "What part of Smith didn't support taxes on wages but taxes on wealth and luxuries were okay did you miss?"What part of Smith didn't support taxes on wages but taxes on wealth and luxuries were okay did you miss?Keep at it:WRONG.
Smith (in Wealth of Nations) wrote:
The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.
At least one blogger noted that this is not support for a progressive taxation scheme (on income, by the way); it is SUPPORT for a scheme of taxation that is proportional to income: i.e., a FLAT TAX.
See, Ideas Misrepresenting Adam Smith
Show us how this non-expert, Friedman, is wrong.
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich . . . . 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."
"It must always be remembered, however, that it is the luxuries, and not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people, that ought ever to be taxed."
Here you have Smith advocating a sales tax on luxury goods. That's hardly an endorsement of a Marxist progressive income tax.
Really? Can you quote him supporting a tax on luxury goods?
Did I not say it wasn't a logical question, but a moral one? it doesn't matter what you would do, a moral person would run after the child, regardless of who it belonged to, but not you my little infant, you are out only for #1.Running into the street to save a child unrelated to you isn't logical, it's moral. They aren't the same.You may have thought it got kicked but that was all I needed to show that you two were nothing more than selfish and immoral infants.That is incorrect. You simply can't grasp it. Remember the discussion about running into the street to save a small child totally unrelated to you? You wouldn't do that now would you, unless you were sure of some kind of reward, and you definitely wouldn't if you thought you might die trying, but a moral person would, and they wouldn't expect a reward. You have to have morals to understand that, and you don't.
As I recall that discussion, you got your ass kicked for thinking an adult would let a small child get anywhere near a busy street. I also never said anyone should expect to get any kind of reward other than the emotional kind.
You failed to show anything of the kind. What you really showed is that you lack the ability to commit logic.
Logic would entail keeping the child away from the street rather than waiting until it runs in front of a car. Your understanding of morality implies people are all idiots.
Jesus would say if if came from Caesar render (give) it to Caesar, and from God to God. As to what you owe, that depends, but you do owe. It's a Pay to Play game so pay up.You have it backwards, as usual. Money belongs to the State, which printed it. The things of God belong to God, and that's not, in Teddy Roosevelt's words, "Filthy Lucre".Based upon the teachings of Jesus, he is...I don't give a rat's ass whether God himself is a Marxist.
I don't think so:
Mark 12:17
And Jesus said unto them, Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. And they marveled greatly at him.
So the government owns everything I earn?
You are so pathetically servile it defies comprehension.
Utopias don't work. They were even tried here. Now you know.Adam Smith was not an American. This is the primary mistake most leftist make. He did not write from the perspective of the libarte' in Boston, but as a Scot in 18th century Edinburgh. The second mistake that the meme reciters from the leftist hate sites make is in thinking that a passage from "Wealth of Nations" expresses the desires or edicts of Smith. An 1800 page tome, "Wealth of Nations" is an expectoration of market mechanics, not a prescription for a Utopian society.
Did I not say it wasn't a logical question, but a moral one? it doesn't matter what you would do, a moral person would run after the child, regardless of who it belonged to, but not you my little infant, you are out only for #1.Running into the street to save a child unrelated to you isn't logical, it's moral. They aren't the same.You may have thought it got kicked but that was all I needed to show that you two were nothing more than selfish and immoral infants.As I recall that discussion, you got your ass kicked for thinking an adult would let a small child get anywhere near a busy street. I also never said anyone should expect to get any kind of reward other than the emotional kind.
You failed to show anything of the kind. What you really showed is that you lack the ability to commit logic.
Logic would entail keeping the child away from the street rather than waiting until it runs in front of a car. Your understanding of morality implies people are all idiots.
Oh but you do. That is the cost for us allowing you to do business here. You use what we, and those before you, paid for, and there is a price to be paid for that. That's what keeps the ball in motion. It's a Pay to Play game. Taxes are the price you pay.Jesus would say if if came from Caesar render (give) it to Caesar, and from God to God. As to what you owe, that depends, but you do owe. It's a Pay to Play game so pay up.You have it backwards, as usual. Money belongs to the State, which printed it. The things of God belong to God, and that's not, in Teddy Roosevelt's words, "Filthy Lucre".Based upon the teachings of Jesus, he is...
I don't think so:
Mark 12:17
And Jesus said unto them, Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. And they marveled greatly at him.
So the government owns everything I earn?
You are so pathetically servile it defies comprehension.
I don't owe jack shit.
Utopias don't work. They were even tried here. Now you know.Adam Smith was not an American. This is the primary mistake most leftist make. He did not write from the perspective of the libarte' in Boston, but as a Scot in 18th century Edinburgh. The second mistake that the meme reciters from the leftist hate sites make is in thinking that a passage from "Wealth of Nations" expresses the desires or edicts of Smith. An 1800 page tome, "Wealth of Nations" is an expectoration of market mechanics, not a prescription for a Utopian society.
There's nothing irrational about a child running into the street. It happens all the time and moral people go after the child, no questions asked. As I said, you'd have to be moral to get it, so you won't.Did I not say it wasn't a logical question, but a moral one? it doesn't matter what you would do, a moral person would run after the child, regardless of who it belonged to, but not you my little infant, you are out only for #1.Running into the street to save a child unrelated to you isn't logical, it's moral. They aren't the same.You may have thought it got kicked but that was all I needed to show that you two were nothing more than selfish and immoral infants.
You failed to show anything of the kind. What you really showed is that you lack the ability to commit logic.
Logic would entail keeping the child away from the street rather than waiting until it runs in front of a car. Your understanding of morality implies people are all idiots.
You don't pose a valid example of a moral dilemma by creating a situation that is utterly irrational. You might as well start out claiming "suppose you wanted to burn $1 million."
