As predicted, Democrats fighting for HUGE TAX on guns

[hunarcy]

But, why do you have the right to impose such a limit? You believe your personal belief is an appropriate barometer of how much private property is allowed to be accumulated, but others disagree with you. The truth is you're not a socialist, you're a supporter of tyranny.

My personal belief is my personal belief and nothing more. If you disagree with my belief that there should be a $20million limit to the personal accumulation of assets, you have a right to do so. But I suggest you give some thought to the prospect of such a limit.

If you'd care to discuss it, tell me why you think it's a bad idea.

Because I believe in private property and don't believe anyone has the right to impose their beliefs on others. We protect the rights of ALL people, not just those who live within an arbitrary set of limitations set by people like you.

If we followed your ideas, George Soros could not have accumulated the wealth he has which he uses to push progressive causes and do good. I suggest you give some thought to the world you're trying to create where good and decent people would not have the resources to do good in the world.

 

[MikeK]

Because I believe in private property and don't believe anyone has the right to impose their beliefs on others.

[...]

Twenty million dollars in personal assets is quite a bit of private property.

Do you believe developers of the IRS Code have a right to impose their beliefs on others?

Do you believe those who impose speed limits on roads and highways have a right and a good reason for doing so?

Do you believe those who have imposed limits on the type of weapons a private citizen may own have a right to do so?

Do you believe that wealth produced by American citizens is made possible by exploiting the exceptional resources of the material, human and administrative resources of this Nation and therefore exists as a de facto resource of this Nation?

Do you believe that individuals who contrive the means by which to accumulate and hoard exceptional amounts of wealth, thereby disrupting the balance and flow of the Nation's wealth resource, should have a legal or moral right to do so?

We protect the rights of ALL people, not just those who live within an arbitrary set of limitations set by people like you.

Many rights are subject to limitation -- and for good reason.

If we followed your ideas, George Soros could not have accumulated the wealth he has which he uses to push progressive causes and do good. I suggest you give some thought to the world you're trying to create where good and decent people would not have the resources to do good in the world.

If the accumulation of wealth was limited and subject to lateral distribution there would be no need for such individualized philanthropy. We would have a society in which there would be no billionaires, many millionaires, a well-developed middle class and well-managed anti-poverty programs.

You need to learn and to understand the difference between vertical and horizontal distribution of a nation's wealth resource. What I am proposing is not anti-capitalist. Rather, I oppose the kind of laissez-faire capitalism that existed during the Robber Baron era, the time before FDR's New Deal gave rise to the Great American Middle Class -- which is now in rapid decline.

I am proposing a capitalist system which is controlled by certain socialist regulations, one of which is a reasonable and necessary limit on the excessive accumulation of individual wealth.

 

[EverCurious]

I believe this country was founded on the basis of escaping this kind of control, and control through taxation. We were founded on freedom, which includes the freedom to accumulate vast amounts of money and, regardless of their neighbors finances, use it as toilet paper if they so wish - they earned it, it is theirs to do with as they wish.

I'm alright with a minor amount of "helping others for the good of society" but we've already gone past that amount to the tune of half this country is taking government handouts; most of whom simply use that "extra" money to buy luxuries they don't need to survive; cellphones, automobiles, cable, drugs... Wealth distribution doesn't work, it destroys the foundation of productive society and creates a class of citizens who are nothing more than "slaves" to the government handouts. It eats away at peoples will to do good for themselves, for their families, and leaves them with no end goal upon which to focus their energies.

 

[MikeK]

I believe this country was founded on the basis of escaping this kind of control, and control through taxation. We were founded on freedom, which includes the freedom to accumulate vast amounts of money and, regardless of their neighbors finances, use it as toilet paper if they so wish - they earned it, it is theirs to do with as they wish.

Regarding the founding of America, you may rest assured that if the framers of our Constitution were able to anticipate the kind of wealth the combined resources of this Nation would eventually be capable of generating they surely would have included measures for preventing manipulative hoarding of excessive personal wealth. Because this body of uniquely intelligent men was capable of understanding the politically, socially and economically corrosive effects of laissez-faire (unrestrained) capitalism.

I'm alright with a minor amount of "helping others for the good of society" but we've already gone past that amount to the tune of half this country is taking government handouts; most of whom simply use that "extra" money to buy luxuries they don't need to survive; cellphones, automobiles, cable, drugs... Wealth distribution doesn't work, it destroys the foundation of productive society and creates a class of citizens who are nothing more than "slaves" to the government handouts. It eats away at peoples will to do good for themselves, for their families, and leaves them with no end goal upon which to focus their energies.

I was born at the peak of the Great Depression. My father, a locksmith by trade, was out of work for almost two years and my brother and I later heard stories about oatmeal on Thanksgiving and how close we came to living on the street. The fact is there simply were no jobs and those who were lucky enough to find a day's work here and there were often exploited by cynically exploitative employers who would pay them as little as "a dollar-fifty" for ten or twelve hours of back-breaking labor, take-it-or-leave- it.

Then FDR instituted the WPA and CCC "make-work" programs, which he funded partly by imposing a 94% progressive tax on the upper income levels. My father was one of those who were put to work restoring the forests of upstate New York. The money he sent home paid the rent and put food on the table. The broader effect of so many newly employed workers with some money to spend was a demand for products, which in turn created the need for businesses to satisfy the demand, which in turn created jobs, which in turn created more demand -- and on and on until the Country went back to work!

That isn't a pie-in-the-sky tale. It's a truth that I lived through and watched happen. I watched the changes take place, day by day. Everyone who lived through the post-War 40's and the early 50s watched the dramatic rise of the American Middle Class -- which we are now watching the slow death of.

Don't think welfare is the only way to redistribute wealth. It isn't. This Country's infrastructure is rotting away. It is in desperate need of an army of workers to repair it. The reason it has been ignored is the kind of political corruption which enabled the rise of the One Percent, which occurred by influencing the repeal of legal safeguards that heretofore served to prevent such corruption.

There presently are hundreds of billions of dollars stashed by devious, greedy, tax-evading One-Percenters in offshore banks. That money represents a wrongfully hoarded American resource. That money should be confiscated by the IRS and applied to the restoration of this Nation's highway system, its electrical grid, its energy distribution systems, its bridges, reservoirs, and on and on, by employing presently unemployed workers.

 

[Wildman]

It is believed there are more than three billion guns in the hands of Americans,

three billion...., WHAT???????? who in GOD's creation "believes" that number ? a little math tells me i need to acquire about 47 more!!!

 

[EverCurious]

The framers of the Constitution were learned men, many spoke Latin and French in addition to English. Most of the signers of the Constitution were well to do, and did not want for anything. That said, their success does not make them the enemy, that is liberal propaganda of today that demonizes big corporations, executives, and the wealthy in general. I don't care if they were wealthy. Their research and determination created the greatest governing document ever devised.

One of the things they did was originally push for only property owners to be able to vote. Property owners were considered to be wealthy. The founders didn't want to set the system up that way because they were trying to ensure the average folk didn't vote, but because they wanted the people voting to have an active interest in the election - or as some people may put it, they wanted the people that were voting to have "skin in the game."

The fear was that the "poor folk" that were not property owners may begin to vote in people that would provide gifts from the coffer, or in today's language, entitlements. Once a system of entitlements is launched, it will continue to progress until the dependents on government outnumber those providing taxes. That makes such a system unsustainable, and would spell the eventual downfall of the system. Therefore, to protect America from such a devastating practice, the republic was designed to use only a limited amount of democratic processes. Understand, pure democracy is a danger, and the republic being created not only was filled with checks and balances to ensure no part of government had too much power on its own, but that the people's power to vote did not have too much power, either.

This "wealthy versus poor" attitude is a mentality of class warfare created by liberalism, and is often the source of these kinds of arguments. Yes, there are those in our society that become wealthy and for some of them their greed gets the best of them, and their wealth becomes more important than everything else to them. That is unfortunate, but the reality of what "the love of money" can do. But this is not because "wealth" is a bad thing, but because when wealthy the human condition has the tendency to elevate that wealth as an elite status of the person. And, thanks for the wealthy, for they are the innovators and the achievers. It is them that creates jobs, and moves products. The Left may want to demonize them, but in my opinion, it is the wealthy that makes this nation prosperous - and gives us the inspiration to achieve wealth as well.

Now if you want some of my money you are welcome to /work/ for it, but I'll not just hand it to you to piss away. And, the government is infamous for pissing wealth away...

 

[theHawk]

Guns will still be legally available to all, but only the rich will be able to afford them.

Taxpayer advocate warns taxes could kill the 2nd Amendment - Personal Liberty®

april 14 2016 A massive new handgun tax imposed in one U.S. territory could serve as a blueprint for Democrats to ban firearms throughout the country without being shut down by the Constitution.

Late last month, a federal judge ruled unconstitutional a 40-year-old total ban on handguns in the Northern Mariana Islands. In the ruling, the judge declared: “ecause the people of the Commonwealth are part of the American people who have overwhelmingly chosen handguns as their principal means of self-defense, the Second Amendment protects that right here as well.”

In response to the judge’s order, the territory’s governing body worked out another way to deny residents’ 2nd Amendment rights without constitutional interference. House and Senate lawmakers in the commonwealth quickly passed a harsh 57-page gun control bill which includes a massive $1,000 per pistol excise tax.

While the Mariana tax is outrageously high, it isn’t otherwise unique. In fact, it’s one of a growing trend of governmental schemes to raise the cost of guns and ammo with hefty taxes.

Looks like the Poll Tax could come back. If they are going to tax guns, we should also tax voting.

 

[MikeK]

It is believed there are more than three billion guns in the hands of Americans,

three billion...., WHAT???????? who in GOD's creation "believes" that number ? a little math tells me i need to acquire about 47 more!!!

Oops. You are correct. I apologize and I thank you for politely correcting my error (aging brain). The correct figure is an estimated 400 million guns in the hands of Americans. (I don't know where that three billion figure came from.)

 

[MikeK]

[...]

This "wealthy versus poor" attitude is a mentality of class warfare created by liberalism, and is often the source of these kinds of arguments. Yes, there are those in our society that become wealthy and for some of them their greed gets the best of them, and their wealth becomes more important than everything else to them. That is unfortunate, but the reality of what "the love of money" can do. But this is not because "wealth" is a bad thing, but because when wealthy the human condition has the tendency to elevate that wealth as an elite status of the person. And, thanks for the wealthy, for they are the innovators and the achievers. It is them that creates jobs, and moves products. The Left may want to demonize them, but in my opinion, it is the wealthy that makes this nation prosperous - and gives us the inspiration to achieve wealth as well.

[...]

Forgive me if I seemed to suggest that wealth is bad. I meant no such thing. Wealth is good and worth striving to acquire. It is excessive wealth I have a serious problem with. Because excessive wealth is the product of pathological greed, a very ugly, destructive mental sickness which seems to be contagious and on the rise in America.

I think we need to arrive at an agreement about just how much wealth in accord with contemporary standards and a psychologically healthy mind is reasonable, not excessive, and just what the acceptable measure is based on.

So I will ask you; what do you believe to be a healthy and reasonable measure of personal wealth? How much money would it take for you to lead a happy, comfortable life and to provide adequately for your family's happiness and comfort? And at what level do you believe personal wealth becomes excessive?

 

[Publius1787]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that taxes on fundamental Bill of Rights freedoms cannot be so high as to amount to a unreasonable restriction on that freedom. This is why Republicans should continue to block Obamas nomination.

The supreme court has no authority to write or repeal laws. THINK

I never claimed that they did.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"As predicted, Democrats fighting for HUGE TAX on guns"

As predicted: another ridiculous lie from the right.

‘Democrats’ are ‘fighting’ for no such thing.

From your own disreputable link:

“…could serve as a blueprint for Democrats to ban firearms throughout the country…”

“Could serve” fails as a speculation fallacy; that you and other liars on the right ‘think’ this is something democrats ‘might do’ is unfounded idiocy.

Moreover, democrats have no desire to ‘ban firearms throughout the country,’ this is just another ridiculous lie.

It’s hard to tell what’s more reprehensible: the propensity of most on the right to lie or that conservatives think anyone would believe their ridiculous lies.

 

[EverCurious]

Forgive me if I seemed to suggest that wealth is bad. I meant no such thing. Wealth is good and worth striving to acquire. It is excessive wealth I have a serious problem with. Because excessive wealth is the product of pathological greed, a very ugly, destructive mental sickness which seems to be contagious and on the rise in America.

I think we need to arrive at an agreement about just how much wealth in accord with contemporary standards and a psychologically healthy mind is reasonable, not excessive, and just what the acceptable measure is based on.

So I will ask you; what do you believe to be a healthy and reasonable measure of personal wealth? How much money would it take for you to lead a happy, comfortable life and to provide adequately for your family's happiness and comfort? And at what level do you believe personal wealth becomes excessive?

Oh yes, "morality" lead by envy and selfishness, sloth and greed. And we should believe that /your/ morality is higher than that of the wealthier, we should believe that /they/ are in the wrong because you put on the facade of "helping." A modern day Salem, borne of far worse "morals" than the lack of understanding and acceptance of difference by the Puritan's. Legally strangling them for the benefit of "society" simply because /you/ choose to believe that they are acting immorally, because /you/ believe they live "excessively"

There is /no/ level at which I think it becomes "okay" to steal someone's property. I will never condone punishing someone for accepting a raise, or making something that sells like hotcakes because the public loves it, or for making a wise investment.

There is no such thing as "excessive" wealth, the lifestyle merely changes. The vast majority invest in w/e they are interested in, be that pouring billions into collecting old cars, or pouring billions into various causes around the globe. Someone might wish to spend $1m on their dogs birthday, while I may agree that's stupid and even wasteful, I do /not/ believe they should be "prevented" from doing it for any reason. They might pour it into fine furniture, art, or antique toys. At the end of the day, all of these things put money into the economy; the architect and his army of carpenters hired to build the garage to house and display the cars, "dog party planners," servers, bartenders, and special dog chef, some furniture craftsman or artist, some stores and casual collectors, the carpenters hired to make cabinetry to display these things, the interior designer and construction folks hired to make these things flow in the room as thought they belong there, the electricians who wire up lights to highlight it all... Even the museum's or other collectors who eventually acquire those priceless collections when that wealthy person passes away.

Even outside the collections that almost every wealthy person has there are the "living expenses" - those involved in the design and building of their custom houses, the clothing designers, clothing consultants, tailors, and dry cleaners, the "assistants" who hunt far and wide to find just the right look (be that for a room, a party, their clothes, or even their wallets lol), the dog walkers, house cleaners, yard maintainers, and light bulb changers. The pilots and drivers and travel agents, the security agents, private tutors, barbers/hair stylists and makeup artists.

Where you choose to see greed and excess, I see an opportunity waiting to be tapped. All some local really has to do is catch a wealthy persons attention and the money comes easy, and usually consistently. For example, up here a young artist is making more than she ever dreamed making Norwegian welcoming stars (local phenom perhaps I can't find a pic; they're hung in windows, made of bamboo or cardboard, and the body of the star is "pierced" to allow the interior light through in intricate patterns, they're beautiful) Anyway she put them out at the Christmas fair on base and they immediately went off the charts, /everyone/ who was /anyone/ had to have one, and send them to their friends and family down south. Before that it was chain saw carved statuettes and outdoor benches (still all over the place, and in fact there's a whole new "industry" of re-sealers who maintain them), before that it was Native Alaskan skin masks (Native Alaskan's are a bit of a different situation though, there's a lot of respect for their culture and heritage so their artwork regularly goes berserk up here, they often end up hiring their entire village to keep up with the demand and we wealthy Alaskan's like that so there is almost /always/ something coming out of the Bush that's "a must have.") Try looking around at the wealthy neighborhoods, you will see the trends, and perhaps make the connection that behind each of those "silly things" is someone's livelihood, someones dream, someone's success. (Up here it's a bit more lofty, those Alaskan arts are a communal modern septic system for a village, a village power plant, or a trip to Anchorage or Fairbanks college for their kids.)

So what is "excessive"? Such a thing is entirely to subjective to ever put into any rule or standard.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Because I believe in private property and don't believe anyone has the right to impose their beliefs on others.

So you're opposed to all laws.?? THINK

 

[MikeK]

[...]

So what is "excessive"? Such a thing is entirely to subjective to ever put into any rule or standard.

Is it?

I'm talking about hundreds of billions of dollars stashed in offshore banks by a select few individuals for the express purpose of evading taxes and hiding the excessive hoard. But your concept of wealth is some Norwegian woman who crafts and sells decorative bamboo stars to hang a window.

I think you should spend a few lucid minutes concentrating on just how much a billion is, then ten billion, then fifty billion. Then give some thought to what it takes for an individual to "earn" that kind of wealth. Then read a few basic books on economics and learn how hoarding that level of wealth damages the finite nature of a nation's wealth, therefore its economy.

But first, what I strongly recommend you do is spend the time it takes to view the Inside Job video available to you FREE on my signature line (below). Learn how multi-billion dollar wealth hoards are "earned." Then try to learn the difference between pathological greed and rational ambition. Because it's obvious you haven't the slightest awareness that there is a difference.

I am done with you.

 

[Rustic]

[...]

So what is "excessive"? Such a thing is entirely to subjective to ever put into any rule or standard.

Is it?

I'm talking about hundreds of billions of dollars stashed in offshore banks by a select few individuals for the express purpose of evading taxes and hiding the excessive hoard. But your concept of wealth is some Norwegian woman who crafts and sells decorative bamboo stars to hang a window.

I think you should spend a few lucid minutes concentrating on just how much a billion is, then ten billion, then fifty billion. Then give some thought to what it takes for an individual to "earn" that kind of wealth. Then read a few basic books on economics and learn how hoarding that level of wealth damages the finite nature of a nation's wealth, therefore its economy.

But first, what I strongly recommend you do is spend the time it takes to view the Inside Job video available to you FREE on my signature line (below). Learn how multi-billion dollar wealth hoards are "earned." Then try to learn the difference between pathological greed and rational ambition. Because it's obvious you haven't the slightest awareness that there is a difference.

I am done with you.

We are piss ant like you think it's their business to know what other people make. fucking dumbass
Lol

 

[EverCurious]

heh The reason the banks and companies hold their money outside the country is because in order to bring it into the country they are double taxed upon it. Of course they don't want to loose an additional 35% of their profits just to spend in America, why should they, when they could bring it into a much more tax friendly country?

Still it is good that we know your idea's are not about "the little people" who might benefit from the wealth of their local community, but rather to /punish/ those you personally believe are acting "wrongly." So ultimately, as I noted, your ideal boils entirely down to a subjective opinion of how you personally believe someone should be allowed to spend their own money.

There is no level at which I believe /stealing/ from someone else becomes right.

 

[hunarcy]

Twenty million dollars in personal assets is quite a bit of private property---Yep, but it's not your business how much another accumulates. It's not like it's coming out of your pocket.


Do you believe developers of the IRS Code have a right to impose their beliefs on others? --That'd be Congress and while people like you are perverting the system, it was fair at one time.


Do you believe those who impose speed limits on roads and highways have a right and a good reason for doing so? --Apples and oranges. The limits on speed are an attempt to protect other's rights, not take away the private property rights of others.

Do you believe those who have imposed limits on the type of weapons a private citizen may own have a right to do so?--No, because it's a waste of time. We should only try to control behaviors that threaten the rights of others, not the objects used by those who don't control themselves. I also don't support banning spoons for those who eat ice cream.

Do you believe that wealth produced by American citizens is made possible by exploiting the exceptional resources of the material, human and administrative resources of this Nation and therefore exists as a de facto resource of this Nation?--No, I believe that wealth is created by the effort and time of individuals that meet the needs of their customers. What natural resources did Mark Zuckerberg use to make his fortune?

Do you believe that individuals who contrive the means by which to accumulate and hoard exceptional amounts of wealth, thereby disrupting the balance and flow of the Nation's wealth resource, should have a legal or moral right to do so?--Of course not. In fact, I reject that premise out of hand.

 

[hunarcy]

Because I believe in private property and don't believe anyone has the right to impose their beliefs on others.

So you're opposed to all laws.?? THINK

That's too stupid to deserve a response. A law that protects the rights of others does not impose beliefs. My belief might be to worship a purple butterfly. Laws should protect my right to believe what I believe without trying to force me to change m beliefs. I should also be free to believe in human sacrifice, but not free to force someone else to be that sacrifice.

 

[MikeK]

That so many who so vigorously defend the right to deviously and often criminally accumulate and hoard vast sums of the Nation's wealth resource usually haven't a pot to piss in and probably will never pay off their credit card debt is a frequent source of amusement.

 

[EverCurious]

LOL you think the wealthy have credit card debts? Sorry, no, most of us pay them off monthly.