Confirmed! Rich People Live Off The Work Of Others!

[Two Thumbs]

And seriously..what has the 5 people that currently control more wealth then 90 million people, done, to "earn" it. Walmart, on the whole, has extracted wealth from America.

Absolute, unadulterated, horse shit.

business cannot extract wealth. It's simply impossible.

 

[Crackerjack]

The amount of inherited wealth in this country is barely significant. So we're back to people earning money via hard work.

For the richest, that's not generally the case. You know that.

Prove it.

Why do you want to penalize people who earned their money via hard work?

That shoe would be on your foot. You want to balance the budget on the backs of workers, and give favors to those who earn through speculation.

I do? Where did I say that? Link to it.

 

[Crackerjack]

One more time: how do the folks posting in this thread make their money?

I go find homeless people out on the street and steal their money. Also, I take all the pennies from those jars next to cash registers at the convenience stores. It's a remarkably lucrative endeavor.

 

[Crackerjack]

Maybe they should burn Mr. Burns' house.

Better yet, they should make him pay his fair share of taxes.

Yeah. "Fair share" is a bullshit term that class-envious losers came up with to justify theft.

Anyway, people like you won't go do the stealing yourself. You just elect others to hire people with guns to do it for you. I might actually respect you if you had the balls to do the dirty work yourself.

There's lots of things we don't have to do ourselves. Like build roads. Do you build all the roads you use? Its dirty work, but apparently you're fine with electing others to hire people with tools and big trucks to do the work for you.

That's a little different than armed robbery.

Look at the 16th amendment. It grants Congress the power to levy a tax on income. Period. Its not theft when its Constitutional - unless of course you believe the Constitution itself to be a fascist document.

Slavery was not illegal because it was in the Constitution. Legal does not necessarily equal moral.

BTW, I don't know anyone who has had a gun pointed at them to force them to pay taxes. Most people just pay them. If they don't, the IRS can make them pay their taxes by taking their assets in lieu of payment. If that asset is their home, they might have to be forcibly removed, but a law enforcement officer would not point a loaded gun at them unless he had reason to believe they posed a serious threat to either himself or others.

So, in other words, they are compelled to pay by threat of force. The analogy stands.

So you're just wrong on all counts.

Ah, no. Try again.

 

[Sundial]

We ALL live off the work of others, of course. There isn't one person reading this who is not benefitting from the work other have done.

But those with capital also benefit from the work their capital does for them.

This is one of the DUH! posts, isn't it?

Seriously...who does not already understand this?

Capital doesn't do work.

 

[Sundial]

I'm not concerned with determining whether somebody "deserves" their income, so much as with exposing a particularly obnoxious lie - that working people live off the largesse of the rich.

By replacing it with an equally insidious lie - that profits are leached from the hard work of others? Yeah, lets avoid honest understanding of the free market, whatever we do.

Well if you agree with me on the first point, then we're halfway there. Do you agree with me?

 

[dblack]

I'm not concerned with determining whether somebody "deserves" their income, so much as with exposing a particularly obnoxious lie - that working people live off the largesse of the rich.

By replacing it with an equally insidious lie - that profits are leached from the hard work of others? Yeah, lets avoid honest understanding of the free market, whatever we do.

Well if you agree with me on the first point, then we're halfway there. Do you agree with me?

Do you mean that "working people live off the largesse of the rich" is an obnoxious lie, yes of course. I just don't see any point in exaggerating in the other direction.

 

[Oddball]

There's lots of things we don't have to do ourselves. Like build roads. Do you build all the roads you use? Its dirty work, but apparently you're fine with electing others to hire people with tools and big trucks to do the work for you.

Bullshit red herring leftloon yapping point...Roads and bridges are funded by fuel taxes, not the income tax.

BTW, I don't know anyone who has had a gun pointed at them to force them to pay taxes. Most people just pay them. If they don't, the IRS can make them pay their taxes by taking their assets in lieu of payment. If that asset is their home, they might have to be forcibly removed, but a law enforcement officer would not point a loaded gun at them unless he had reason to believe they posed a serious threat to either himself or others.

Go ahead and refuse to pay your taxes and the CID boys -the ones with the guns- will be along sooner or later....Resist having your home or other property taken from you and the possibility exists that those weapons may will be put to use, if for no other reason to be pointed in your face.

Gubmint, by it's very nature, has a monopoly on the use of physical force to get its way...So the one here who is dead wrong is you, pal.

 

[dblack]

In the production of real wealth (goods and services), the following things are required:

1) Natural resources;
2) Infrastructure;
3) Creativity and organization; and
4) Labor.

We have a system that grants ownership of the goods and services produced to those who own the infrastructure. Those who own the natural resources, provide the creativity and organization, and do the work have no ownership of the products. Profits are equal to the market value of all goods or services sold, lest the cost of the natural resources, creativity, organization, and labor needed to produce them, and less any overhead costs of the infrastructure.

It follows from the above that capitalists make their wealth by skimming off the labor (and creativity) of others, except in the rare circumstance when the owner of the infrastructure also supplies all of the labor himself. And even in that case, where the owner of the goods and services produced also did all the work to produce them, he doesn't own them because he produced them. He owns them because he owns the infrastructure used to produce them.

Why do we have a system that is organized this way, that values ownership of infrastructure and consigns labor to being a market commodity? Because the owners of infrastructure are inherently wealthy and powerful people who are able to influence the rules of the game. There is no reason it has to be that way -- and it may in fact be changing. We may not have a capitalist economy for much longer.

Yes. This is the usual socialist line and, as usual, it leaves out the important role of resource allocation. That job doesn't 'just happen'. Someone one has to decide which projects go forward, and which do not. In a free market, those decisions are made by investors. If they make good decisions, they profit, and worthwhile work is done by everyone participating. If they fail, they lose money, and the efforts of all participating go to waste.

 

[dblack]

We ALL live off the work of others, of course. There isn't one person reading this who is not benefitting from the work other have done.

But those with capital also benefit from the work their capital does for them.

This is one of the DUH! posts, isn't it?

Seriously...who does not already understand this?

Capital doesn't do work.

No, but owners of capital do. The function of 'ownership' of capital assigns the role of deciding what happens with that capital. This is an important job in any economy, but it's especially important in large complex economies. With large scale projects, it's crucial that we aren't wasting our time on worthless endeavors. That's why capitalists can make so much money, and why they can lose so much of they do their job poorly.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yeah. "Fair share" is a bullshit term that class-envious losers came up with to justify theft.

Anyway, people like you won't go do the stealing yourself. You just elect others to hire people with guns to do it for you. I might actually respect you if you had the balls to do the dirty work yourself.

There's lots of things we don't have to do ourselves. Like build roads. Do you build all the roads you use? Its dirty work, but apparently you're fine with electing others to hire people with tools and big trucks to do the work for you.

That's a little different than armed robbery.

So is paying taxes.

Slavery was not illegal because it was in the Constitution. Legal does not necessarily equal moral.

So you think the Constitution, in its present form, is immoral? If not, what's your point? Because it says in the 16th amendment Congress has the power to tax income. So the Constitution is just wrong, in your opinion? Should it therefore be disobeyed? I suppose you liken people who just don't wanna pay taxes to those who risked life and limb to run slaves to freedom on the underground railroad? Same sorta thing I guess, at least that's what your comment implies. If not - please, by all means, correct my misunderstanding.

 

[Crackerjack]

There's lots of things we don't have to do ourselves. Like build roads. Do you build all the roads you use? Its dirty work, but apparently you're fine with electing others to hire people with tools and big trucks to do the work for you.

That's a little different than armed robbery.

So is paying taxes.

Are taxes voluntary? No.

Slavery was not illegal because it was in the Constitution. Legal does not necessarily equal moral.

So you think the Constitution, in its present form, is immoral? If not, what's your point? Because it says in the 16th amendment Congress has the power to tax income. So the Constitution is just wrong, in your opinion?

It's immoral, yes.

Should it therefore be disobeyed? I suppose you liken people who just don't wanna pay taxes to those who risked life and limb to run slaves to freedom on the underground railroad?

I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth. I believe the law should be obeyed in this instance. However, the law should be changed.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

That's a little different than armed robbery.

So is paying taxes.

Are taxes voluntary? No.

From the standpoint that there are legal penalties for not paying them, no, they aren't voluntary But neither is obeying a stop sign. I don't see your point.

So you think the Constitution, in its present form, is immoral? If not, what's your point? Because it says in the 16th amendment Congress has the power to tax income. So the Constitution is just wrong, in your opinion?

It's immoral, yes.

The Constitution is immoral? OK, so you're against the Constitution, and we should just ignore it? And the only way to fix it is to get rid of taxes? How exactly do you propose government fund its operations then? Bake sales?

 

[Oddball]

Try telling Wesley Snipes how refusing to pay the income tax is on a par with running a stop sign, fool.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Try telling Wesley Snipes how refusing to pay the income tax is on a par with running a stop sign, fool.

Uhh, OK. I never said they were "on par". I said both paying taxes and obeying stop signs are not voluntary in the sense that there are legal penalties for violating those laws. Am I wrong?

 

[Oddball]

Yeah, right.

Go ahead and "volunteer" not to pay the income tax, you fool.

 

[Dragon]

Yes. This is the usual socialist line and, as usual, it leaves out the important role of resource allocation. That job doesn't 'just happen'.

All right, but our system does not treat that particular job as labor. It treats it as the privilege of owner class -- sort of like the King having the "job" of siring an heir. (If the Queen's hot, I'll be happy to undertake the task on his behalf . . . won't even charge a dime.)

If we did treat the job of allocating resources like any other job (and it is in fact a job in some contexts, with a hired agent asked to manage investments), then it would have a limited value like any other job, and not entitle the person doing it to own all of the products produced.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yeah, right.

Go ahead and "volunteer" not to pay the income tax, you fool.

Do you have a learning disability? Did you ever learn to comprehend English?

I said both paying taxes and obeying stop signs are not voluntary in the sense that there are legal penalties for violating those laws. Am I wrong?

 

[Crackerjack]

So is paying taxes.

Are taxes voluntary? No.

From the standpoint that there are legal penalties for not paying them, no, they aren't voluntary But neither is obeying a stop sign. I don't see your point.

It is different because the contractors the government hires are doing a task that is not immoral. The IRS is doing a task that is immoral, namely extracting from people their wealth without consent. That was the point I was trying to make above.

So you think the Constitution, in its present form, is immoral? If not, what's your point? Because it says in the 16th amendment Congress has the power to tax income. So the Constitution is just wrong, in your opinion?

It's immoral, yes.

The Constitution is immoral? OK, so you're against the Constitution, and we should just ignore it? And the only way to fix it is to get rid of taxes? How exactly do you propose government fund its operations then? Bake sales?

Not all of the Constitution is immoral. However, it is immoral to extract wealth from people without their consent. What I believe to be moral are voluntary taxes, like sales taxes and that sort of thing. And if that's not sufficient for the government to fund its operations, the government needs to scale back its operations.

 

[Crackerjack]

By the way, it is interesting to note that Harry Reid believes taxation is voluntary in this country:

[youtube]R7mRSI8yWwg[/youtube]
​