Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Dad2three]

DON''T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE ON YEARLY BUDGETS VERSUS DEBT AND DEFICITS/SURPLUSES HUH?

Fuck your cut & paste, if you want to try and discuss, then YOUR words are all I will respond to.

Now listen up you fucking moron, federal law states that any and all surplus MUST SERVICE THE DEBT. Do you grasp that? Does that get through your shit encrusted skull. You get it dumbfuck? IF there is a surplus, it MUST be used to pay down the debt - Comprehend, stupid fuck? IF the budget has a surplus, that has to be used for the debt, understand, shitferbrains?

SINCE any surplus MUST BY LAW service the debt, then the debt must decline when there is a surplus.

SINCE it did not, this demonstrates that either Clinton violated federal law and embezzled the surplus, or there WAS NO SURPLUS - get it, stupid?

I'm convinced Dad's only intent in this thread is to steer discussion away from the topic with partisan bickering. The last thing statists want is thoughtful examination of their morals.

Morals? lol

As right wingers LOVE war and the attack on those less fortunate!

WE ARE CALLED A SOCIETY, WITH LAWS AS A SOCIETY WE'VE DECIDED NEEDS TOP BE FUNDED VIA A MORALLY ACCEPTABLE TAX STRUCTURE!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, because it's good to have Kochs/Walton's inheriting billions *shaking head*

If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.





Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers

Yes, because it's good to have Kochs/Walton's inheriting billions *shaking head*

Everything belongs to the state!!!
Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

No, most of the money was made in Somalia, Gov't and US society didn't benefit those 'job creators' at all right Bubba?

Kochs and Waltons made money in Somalia? Please explain further.

 

[Dad2three]

STILL can do it, nearly $5.4 million PER person is excluded.

I know. Just awful!!!

True, it should be about $2 million per person

It should be unlimited.

Opinion.

Most of the US Founders thought would lead US back to an Aristocracy we overthrew. Go figure conservatives prefer that system again...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Yes, because it's good to have Kochs/Walton's inheriting billions *shaking head*

right!!!! we can't have parents giving money to their kids and giving them any other advantages either like super high IQ's, for example. We need a Nazi liberal govt to step in with guns to even the playing field against parenting!

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to
others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of
association--the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." --38)Thomas Jefferson: Note
in Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816.

 

[Dad2three]

But software-led advances in seismic analysis and drilling techniques have cut that risk down.

There could be zero risk. So what? Drilling expense is still a business expense.

Nope, it's an expense afforded to THAT industry only, WHEN that industry makes record profits and is over 100+ years old...

It's true, only industries that drill get to deduct drilling expenses.

Just as every other business gets to deduct their legitimate business expenses. No matter what their level of profit. So?

They could deduct the expenses as other industries do, BUT what they get today is a SPECIAL (faster/more inclusive) deduction other industries do not get!

 

[Dad2three]

Yes, because it's good to have Kochs/Walton's inheriting billions *shaking head*

Everything belongs to the state!!!
Kill the greedy kulaks, eh comrade?

No, most of the money was made in Somalia, Gov't and US society didn't benefit those 'job creators' at all right Bubba?

Kochs and Waltons made money in Somalia? Please explain further.

Logic and reasoning as well as snark escapes you. I'm shocked

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

True, it should be about $2 million per person

It should be unlimited.

Opinion.

Most of the US Founders thought would lead US back to an Aristocracy we overthrew. Go figure conservatives prefer that system again...

I don't cry when families get to keep their money.
The idea of the government not getting every single dollar when someone dies does not make me sad.

How much will the government get when Bill Gates or Warren Buffet die?

It seems they aren't afraid to deny the government of money either.

 

[Dad2three]

That sure is a graph.

Weird how GOP Prez's increase the deficits right?

I'd hate to see the graph that shows that Dem Prez's increase. Makes Bush look like a piker.

Sure, because Dubya left US in such a sweet spot with 4% unemployment and surpluses as far as the eyes could see...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nope, it's an expense afforded to THAT industry only, WHEN that industry makes record profits and is over 100+ years old...

It's true, only industries that drill get to deduct drilling expenses.

Just as every other business gets to deduct their legitimate business expenses. No matter what their level of profit. So?

They could deduct the expenses as other industries do, BUT what they get today is a SPECIAL (faster/more inclusive) deduction other industries do not get!

I'd have no problem with every business getting an immediate 100% deduction of expenses.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, most of the money was made in Somalia, Gov't and US society didn't benefit those 'job creators' at all right Bubba?

Kochs and Waltons made money in Somalia? Please explain further.

Logic and reasoning as well as snark escapes you. I'm shocked

So they didn't make money in Somalia?

It's hard to tell your jokes from your usual idiotic comments.

 

[Dad2three]

It should be unlimited.

Opinion.

Most of the US Founders thought would lead US back to an Aristocracy we overthrew. Go figure conservatives prefer that system again...

I don't cry when families get to keep their money.
The idea of the government not getting every single dollar when someone dies does not make me sad.

How much will the government get when Bill Gates or Warren Buffet die?

It seems they aren't afraid to deny the government of money either.

If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.


Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Weird how GOP Prez's increase the deficits right?

I'd hate to see the graph that shows that Dem Prez's increase. Makes Bush look like a piker.

Sure, because Dubya left US in such a sweet spot with 4% unemployment and surpluses as far as the eyes could see...

Makes Bush look like a piker.

 

[zeke]

It's true, only industries that drill get to deduct drilling expenses.

Just as every other business gets to deduct their legitimate business expenses. No matter what their level of profit. So?

They could deduct the expenses as other industries do, BUT what they get today is a SPECIAL (faster/more inclusive) deduction other industries do not get!

I'd have no problem with every business getting an immediate 100% deduction of expenses.

LMAO. You'd have no problem if no one ever paid an income tax again.

But you can't say what would happen as a consequence of doing that.

And that's in itself is a problem.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

WE ARE CALLED A SOCIETY, WITH LAWS AS A SOCIETY WE'VE DECIDED NEEDS TOP BE FUNDED VIA A MORALLY ACCEPTABLE TAX STRUCTURE!

whats moral is that everyone pay the same price for govt just like they pay the same price in the supermarket. Does the liberal want the rich to pay more in the supermarket too?

Also, in a free county if you don't want Steve Jobs to have so much money convince people not to buy his products, not to use govt guns to steal the money back.
Suppose the rich got together and used govt to steal back their products after they were purchased?

 

[Dad2three]

Kochs and Waltons made money in Somalia? Please explain further.

Logic and reasoning as well as snark escapes you. I'm shocked

So they didn't make money in Somalia?

It's hard to tell your jokes from your usual idiotic comments.

IF they did, they probably would be as rich as you... Considering how well libertarian philosophy REALLY works!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Opinion.

Most of the US Founders thought would lead US back to an Aristocracy we overthrew. Go figure conservatives prefer that system again...

I don't cry when families get to keep their money.
The idea of the government not getting every single dollar when someone dies does not make me sad.

How much will the government get when Bill Gates or Warren Buffet die?

It seems they aren't afraid to deny the government of money either.

If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.


Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog: Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and other fellow travelers

I'm sure they'd agree the government is more responsible when it comes to spending money.

 

[bripat9643]

Fuck your cut & paste, if you want to try and discuss, then YOUR words are all I will respond to.

Now listen up you fucking moron, federal law states that any and all surplus MUST SERVICE THE DEBT. Do you grasp that? Does that get through your shit encrusted skull. You get it dumbfuck? IF there is a surplus, it MUST be used to pay down the debt - Comprehend, stupid fuck? IF the budget has a surplus, that has to be used for the debt, understand, shitferbrains?

SINCE any surplus MUST BY LAW service the debt, then the debt must decline when there is a surplus.

SINCE it did not, this demonstrates that either Clinton violated federal law and embezzled the surplus, or there WAS NO SURPLUS - get it, stupid?

I'm convinced Dad's only intent in this thread is to steer discussion away from the topic with partisan bickering. The last thing statists want is thoughtful examination of their morals.

Morals? lol

As right wingers LOVE war and the attack on those less fortunate!

WE ARE CALLED A SOCIETY, WITH LAWS AS A SOCIETY WE'VE DECIDED NEEDS TOP BE FUNDED VIA A MORALLY ACCEPTABLE TAX STRUCTURE!

We haven't decided any such thing. The phrase "we are a society" is absolutely meaningless."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They could deduct the expenses as other industries do, BUT what they get today is a SPECIAL (faster/more inclusive) deduction other industries do not get!

I'd have no problem with every business getting an immediate 100% deduction of expenses.

LMAO. You'd have no problem if no one ever paid an income tax again.

But you can't say what would happen as a consequence of doing that.

And that's in itself is a problem.

Immediate deduction of expenses would not eliminate payment of income taxes. Sorry.

 

[dblack]

Fuck your cut & paste, if you want to try and discuss, then YOUR words are all I will respond to.

Now listen up you fucking moron, federal law states that any and all surplus MUST SERVICE THE DEBT. Do you grasp that? Does that get through your shit encrusted skull. You get it dumbfuck? IF there is a surplus, it MUST be used to pay down the debt - Comprehend, stupid fuck? IF the budget has a surplus, that has to be used for the debt, understand, shitferbrains?

SINCE any surplus MUST BY LAW service the debt, then the debt must decline when there is a surplus.

SINCE it did not, this demonstrates that either Clinton violated federal law and embezzled the surplus, or there WAS NO SURPLUS - get it, stupid?

I'm convinced Dad's only intent in this thread is to steer discussion away from the topic with partisan bickering. The last thing statists want is thoughtful examination of their morals.

Morals? lol

As right wingers LOVE war and the attack on those less fortunate!

Yes morals. The morality of wealth redistribution. I'm not interested in your left/right nonsense.

WE ARE CALLED A SOCIETY, WITH LAWS AS A SOCIETY WE'VE DECIDED NEEDS TOP BE FUNDED VIA A MORALLY ACCEPTABLE TAX STRUCTURE!

The question of the thread is whether that tax structure is truly moral, or simply endorsed by consensus.

 

[Dad2three]

WE ARE CALLED A SOCIETY, WITH LAWS AS A SOCIETY WE'VE DECIDED NEEDS TOP BE FUNDED VIA A MORALLY ACCEPTABLE TAX STRUCTURE!

whats moral is that everyone pay the same price for govt just like they pay the same price in the supermarket. Does the liberal want the rich to pay more in the supermarket too?

Also, in a free county if you don't want Steve Jobs to have so much money convince people not to buy his products, not to use govt guns to steal the money back.
Suppose the rich got together and used govt to steal back their products after they were purchased?

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

Benjamin Franklin