Unacceptable Redistribution of Wealth

[Varth Dader]

(A) OF COURSE taxation is confiscating our wealth.

(B) That which we voluntarily agree to pay for goods and services is not even remotely akin to confiscation.

Sorry, sithy-liberoidal, but words have actual meaning and thus your ignorant arguments carry absolutely no weight.

You voluntarily agree to live in society. That includes paying your taxes and paying the grocery store when you get food there.

No one is forcing you to do either, but if you don't pay your taxes or steal the food from the grocery store, someone won't be happy and will come after you.

And like I said, eating isn't really voluntary. Voluntary is buying an ipod or going to the beach on a sunny day. Eating, drinking, sleeping are all basic needs you can't just skip over.

Your version of libtarded argumentation is incapable of persuading anybody of pretty much anything.

I live in a society I care about. I DO agree to pay my taxes. In fact, I agree that my government is leigitmate primarily because of the compact I have with them and they with me. The Constitution.

They regularly transgress the Constitution and i am getting progressively more and more pissed off by their transgressions.

The Constitution LIMITS their powers. Their refusal to abide by the restrictions means that the limits get bent, distorted and otherwise violated or broken. ONe of the limits is that any law that violates the Constitution is VOID.

So when I AGREE to pay my taxes (which they threaten to take by force, anyway -- getting us back to confiscation) it is SUPPOSED to be on the basis that the government will engage in those limited powers ONLY.

There is no valid comparison to food shopping. Your argument was absurd from jump. I can haggle with any merchant. Sure, I DO need food. Lots of folks need my services too. They can haggle with me over the fees or costs. It's all good. I don't stick a gun to their heads, nor they to mine.

Can't honestly say that about the Fed. gubmint.

If I do not like Waldbaum's costs for my groceries, I can go to A&P etc. If I don't care for what the Fed. gubmint is doing, I am not really able to shop around and not much inclined to, anyway. I'd prefer to just work toward MAKING the Fed'l gubmint abide by the rules.

If you don't like the US Taxation system, there are over a hundread countries around the world, each with a different taxation system.

The point is that to claim that taxation is confiscation is the result of looking at taxes through a biased prism. It's using a loaded word when the reality is way more complex. You get something in exchange for these taxes (i.e. services) and it's what allows the system to work and permit people to make wealth.

The word "confiscation" should be reserved for the cases where what is taken is beyond the scope of day to day taxation. Plus, constitutionality shouldn't really be the issue, because a law could be unconstitutional yet not constitute confiscation.

 

[Contumacious]

..It's hard to focus on your education when all you can think about is your HUNGER!

Ah , excuse me ...but LBJ began the War Against Poverty" in 1965 - are we close to winning yet, if not, why not?!?!?!?!!?


.

Why not? Well maybe because fewer and fewer control more and more of this countries wealth. The last time SO MUCH wealth was controlled by SO FEW we had the great depression.

Really?

Or is it because the welfare state purveyors have destroyed the motivation of 50% of the population who are now hooked on federal largesse?

The welfare state demagogues are as bad as your neighborhood crack peddler.


.

 

[Contumacious]

You voluntarily agree to live in society. That includes paying your taxes and paying the grocery store when you get food there.

No one is forcing you to do either, but if you don't pay your taxes or steal the food from the grocery store, someone won't be happy and will come after you.

And like I said, eating isn't really voluntary. Voluntary is buying an ipod or going to the beach on a sunny day. Eating, drinking, sleeping are all basic needs you can't just skip over.

Your version of libtarded argumentation is incapable of persuading anybody of pretty much anything.

I live in a society I care about. I DO agree to pay my taxes. In fact, I agree that my government is leigitmate primarily because of the compact I have with them and they with me. The Constitution.

They regularly transgress the Constitution and i am getting progressively more and more pissed off by their transgressions.

The Constitution LIMITS their powers. Their refusal to abide by the restrictions means that the limits get bent, distorted and otherwise violated or broken. ONe of the limits is that any law that violates the Constitution is VOID.

So when I AGREE to pay my taxes (which they threaten to take by force, anyway -- getting us back to confiscation) it is SUPPOSED to be on the basis that the government will engage in those limited powers ONLY.

There is no valid comparison to food shopping. Your argument was absurd from jump. I can haggle with any merchant. Sure, I DO need food. Lots of folks need my services too. They can haggle with me over the fees or costs. It's all good. I don't stick a gun to their heads, nor they to mine.

Can't honestly say that about the Fed. gubmint.

If I do not like Waldbaum's costs for my groceries, I can go to A&P etc. If I don't care for what the Fed. gubmint is doing, I am not really able to shop around and not much inclined to, anyway. I'd prefer to just work toward MAKING the Fed'l gubmint abide by the rules.

If you don't like the US Taxation system, there are over a hundread countries around the world, each with a different taxation system.

The point is that to claim that taxation is confiscation is the result of looking at taxes through a biased prism. It's using a loaded word when the reality is way more complex. You get something in exchange for these taxes (i.e. services) and it's what allows the system to work and permit people to make wealth.

The word "confiscation" should be reserved for the cases where what is taken is beyond the scope of day to day taxation. Plus, constitutionality shouldn't really be the issue, because a law could be unconstitutional yet not constitute confiscation.

Would you be honest enough to disclose the amount of food stamps and other federal largesse that you are receiving.


.

 

[Liability]

You voluntarily agree to live in society. That includes paying your taxes and paying the grocery store when you get food there.

No one is forcing you to do either, but if you don't pay your taxes or steal the food from the grocery store, someone won't be happy and will come after you.

And like I said, eating isn't really voluntary. Voluntary is buying an ipod or going to the beach on a sunny day. Eating, drinking, sleeping are all basic needs you can't just skip over.

Your version of libtarded argumentation is incapable of persuading anybody of pretty much anything.

I live in a society I care about. I DO agree to pay my taxes. In fact, I agree that my government is leigitmate primarily because of the compact I have with them and they with me. The Constitution.

They regularly transgress the Constitution and i am getting progressively more and more pissed off by their transgressions.

The Constitution LIMITS their powers. Their refusal to abide by the restrictions means that the limits get bent, distorted and otherwise violated or broken. ONe of the limits is that any law that violates the Constitution is VOID.

So when I AGREE to pay my taxes (which they threaten to take by force, anyway -- getting us back to confiscation) it is SUPPOSED to be on the basis that the government will engage in those limited powers ONLY.

There is no valid comparison to food shopping. Your argument was absurd from jump. I can haggle with any merchant. Sure, I DO need food. Lots of folks need my services too. They can haggle with me over the fees or costs. It's all good. I don't stick a gun to their heads, nor they to mine.

Can't honestly say that about the Fed. gubmint.

If I do not like Waldbaum's costs for my groceries, I can go to A&P etc. If I don't care for what the Fed. gubmint is doing, I am not really able to shop around and not much inclined to, anyway. I'd prefer to just work toward MAKING the Fed'l gubmint abide by the rules.

If you don't like the US Taxation system, there are over a hundread countries around the world, each with a different taxation system.

Stupid response. I already told you I choose to stay HERe and work toward getting my government to abide by its proper legal restraints.

The point is that to claim that taxation is confiscation is the result of looking at taxes through a biased prism. It's using a loaded word when the reality is way more complex. You get something in exchange for these taxes (i.e. services) and it's what allows the system to work and permit people to make wealth.

To DENY that it's confiscation is to view it through YOUR biased lib-prism. It IS confiscation, pure and simple. Words have meaning, and I used the word properly. I already TOLD you, moreover, that I DO agree to pay some taxes -- but for legitimate uses. I never argued that I don't get something out of it. If I didn't, I WOULD object to any and all taxation.

The word "confiscation" should be reserved for the cases where what is taken is beyond the scope of day to day taxation. Plus, constitutionality shouldn't really be the issue, because a law could be unconstitutional yet not constitute confiscation.

The term "confiscation" is used properly and I don't care that you object to the proper word being properly employed. You are free to use whatever word YOU deem most approrpriate. But, it is still what it is, regardless of what you call it.


Here: let me help you out.

confiscated

con·fis·cate (knf-skt)
tr.v. con·fis·cat·ed, con·fis·cat·ing, con·fis·cates
1. To seize (private property) for the public treasury.
2. To seize by or as if by authority. See Synonyms at appropriate.
adj. (knf-skt, kn-fskt)
1. Seized by a government; appropriated.
2. Having lost property through confiscation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Latin cnfiscre, cnfisct : com-, com- + fiscus, treasury.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

confis·cation n.
confis·cator n.
con·fisca·tory (kn-fsk-tôr, -tr) adj.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

confiscated - definition of confiscated by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

It takes a special kind of dyed in the wool LEFTwinger to make the class warfare argument to another person who considers himself successful and well-off. What an idiotic thing for leftwinger to say.

Almost every person in America is "rich" by the standards of a whole lot of the less fortunate majority of people subsisting here on planet Earth. But, as measured WITHIN the American population, rich can be a relative term. I do not consider myself rich, but it is probable that something like 95%+ of the folks on Earth would happily switch places with me.

And as stupid as your argument is in principle, Leftwinger, it is also factually libtarded. Anybody making a half million dollars per year is indeed rivh. Are there some super rich folks who wouldn't consider that a major figure? Sure. So what?

Dumbass post of the day award contender LEFTwinger is hereby nominated!

Oh you bet that is why so many have to due without Meds, or without auto ins, or without HEAT, or without DECENT food. The fact is that the poor here make many times what the poor in other countries that does NOT not make them poor by our standards The people who are hurt most by poverty are the elderly and the young.....It's hard to focus on your education when all you can think about is your HUNGER!

they dont have to do without meds
check with the drug manufacturer, most have programs to GIVE their meds to those that need them but cant afford them

I know there are programs to HELP people get their meds but I think you over estimate their charity.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Oh you bet that is why so many have to due without Meds, or without auto ins, or without HEAT, or without DECENT food. The fact is that the poor here make many times what the poor in other countries that does NOT not make them poor by our standards The people who are hurt most by poverty are the elderly and the young.....It's hard to focus on your education when all you can think about is your HUNGER!

they dont have to do without meds
check with the drug manufacturer, most have programs to GIVE their meds to those that need them but cant afford them

I know there are programs to HELP people get their meds but I think you over estimate their charity.

How would you feel, if all of a sudden, we decided you weren't giving enough to the needy, came to your house, and started confiscating your property to give to others? Would you help us load the trucks up with your property, or would you fight against the confiscation, because we don't have the right to do that to you?

 

[DiveCon]

Oh you bet that is why so many have to due without Meds, or without auto ins, or without HEAT, or without DECENT food. The fact is that the poor here make many times what the poor in other countries that does NOT not make them poor by our standards The people who are hurt most by poverty are the elderly and the young.....It's hard to focus on your education when all you can think about is your HUNGER!

they dont have to do without meds
check with the drug manufacturer, most have programs to GIVE their meds to those that need them but cant afford them

I know there are programs to HELP people get their meds but I think you over estimate their charity.

nope, you are under estimating

 

[Varth Dader]

Would you be honest enough to disclose the amount of food stamps and other federal largesse that you are receiving.


.

I would be, but I am not sure you would believe me...

 

[Liability]

they dont have to do without meds
check with the drug manufacturer, most have programs to GIVE their meds to those that need them but cant afford them

I know there are programs to HELP people get their meds but I think you over estimate their charity.

How would you feel, if all of a sudden, we decided you weren't giving enough to the needy, came to your house, and started confiscating your property to give to others? Would you help us load the trucks up with your property, or would you fight against the confiscation, because we don't have the right to do that to you?

"It belongs to you, so it's all ours!"

-- The new official liberal motto of the Democrat Parody and the United States Treasury!

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I know there are programs to HELP people get their meds but I think you over estimate their charity.

How would you feel, if all of a sudden, we decided you weren't giving enough to the needy, came to your house, and started confiscating your property to give to others? Would you help us load the trucks up with your property, or would you fight against the confiscation, because we don't have the right to do that to you?

"It belongs to you, so it's all ours!"

-- The new official liberal motto of the Democrat Parody and the United States Treasury!

That is the argument being put forth by many in the thread and in Washington. Like you and others, I reject that marxist crap.

It gives a person the welfare fuzzies.

 

[Varth Dader]

Stupid response. I already told you I choose to stay HERe and work toward getting my government to abide by its proper legal restraints.

So if you chose to stay here, then spare us the "the government is confiscating my property through taxes" argument.

To DENY that it's confiscation is to view it through YOUR biased lib-prism. It IS confiscation, pure and simple. Words have meaning, and I used the word properly. I already TOLD you, moreover, that I DO agree to pay some taxes -- but for legitimate uses. I never argued that I don't get something out of it. If I didn't, I WOULD object to any and all taxation.

...

confiscated

con·fis·cate (knf-skt)
tr.v. con·fis·cat·ed, con·fis·cat·ing, con·fis·cates
1. To seize (private property) for the public treasury.
2. To seize by or as if by authority. See Synonyms at appropriate.
adj. (knf-skt, kn-fskt)
1. Seized by a government; appropriated.
2. Having lost property through confiscation.

Maybe you can also enlighten us with the definition of the word, "to seize". So far, all you have established is that confiscation is a form a seizure.

Is the government also seizing you money when you go on a toll road? Is the government seizing the money of seniors when they have to pay copay through the drug plan of medicare?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Stupid response. I already told you I choose to stay HERe and work toward getting my government to abide by its proper legal restraints.

So if you chose to stay here, then spare us the "the government is confiscating my property through taxes" argument.

To DENY that it's confiscation is to view it through YOUR biased lib-prism. It IS confiscation, pure and simple. Words have meaning, and I used the word properly. I already TOLD you, moreover, that I DO agree to pay some taxes -- but for legitimate uses. I never argued that I don't get something out of it. If I didn't, I WOULD object to any and all taxation.

...

confiscated

con·fis·cate (knf-skt)
tr.v. con·fis·cat·ed, con·fis·cat·ing, con·fis·cates
1. To seize (private property) for the public treasury.
2. To seize by or as if by authority. See Synonyms at appropriate.
adj. (knf-skt, kn-fskt)
1. Seized by a government; appropriated.
2. Having lost property through confiscation.

Maybe you can also enlighten us with the definition of the word, "to seize". So far, all you have established is that confiscation is a form a seizure.






Is the government also seizing you money when you go on a toll road? Is the government seizing the money of seniors when they have to pay copay through the drug plan of medicare?

Oh I get it we should all have the right to refuse to pay for public services for which we disagree? Pretty fing selfish of you isn't it. I don't have any kids but I pay property taxes that go towards our schools. WHY don't I bitch about it? Because an educated populace has an INHERENT VALUE!

 

[dilloduck]

Stupid response. I already told you I choose to stay HERe and work toward getting my government to abide by its proper legal restraints.

So if you chose to stay here, then spare us the "the government is confiscating my property through taxes" argument.

To DENY that it's confiscation is to view it through YOUR biased lib-prism. It IS confiscation, pure and simple. Words have meaning, and I used the word properly. I already TOLD you, moreover, that I DO agree to pay some taxes -- but for legitimate uses. I never argued that I don't get something out of it. If I didn't, I WOULD object to any and all taxation.

...

confiscated



Maybe you can also enlighten us with the definition of the word, "to seize". So far, all you have established is that confiscation is a form a seizure.






Is the government also seizing you money when you go on a toll road? Is the government seizing the money of seniors when they have to pay copay through the drug plan of medicare?

Oh I get it we should all have the right to refuse to pay for public services for which we disagree? Pretty fing selfish of you isn't it. I don't have any kids but I pay property taxes that go towards our schools. WHY don't I bitch about it? Because an educated populace has an INHERENT VALUE!

You are getting ripped off

 

[Cold Fusion38]

How would you feel, if all of a sudden, we decided you weren't giving enough to the needy, came to your house, and started confiscating your property to give to others? Would you help us load the trucks up with your property, or would you fight against the confiscation, because we don't have the right to do that to you?

"It belongs to you, so it's all ours!"

-- The new official liberal motto of the Democrat Parody and the United States Treasury!

That is the argument being put forth by many in the thread and in Washington. Like you and others, I reject that marxist crap.

It gives a person the welfare fuzzies.

I'm pretty sure by the time "they" got to my mismated ten year old furnature they wouldn't really need it. But they could seize a couple of $50,000,000. yachts and I don't think they would be putting the owners at much of a loss since they probably have THREE MORE!

 

[alan1]

Oh I get it we should all have the right to refuse to pay for public services for which we disagree? Pretty fing selfish of you isn't it. I don't have any kids but I pay property taxes that go towards our schools. WHY don't I bitch about it? Because an educated populace has an INHERENT VALUE!

Did you get your dollars worth out of it? I'm guessing your property taxes educated somebody just enough to say, "Do you want fries with that?".

 

[Cold Fusion38]

they dont have to do without meds
check with the drug manufacturer, most have programs to GIVE their meds to those that need them but cant afford them

I know there are programs to HELP people get their meds but I think you over estimate their charity.

nope, you are under estimating

Even if they DO give out free meds which I doubt by the way they are doing so for the write off not due to there giving spirit.

 

[Liability]

Stupid response. I already told you I choose to stay HERe and work toward getting my government to abide by its proper legal restraints.

So if you chose to stay here, then spare us the "the government is confiscating my property through taxes" argument.

(Please try to apply your limited brain capacity to learning how to use the very simple quoite function.)

No. You are a moron. So, I'll spell it out for you again, stupid.

I BECAUSE I choose to stay here and BECAUSE I value this Republic and our government (as designed, if not as actually operated), I CHOOSE to object their improper confiscation of our wealth and work toward making hem knock that shit off.

There's nothing to "spare you." I couldn't give a rat's ass if you like it or not. I want the Government to ABIDE by the Constitution. In the way they go about confiscation of our wealth, they are most assuredly NOT abiding by the Constitutioon.

To DENY that it's confiscation is to view it through YOUR biased lib-prism. It IS confiscation, pure and simple. Words have meaning, and I used the word properly. I already TOLD you, moreover, that I DO agree to pay some taxes -- but for legitimate uses. I never argued that I don't get something out of it. If I didn't, I WOULD object to any and all taxation.

...

confiscated

con·fis·cate (knf-skt)
tr.v. con·fis·cat·ed, con·fis·cat·ing, con·fis·cates
1. To seize (private property) for the public treasury.
2. To seize by or as if by authority. See Synonyms at appropriate.
adj. (knf-skt, kn-fskt)
1. Seized by a government; appropriated.
2. Having lost property through confiscation.

Maybe you can also enlighten us with the definition of the word, "to seize". So far, all you have established is that confiscation is a form a seizure.

Is the government also seizing you money when you go on a toll road? Is the government seizing the money of seniors when they have to pay copay through the drug plan of medicare?

Maybe if you ask an adult to assist you, even YOU can figure out how to use an online dictionary. The meaning of "seize" has not changed. Look it up.

And "so far" I certainly DID demonstrate that taxation is a confiscation since the defintion of confiscate makes that crystal clear, moron.

The government is taking my money to pay for toll roads, but I am volunteering to pay it by choosing to take that road as opposed to some non-toll road which is far longer and much more inconvenient. It is also a FORM of taxation I happen to find worthy of approval.

Co-pays are part of a contract and, except for that co-pay which is paid to the likes of Medicare, most co-pays are paid to insurance companies, not the government. Complying with a contract is not akin to a seizure.

Go hit the dictionary. Try to put that little brain of yours in gear, too.

 

[alan1]

I know there are programs to HELP people get their meds but I think you over estimate their charity.

nope, you are under estimating

Even if they DO give out free meds which I doubt by the way they are doing so for the write off not due to there giving spirit.

Comma's are your friend, use them.
I'm not a grammar Nazi, but damn, it would be so much easier to understand you if you used a comma now and then.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

"It belongs to you, so it's all ours!"

-- The new official liberal motto of the Democrat Parody and the United States Treasury!

That is the argument being put forth by many in the thread and in Washington. Like you and others, I reject that marxist crap.

It gives a person the welfare fuzzies.

I'm pretty sure by the time "they" got to my mismated ten year old furnature they wouldn't really need it. But they could seize a couple of $50,000,000. yachts and I don't think they would be putting the owners at much of a loss since they probably have THREE MORE!

You didn't honestly answer the question. You sidestepped. If you had answered fully and honestly, it would have killed your argument. That is why you answered the way you did.

 

[oreo]

While we argue additional tax cuts for the wealthy and the merits of "trickle down" economics a strange thing has happened. The standard of living for working americans has fallen. We make less money than we did a decade ago while the rich have gotten richer

Census: We’re poorer - THE WEEK

The Census Bureau’s annual report on income is out, and “there’s no good news” in it, said Felix Salmon in Reuters, unless you’re “the kind of person who worries about inflation.” Median household income has fallen 3.6 percent, from $52,153 in 2007 to $50,303 in 2008—a loss of “real money.” And 2.5 million more people are living in poverty, including 19 percent of kids under 18. That’s “unconscionable, in the richest country in the world.”

The “big news” from the Census report isn’t the drop in income since 2007, said David Leonhardt in The New York Times. It’s that we’re earning less than a decade ago—median household income in 1998 was $51,295, in today’s dollars. There hasn’t been such a lost decade in 40 years of Census tracking, and probably not since the 1930s. “What’s going on here?” Very slow growth, and the fact that “much of the bounty from our growth” has gone to the very rich.

A geez--Another one of the Obama "sheeple" that believed that 5% of this nation--aka the over 250K crowd would be able to give them or 95% of the rest us a tax cut--pay for their health care & an additonal 1 TRILLION in Obama's spending plans. The Obama math class--

To add--CORPORATIONS IN THIS COUNTRY CAN ALSO BE SPELLED--J.O.B.S. If you tax them to death--they just move elsewhere. Right now corporations in this country are taxed at the HIGHEST in the WORLD.




Take a GOOD look at what you're doing to your kids & grandkids!