Which Side Are You On?

[bripat9643]

ed never claimed progressive taxation was extortion.
You did.

You didn't, but your crony editec did. I asked you if you agreed with his understanding of the term.

Since most of us would rather visit the dentist than the IRS we're usually not willing to part with any of our hard earned money;

Huh? What does that have to do with anything?

however, extortion requires "undue or illegal exercise of power or ingenuity to wrench away...contributions from the vanquished."

extort - Wiktionary

Have you been vanquished from anything lately? (except common sense?)

I looked up your source. Nowhere does it mention "the vanquished."

Here is what it actually says:

Verb

extort (third-person singular simple present extorts, present participle extorting, simple past and past participle extorted)

1. (transitive) To wrest from an unwilling person by physical force, menace, duress, torture, or any undue or illegal exercise of power or ingenuity; to wrench away (from); to tear away; to wring (from); to exact; as, to extort contributions from the vanquished; to extort confessions of guilt; to extort a promise; to extort payment of a debt.
2. (transitive, law) To obtain by means of the offense of extortion.

Taxation fits the actual definition of extortion to the letter. When the government taxes, it takes money from an unwilling person by physical force, menace, duress, torture.

ed's pointing out that at some point the gap between the rich and the rest of America will become a vacuum in a continental superpower with more guns than citizens.)

His point was that the rich better bend over and pay whatever taxes thugs like you demand or the great mass of useless tics out there will rob them and kill them.

Even a brain-dead propagandist like you should be able to figure out what happens next.

In other words, pay-up or the losers of this country will kill you.

Yes, I do know exactly what you and editec are trying to say.

 

[TheBrain]

ed never claimed progressive taxation was extortion.
You did.

You didn't, but your crony editec did. I asked you if you agreed with his understanding of the term.

Since most of us would rather visit the dentist than the IRS we're usually not willing to part with any of our hard earned money;

Huh? What does that have to do with anything?



I looked up your source. Nowhere does it mention "the vanquished."

Here is what it actually says:

Verb

extort (third-person singular simple present extorts, present participle extorting, simple past and past participle extorted)

1. (transitive) To wrest from an unwilling person by physical force, menace, duress, torture, or any undue or illegal exercise of power or ingenuity; to wrench away (from); to tear away; to wring (from); to exact; as, to extort contributions from the vanquished; to extort confessions of guilt; to extort a promise; to extort payment of a debt.
2. (transitive, law) To obtain by means of the offense of extortion.

Taxation fits the actual definition of extortion to the letter. When the government taxes, it takes money from an unwilling person by physical force, menace, duress, torture.

ed's pointing out that at some point the gap between the rich and the rest of America will become a vacuum in a continental superpower with more guns than citizens.)

His point was that the rich better bend over and pay whatever taxes thugs like you demand or the great mass of useless tics out there will rob them and kill them.

Even a brain-dead propagandist like you should be able to figure out what happens next.

In other words, pay-up or the losers of this country will kill you.

Yes, I do know exactly what you and editec are trying to say.

I can't understand how these idiots are not only okay with the top 1% earners in this country paying 37% of the taxes while the bottom 40% pay NOTHING, but they actually want the top 1% to pay MORE.

Fuck the lower 40% , I worked my ass off for mine, they can do so as well.

 

[sparky]

I can't understand how these idiots are not only okay with the top 1% earners in this country paying 37% of the taxes while the bottom 40% pay NOTHING, but they actually want the top 1% to pay MORE.

It's mighty hard to get blood outta a rock Brain

Fuck the lower 40% , I worked my ass off for mine, they can do so as well

and what will you do when the disparity esculates to 50, 60, 70 % Brain?

invest in barbed wire & ammo?

 

[georgephillip]

ed never claimed progressive taxation was extortion.
You did.

You didn't, but your crony editec did. I asked you if you agreed with his understanding of the term.



Huh? What does that have to do with anything?



I looked up your source. Nowhere does it mention "the vanquished."

Here is what it actually says:

Verb

extort (third-person singular simple present extorts, present participle extorting, simple past and past participle extorted)

1. (transitive) To wrest from an unwilling person by physical force, menace, duress, torture, or any undue or illegal exercise of power or ingenuity; to wrench away (from); to tear away; to wring (from); to exact; as, to extort contributions from the vanquished; to extort confessions of guilt; to extort a promise; to extort payment of a debt.
2. (transitive, law) To obtain by means of the offense of extortion.

Taxation fits the actual definition of extortion to the letter. When the government taxes, it takes money from an unwilling person by physical force, menace, duress, torture.



His point was that the rich better bend over and pay whatever taxes thugs like you demand or the great mass of useless tics out there will rob them and kill them.

Even a brain-dead propagandist like you should be able to figure out what happens next.

In other words, pay-up or the losers of this country will kill you.

Yes, I do know exactly what you and editec are trying to say.

I can't understand how these idiots are not only okay with the top 1% earners in this country paying 37% of the taxes while the bottom 40% pay NOTHING, but they actually want the top 1% to pay MORE.

Fuck the lower 40% , I worked my ass off for mine, they can do so as well.

The top 1% pay 37% of all income taxes collected.
They pay taxes at about a 20% rate on their personal income.
10,000 individuals earning $50,000,000/year would pay $100 billion more in taxes every year if they paid at the same tax rates as their secretaries.

It gets worse.

"If this were just a case of 10,000 people not paying $100Bn in taxes, maybe we could move on and forget it but it’s not.

"US corporations, who are (according to to the Supreme Court) also citizens of this country, paid just $300Bn in taxes last year on $6 TRILLION in income (5%).

"That’s right, if US corporations simply paid the same amount of tax as Mr. Buffett – that would, by itself, be enough to wipe out our deficit.

"But, things have gone decidedly the other way in the past 30 years:..."

America is 234 Years Old Today – Is It Finished? | Phil

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

During that biggest economic expansion in US History we also saw a tax shift off wealth and onto wage earners, starting with Alan Greenspan's 1982 edict that moved the cost of Social Security and Medicare out of the general budget.

What were previously considered "entitlements" transformed into "user fees", and the "Social Security fund" was invested in T-bills and then lent to the government, enabling it to cut taxes on the higher income and wealth brackets.

Emphasis mine regarding the concession.

Nonsense, the well-being of the entire economic spectrum improved dramatically. You're simply disregarding that and the fact that this move was intended to be the first step toward the private ownership of payroll-tax accounts . . . which of course the likes of you have obstructed ever since. Yes indeedy. You folks are the ones to blame for the fact that the returns on T-bills don't go to the little people you pretend to champion, but to the government and the "fat cats" who don't need them.

Lefty, forever failing to comprehend the real-world outcomes of his soul-destroying, wealth-destroying schemes of dependency and sloth.

How much wealth has Wall Street destroyed lately?

Righty: forever conflating tax cutting with tax shifting.

For example, the 1981 "reform" that allowed absentee property owners "to pretend that their real estate was losing value even as it was soaring in market price."

How much more are the richest 1% of Americans entitled to?

Michael Hudson: A "Flat Tax" for the Rich?

What's your point?

You're idea comes down to this: the government's job is to punish wealth and redistribute it, rather than encourage its creation for all. Yeah. That makes sense. The creation and accumulation of wealth is evil.

 

[Czarcasm]

It's mighty hard to get blood outta a rock Brain

Not true. Just have to throw it hard enough.

 

[sparky]

living below the poverty line in the streets of gold land lends to being thrown about Czarcasm

 

[georgephillip]

Emphasis mine regarding the concession.

Nonsense, the well-being of the entire economic spectrum improved dramatically. You're simply disregarding that and the fact that this move was intended to be the first step toward the private ownership of payroll-tax accounts . . . which of course the likes of you have obstructed ever since. Yes indeedy. You folks are the ones to blame for the fact that the returns on T-bills don't go to the little people you pretend to champion, but to the government and the "fat cats" who don't need them.

Lefty, forever failing to comprehend the real-world outcomes of his soul-destroying, wealth-destroying schemes of dependency and sloth.

How much wealth has Wall Street destroyed lately?

Righty: forever conflating tax cutting with tax shifting.

For example, the 1981 "reform" that allowed absentee property owners "to pretend that their real estate was losing value even as it was soaring in market price."

How much more are the richest 1% of Americans entitled to?

Michael Hudson: A "Flat Tax" for the Rich?

What's your point?

You're idea comes down to this: the government's job is to punish wealth and redistribute it, rather than encourage its creation for all. Yeah. That makes sense. The creation and accumulation of wealth is evil.

For thousands of years before anyone coined the word "socialism" the primary job of all governments was to socialize cost and privatize profits.

Monarchs were particularly adept at this, and Conservatives since Edmund Burke have chosen to support their Lords' and Ladies' aversion to Democracy.

You're on the wrong side of History.
Ask Mubarak and Madoff.

 

[georgephillip]

living below the poverty line in the streets of gold land lends to being thrown about Czarcasm

And just when you thought that poverty line couldn't sink any lower...

US Czarsters are planning to use the debt ceiling "debate" to turn Steve Forbes into a prophet.

Republicans and Blue Dogs may yet use the debt ceiling as a fiscal 911 and trot out a "rescue" plan that mirrors the plank in Forbes's 2000 campaign for the White House: a flat tax that falls only on employment and not on returns to the wealthy.

And what do the wealth really want?

"The wealthy want just what bankers want: the entire economic surplus (followed by a foreclosure on property).

"They want all the disposable income over and above basic subsistence – and then, when this shrinks the economy, they want the government to sell off the public domain in 'privatization' giveaways, and they want people to turn over their houses and any other property they have to the creditors. 'Your money or your life' is not only what bank robbers demand.

"It is what banks themselves demand, and the wealthy 10 per cent of the population that owns most of the bank stock.

"And of course, the wealthy classes want to free themselves from the share of taxes that they have not already shed. The flat-tax ploy is their godsend."

The wealthy and Wall Street bankers want EVERYTHING.
Of course!
Just like the Czars...

Michael Hudson: A "Flat Tax" for the Rich?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

For thousands of years before anyone coined the word "socialism" the primary job of all governments was to socialize cost and privatize profits.

Monarchs were particularly adept at this, and Conservatives since Edmund Burke have chosen to support their Lords' and Ladies' aversion to Democracy.

You're on the wrong side of History.

Ask Mubarak and Madoff.

Nah. The primary tyranny of the government throughout the ages has been to either suppress individual liberty by the collective or by the few; these two inevitably become the same thing. In the meantime, the strength of the people is sapped by the collective and suppressed by the elite, who encourage and rely on the ignorance of the sheep among us.

Clearly, taking that which belongs to one and giving it to another who did not create or earn it is theft—whether we're talking about one's life, liberty or property. The only one advocating such a scheme here is you.

 

[sparky]

and Bastille day was about the cake industry, right?

 

[snjmom]

Clearly, taking that which belongs to one and giving it to another who did not create or earn it is theft—whether we're talking about one's life, liberty or property. The only one advocating such a scheme here is you.

That sound more like making a profit.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Clearly, taking that which belongs to one and giving it to another who did not create or earn it is theft—whether we're talking about one's life, liberty or property. The only one advocating such a scheme here is you.

That sound more like making a profit.

Cute.

 

[georgephillip]

For thousands of years before anyone coined the word "socialism" the primary job of all governments was to socialize cost and privatize profits.

Monarchs were particularly adept at this, and Conservatives since Edmund Burke have chosen to support their Lords' and Ladies' aversion to Democracy.

You're on the wrong side of History.

Ask Mubarak and Madoff.

Nah. The primary tyranny of the government throughout the ages has been to either suppress individual liberty by the collective or by the few; these two inevitably become the same thing. In the meantime, the strength of the people is sapped by the collective and suppressed by the elite, who encourage and rely on the ignorance of the sheep among us.

Clearly, taking that which belongs to one and giving it to another who did not create or earn it is theft—whether we're talking about one's life, liberty or property. The only one advocating such a scheme here is you.

When in all history have the rich few ever failed to suppress individual liberty?

The most recent example of the tyranny of government resulted in a !3 trillion dollar bailout of some of the most corrupt parasites ever to exist.

Clearly you're the only one here supporting the divine right of the rich few to steal the jobs, pensions and homes and tax dollars of others.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

For thousands of years before anyone coined the word "socialism" the primary job of all governments was to socialize cost and privatize profits.

Monarchs were particularly adept at this, and Conservatives since Edmund Burke have chosen to support their Lords' and Ladies' aversion to Democracy.

You're on the wrong side of History.

Ask Mubarak and Madoff.

Nah. The primary tyranny of the government throughout the ages has been to either suppress individual liberty by the collective or by the few; these two inevitably become the same thing. In the meantime, the strength of the people is sapped by the collective and suppressed by the elite, who encourage and rely on the ignorance of the sheep among us.

Clearly, taking that which belongs to one and giving it to another who did not create or earn it is theft—whether we're talking about one's life, liberty or property. The only one advocating such a scheme here is you.

When in all history have the rich few ever failed to suppress individual liberty?

The most recent example of the tyranny of government resulted in a !3 trillion dollar bailout of some of the most corrupt parasites ever to exist.

Clearly you're the only one here supporting the divine right of the rich few to steal the jobs, pensions and homes and tax dollars of others.

Uh . . . you just reversed the logic of my statement. But the problem is the way in which it is written. Admittedly, it's a poorly and hastily expressed thought.

This is better:

The primary tyranny of the government throughout the ages has been the suppression of individual liberty via the collective or the few; the latter two inevitably collude as one. The strength of the people is sapped by the collective and suppressed by the elite few, a dynamic wherein the latter encourage and rely on the ignorance of the sheep among us.​

Better? I think we agree. Right?

 

[bripat9643]

Clearly, taking that which belongs to one and giving it to another who did not create or earn it is theft—whether we're talking about one's life, liberty or property. The only one advocating such a scheme here is you.

That sound more like making a profit.

Nope. Corporations don't take anything from anyone. Everything they acquire is through voluntary exchanges.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Clearly, taking that which belongs to one and giving it to another who did not create or earn it is theft—whether we're talking about one's life, liberty or property. The only one advocating such a scheme here is you.

That sound more like making a profit.

Nope. Corporations don't take anything from anyone. Everything they acquire is through voluntary exchanges.

Actually, bripat, I was referring to socialist redistribution of wealth by the government, and snjmom was just making a joke . . . though in fact she apparently believes that some sort of redistribution of wealth by the government is okay. We weren’t talking about the voluntary exchange of goods and services on the basis of supply and demand.

 

[georgephillip]

Nah. The primary tyranny of the government throughout the ages has been to either suppress individual liberty by the collective or by the few; these two inevitably become the same thing. In the meantime, the strength of the people is sapped by the collective and suppressed by the elite, who encourage and rely on the ignorance of the sheep among us.

Clearly, taking that which belongs to one and giving it to another who did not create or earn it is theft—whether we're talking about one's life, liberty or property. The only one advocating such a scheme here is you.

When in all history have the rich few ever failed to suppress individual liberty?

The most recent example of the tyranny of government resulted in a !3 trillion dollar bailout of some of the most corrupt parasites ever to exist.

Clearly you're the only one here supporting the divine right of the rich few to steal the jobs, pensions and homes and tax dollars of others.

Uh . . . you just reversed the logic of my statement. But the problem is the way in which it is written. Admittedly, it's a poorly and hastily expressed thought.

This is better:

The primary tyranny of the government throughout the ages has been the suppression of individual liberty via the collective or the few; the latter two inevitably collude as one. The strength of the people is sapped by the collective and suppressed by the elite few, a dynamic wherein the latter encourage and rely on the ignorance of the sheep among us.​

Better? I think we agree. Right?

You're a skilled writer, and I see nothing in your rewrite I would disagree with.

Do you believe it's accurate to say all governments throughout history have existed to redistribute wealth, in one form or another, to benefit one class of citizens or another?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

When in all history have the rich few ever failed to suppress individual liberty?

The most recent example of the tyranny of government resulted in a !3 trillion dollar bailout of some of the most corrupt parasites ever to exist.

Clearly you're the only one here supporting the divine right of the rich few to steal the jobs, pensions and homes and tax dollars of others.

Uh . . . you just reversed the logic of my statement. But the problem is the way in which it is written. Admittedly, it's a poorly and hastily expressed thought.

This is better:

The primary tyranny of the government throughout the ages has been the suppression of individual liberty via the collective or the few; the latter two inevitably collude as one. The strength of the people is sapped by the collective and suppressed by the elite few, a dynamic wherein the latter encourage and rely on the ignorance of the sheep among us.​

Better? I think we agree. Right?

You're a skilled writer, and I see nothing in your rewrite I would disagree with.

Do you believe it's accurate to say all governments throughout history have existed to redistribute wealth, in one form or another, to benefit one class of citizens or another?

As stated, it's a difficult question to answer.

I'll say this: all governments have "redistribute[d] wealth, in one form or another, to benefit one class of citizens or another".

The goal of classical liberal thought has been to devise a system that would most effectively minimize this inherent inevitability of earthly government. In my opinion, Locke's system—predicated on the preeminence of the Creator, the sanctity of human life, unbridgeable human rights and the assertion of the family of nature as the first principle of private property—works best in the real world.

As for the rewrite. . . .

Well, at least we agree on something, but I suspect that since you're a fan of Noam Chomsky, you would not agree with the assertion that collectivism and even libertarian socialism actually work in the real world to empower the few over the many, wherein individualism is trampled beneath the feet of the collective, mostly unbeknownst to it, at the behest of the few. The few are mostly comprised of "apparatchiks" (to use the term loosely) in government, the media and education especially. Corporations just follow the money, compelled to flee or buy favor. Those that stay are assimulated. In the meantime, the individual and small business bear the brunt of governmental regulation and taxation.

 

[georgephillip]

Are you arguing for a distributive philosophy like Social Credit?

CH Douglas believed the only safe place for power is in many hands.

Would his solution of dispersing power to individuals and small businesses bypass the elites?