Why is wanting to keep what you earned greed, but wanting what you didn't earn isn't?

[MikeK]

LOLberals do not believe in self ownership or private property, they believe in communal ownership as dictated by the government.

That is not what I believe.
Do any of you other liberals believe this?

The word Liberal, like the words Conservative and racist, have become so over-used and mis-used their respective meanings have become distorted and misunderstood. For example, I am generally thought of as a Liberal by right-wing participants in this forum when in fact I often oppose such key Liberal positions as expanded gun control.

And while I certainly do not believe in communal ownership of property, I do advocate expediently rigid federal control over distribution of the Nation's wealth resources.

 

[Mr. H.]

Why are those who work for a living penalized, and those who don't rewarded?

You're living in the wrong country if you consider taxes to be a penalty.

You should consider it a privilege to live in such a great country, but nope...you see it as being penalized. Perhaps it's time you looked for another country that has no taxation and is more to your liking.

I'm not necessarily referring to payroll and income taxes, although I do object to many of the programs that my taxes are spent on. And the waste and fraud in the local state and federal governments.

What gripes my ass the most is when a business invests its revenues back into creating more work and wealth, only to be penalized with taxes for doing so.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Not wanting to contribute to the society that you benefit from is greed

The word "contribute" implies consent....It's taken from them by force, at gunpoint if necessary.

The concepts of "coercion" and "consent" are mutually exclusive.

You give that "consent" to your elected representatives. Those representatives have a Constitutional power to collect taxes for the greater good of the society

Well, here's where we part ways. What you progressives consider the greater good always ends up with stupid shit like teaching 4th graders how to put on condoms, publically funded abortion on demand, free cell phones, multi-million $$ IRS junkets, studies of cow flatulation, etc.

Some of us with brains find this shit, well, retarded.

 

[MikeK]

I don't get it liberals, please explain

The second premise of the question is presumptive.

Wanting to retain (hoard) an excessive amount of money is greed (gluttony). Wanting to have an excessive amount of money to hoard is also greedy (gluttonous).

I consider twenty million dollars to be a reasonable amount of wealth. I consider more than twenty million to be excessive wealth, mainly because it represents the potential for extreme political corruption -- such as that which is destroying our political system.

Wow, the arrogance that how much is excessive is up to you. How do you get your head through doorways?

It's a concept you either agree with or you don't. And if you don't it's either because you espouse Libertarian ideals, or you've been indoctrinated with a uniquely American kind of greed, or both.

Also, if you earned it all, how could the amount you keep ever be "excessive?"

It starts with the premise that all of the wealth one manages to acquire by exploiting the material, administrative, and human resources of this Nation exists as a component of this Nation's wealth resources -- presuming you agree it probably could not have been done anywhere else. And it ends with the premise that anyone who feels he/she cannot live a comfortably luxurious life with twenty million dollars is by his very nature a glutton in need of social re-orientation (or psychotherapy).

The overall premise being this Nation's phenomenal potential for generating wealth is presently undermined by a system of laissez-faire capitalism which has resulted in a condition of severely inequitable distribution.

And I'll end with the question of why does anyone need to own fifty billion dollars?

How about one billion dollars?

How about twenty-one million dollars?

 

[Moonglow]

I don't get it liberals, please explain

I keep what I make, it's called tax avoision, but then my wife and kids rob me leaving me penniless and off to work I go again.

 

[kaz]

The second premise of the question is presumptive.

Wanting to retain (hoard) an excessive amount of money is greed (gluttony). Wanting to have an excessive amount of money to hoard is also greedy (gluttonous).

I consider twenty million dollars to be a reasonable amount of wealth. I consider more than twenty million to be excessive wealth, mainly because it represents the potential for extreme political corruption -- such as that which is destroying our political system.

Wow, the arrogance that how much is excessive is up to you. How do you get your head through doorways?

It's a concept you either agree with or you don't. And if you don't it's either because you espouse Libertarian ideals, or you've been indoctrinated with a uniquely American kind of greed, or both.

Also, if you earned it all, how could the amount you keep ever be "excessive?"

It starts with the premise that all of the wealth one manages to acquire by exploiting the material, administrative, and human resources of this Nation exists as a component of this Nation's wealth resources -- presuming you agree it probably could not have been done anywhere else. And it ends with the premise that anyone who feels he/she cannot live a comfortably luxurious life with twenty million dollars is by his very nature a glutton in need of social re-orientation (or psychotherapy).

The overall premise being this Nation's phenomenal potential for generating wealth is presently undermined by a system of laissez-faire capitalism which has resulted in a condition of severely inequitable distribution.

And I'll end with the question of why does anyone need to own fifty billion dollars?

How about one billion dollars?

How about twenty-one million dollars?

Well comrade, all your system does is take the money out of the hands of industrialists who at least create jobs and put it in the hands of the political elites who end up destroying the economy and making everyone but themselves poor. Explain why that is better for the people.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Corporate tax breaks above ACTUAL HARD COSTS of doing business are as a matter of fact a malignant form of welfare. Goodwill, buying carryforwards, etc.? All bogus.

Want evidence: which group is holding more welfare in savings: corporations -- estimated cash being held out of the economy, +/- $1.5kkkk; estimated cash being held out of the economy by the total of all pure welfare recipients in the United States: zero

Tax breaks are legal deductions from taxable income, and are no more welfare than the paycheck you get from your employer.

BOTH come at a cost to other taxpayers.

BOTH are forms of welfare.

END of the story.

 

[Moonglow]

Wow, the arrogance that how much is excessive is up to you. How do you get your head through doorways?

It's a concept you either agree with or you don't. And if you don't it's either because you espouse Libertarian ideals, or you've been indoctrinated with a uniquely American kind of greed, or both.

Also, if you earned it all, how could the amount you keep ever be "excessive?"

It starts with the premise that all of the wealth one manages to acquire by exploiting the material, administrative, and human resources of this Nation exists as a component of this Nation's wealth resources -- presuming you agree it probably could not have been done anywhere else. And it ends with the premise that anyone who feels he/she cannot live a comfortably luxurious life with twenty million dollars is by his very nature a glutton in need of social re-orientation (or psychotherapy).

The overall premise being this Nation's phenomenal potential for generating wealth is presently undermined by a system of laissez-faire capitalism which has resulted in a condition of severely inequitable distribution.

And I'll end with the question of why does anyone need to own fifty billion dollars?

How about one billion dollars?

How about twenty-one million dollars?

Well comrade, all your system does is take the money out of the hands of industrialists who at least create jobs and put it in the hands of the political elites who end up destroying the economy and making everyone but themselves poor. Explain why that is better for the people.

part time jobs

 

[MikeK]

A government which spends 25% of our economy, including a trillion it doesn't have, is going to be the judge of what "excessive" wealth is. Gotcha. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house...

You are diverting the issue, which is a hypothetical limit to wealth accumulation. If such a hypothesis could in fact be realized, rest assured the overall reform would include controls to prevent such government abuses and incompetence.

It wouldn't be difficult, you know. All it would take is solidarity of the electorate and the will to purge corruption from our political system.

 

[rdean]

I don't get it liberals, please explain

Typically, when right wingers make such a comment, they are on disability.

 

[Contumacious]

I don't get it liberals, please explain

The liberals are divided into two. Demagogue politicians who seek power by any means necessary and the parasites and are willing too give those politicians power in exchange for their willingness to loot, plunder and redistribute the wealth.

.

 

[rdean]

I don't get it liberals, please explain

The liberals are divided into two. Demagogue politicians who seek power by any means necessary and the parasites and are willing too give those politicians power in exchange for their willingness to loot, plunder and redistribute the wealth.

.

Too late. Republicans already redistributed the wealth to the top 5% under Bush.

 

[MikeK]

Really.....
How would you cap someone's wealth?

Anything over 20Million goes directly to the government because they would know better what to do with your money?

If it were possible to legislate a twenty million dollar limit on accumulated personal assets it is presumed the government which is so motivated is not corrupted -- as is our existing government. So let's not stray from the basic premise of this discussion, which is an imposed limit.

Excessive wealth is destroying our political system? Nice try, How about corrupt politicians are destroying our political system.

How easily the basic element of a principle is overlooked when one has been programmed to overlook it: Whom do you suppose is doing the corrupting of our legislators? It's the guys who are able to wine and dine them like royalty, the guys who can afford to pass ten million dollars "over the shithouse door" as easily as you or I can afford to buy a pack of gum. Why do you suppose there are so many multi-millionaires in the Congress? How do you suppose they "earned" that money?

How about low IQ voters are destroying our political system.

It doesn't take a genius IQ to cast an intelligent vote. What it takes is the kind of education people like you are capable of imparting to even the low IQ voter. But first you need to understand that you've been indoctrinated to believe what the shadow government wants you to believe, which is laissez-faire capitalism is a good thing when in fact it is toxic to the very nature of democracy. It is a slow but deadly poison the effects of which we are just beginning to experience.

So you are saying that the government knows better ways to spend your money than you do?

No. I'm saying a properly oriented government knows how best to manage a complex economy, much in the way the government in the late 1930s through to the early 1980s prevailed over the most prosperous and productive years in our history and enabled the rise of the great American Middle Class.

 

[MeBelle]

I don't get it liberals, please explain

I dunno. Why?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/298141-i-am-spending-way-too-much-time-here.html

 

[rightwinger]

The word "contribute" implies consent....It's taken from them by force, at gunpoint if necessary.

The concepts of "coercion" and "consent" are mutually exclusive.

You give that "consent" to your elected representatives. Those representatives have a Constitutional power to collect taxes for the greater good of the society

Well, here's where we part ways. What you progressives consider the greater good always ends up with stupid shit like teaching 4th graders how to put on condoms, publically funded abortion on demand, free cell phones, multi-million $$ IRS junkets, studies of cow flatulation, etc.

Some of us with brains find this shit, well, retarded.

You don't like it......vote them out of office
Tens of thousands of politicians have found just that

 

[freedombecki]

Corporate tax breaks above ACTUAL HARD COSTS of doing business are as a matter of fact a malignant form of welfare. Goodwill, buying carryforwards, etc.? All bogus.

Want evidence: which group is holding more welfare in savings: corporations -- estimated cash being held out of the economy, +/- $1.5kkkk; estimated cash being held out of the economy by the total of all pure welfare recipients in the United States: zero

Tax breaks are legal deductions from taxable income, and are no more welfare than the paycheck you get from your employer.

BOTH come at a cost to other taxpayers.

BOTH are forms of welfare.

END of the story.

Not always. The businesses that get tax breaks have less incentive to go global, moving their home office to other countries.

Intellectual property businesses given tax breaks often bring in payola from worldwide sources and not just American taxpayers, and with the right profit margin, also stay, plus pay megataxes themselves paying the government back multifold in many, many cases.

If you take tax breaks away from companies that employ Americans with them and lose business to foreign companies marketing similar products, everyone here loses.

...Driving off into the sunset in my Chevy truck...

[ame=http://youtu.be/boertpylK0M]Dinah Shore "See the USA in your Chevrolet" - 1953 - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[MikeK]

20 million is too much why does anyone need anymore than a million?

It's not a question of need but of a tolerable level of accumulation within the boundaries of equitable distribution. One example of intolerable accumulation would be corporate CEOs who "earn" 340 times the wage of their average worker. Considering the proportionally rising level of poverty in America, that ratio is excessive by any reasonable standard and should not be allowed.

 

[MikeK]

Well, here's where we part ways. What you progressives consider the greater good always ends up with stupid shit like teaching 4th graders how to put on condoms, publically funded abortion on demand, free cell phones, multi-million $$ IRS junkets, studies of cow flatulation, etc.

Some of us with brains find this shit, well, retarded.

Are you quite certain that all (or even most) Progressives espouse the things you've mentioned?


While I don't think of myself as a Liberal I do consider myself a Progressive thinker and in view of the epidemic level of teen-age and pre-teen pregnancy, along with the prevailing risk of STD, I have no problem with acquainting fourth-grade level children with the purpose and application of condoms. What harm can it do?

As for publicly funded abortion on demand, it is a practical alternative to an uncontrolled rise in welfare costs and overcrowding. What is the basis of your objection to it?

Except for specific situations wherein a cell phone is determined to be necessary for one's safety I don't understand the reason for funding free cell phones.

And I am as opposed as even the most rigid Conservative to wasteful government spending, which I believe must be brought under control by radical political action.

So it seems, at least in my example, your impression of Progressive thinking is skewed and/or exaggerated.

 

[MikeK]

Well comrade, all your system does is take the money out of the hands of industrialists who at least create jobs and put it in the hands of the political elites who end up destroying the economy and making everyone but themselves poor. Explain why that is better for the people.

That is a concept you've been indoctrinated by Libertarian ideology (fantasy) and laissez-faire capitalist propaganda to believe. But you need to understand that it isn't industrialists who create jobs. Rather it is demand for the industrialists products and services which creates jobs. I.e., it's not "supply side" but demand side economics which promotes and maintains circulation. And the circulation of wealth, via equitable distribution, is as critical to the health of a nation as the circulation of blood is to a living organism.

Please consider the following:

I was born in 1936, the depth of the Great Depression, during which time in spite of my father's skills and willingness to work there were no jobs. My parents were on the verge of becoming homeless and destitute along with millions of other Americans. What rescued my parents from abject poverty was FDR's (WPA) federal make-work programs which sent my father upstate to work on developing roads, repairing bridges, clearing dumps, preserving public parks, etc. That program enabled him (and many others) to send money home and sustain his family. It also gave rise to many new and thriving service and materials industries.

FDR was able to fund that program mainly by imposing a progressive tax rate with a maximum level of 91%, which was denounced as "confiscatory" by his wealthy critics. But it pulled the Nation up out of the Depression and it stimulated the Economy by restoring the circulation of wealth resources. It commenced the rise of the American Middle Class -- a status which I will presume you have benefited from.

Just think about the effect a major confiscation of excessive wealth hoards applied to the rebuilding of our Country's crumbling infrastructure and electrical grid would have on the overall quality of today's America.

Also, "comrade" is not such a bad word when you think about it. (But you've got to think about it.)

 

[Darkwind]

I don't get it liberals, please explain

The real question is, "Why is government so greedy that they require so much in taxes?"

Why is government so large, that it takes so much to run it?

How did government fund itself before the 16th Amendment?