The rich own the wealth.

Again, my primary point in this thread, is that there is NO SUCH THING as infinite wealth. That is a completely ludicrous notion.

 

And if you read my post, you would know I agree with that (with conditions).

 

Maybe I'll review it again later on. Now it is time for some rest.

Regards.

 

The reason both sides (sort of) accept individuals should have a property right over themselves, is that this property necessarily comes through birth. There's no need to redistribute property which exists independent of your birth: your birth creates the property.

That's why I say virgin land is necessary for liberty: so people can go out and homestead their own land. It's also why I think liberty will be achieved when we are able to expand throughout space: the speed of light is an unavoidable obstruction to central government. Fly 30ly away from everyone else, and you have 30 years of definite liberty. Societies can in this way homestead whatever land they please.

Sure, we could all get along on used-up Earth, but it's unlikely. All that matters is sovereignty, and it's difficult for the little guy to obtain it, and even more difficult for him to maintain - as the destruction of the Articles demonstrates.

 

LOL, poor children who cherish pencils and paper have no need of computers and couldnt use them if they had them. I think you mean poor third world adults you think would value a computer if given to them. Yet the question isnt whether its a luxury item to the receiver but to the giver - thus your point is that we western lefties should give away our computers because they are luxuries to US. Will I have to keep explaining your own argument to you?

As for a computer being a luxury to us, I can assure you it is not. Its no more a luxury than a car allowing us to get to our jobs to earn money is a luxury - in fact its a necessity. Personally I need the one Im using right now to do communication with work colleagues and continued professional development both at home, while travelling and at work - you still think my computer is a luxury? Please explain.

As for people with second homes - you have no idea what they are asking. Support for lefty policies is wide ranging across the entire spectrum of western society.

As for my stuff, I would happily give away my luxury items, like my motorbike, except that of course, a higher rate of taxation is a far better method of wealth re-distribution.

So please go ahead and explain where Im going wrong here.

 

Interesting, but in the end we will all be communists because the rigours of space and occupyinh the universe will demand it - read the work of the late Iain M Banks.

 

You do know that there really isn't any more virgin land in the world, right? It's all owned in some way, even the most remote areas where bikers or motorcyclist go.

Well, except for maybe a remote deserted island somewhere out there in the ocean. Few people want live on one of those.

 

I do know that. Read my previous post.

And I'm free to (*)(*)(*)(*) off and live my life how I please. I'm fine with that. Do what you like so long as I can tell you to get (*)(*)(*)(*)ed and up and leave.

 

Too many in Congress have made it a lifelong career and their constituents are at fault. The majority of members of Congress are in the top 10% as are those in Hollywood that continually jump on the liberal bandwagon. The rich earned their money. Likely are well educated or started their own businesses. Whats wrong with that and why should they owe those earning less anything?

I worked two jobs to send my husband to medical school. We had to borrow thousands of dollars to start his practice. No one helped us. Get a life. My 27 year old son started his own videography business while going to college to earn a degree in media. He supports himself and is going to get a degree. Many young people are starting their own businesses because they can't find good paying jobs. Good for them, congratulations due them. And if they are successful, why should they feel guilty and why should they pay a higher percentage of their "ordinary income" to the federal government than anyone else?

 

You obviously have not travelled the world and experienced things for yourself or else you would understand that poor children can and would use your luxury item called a computer. You rich people should give up more of your stuff.
Of course your luxury item makes your life better that why you rich people bought one. Question is why do you think richer people than you need to give up their items while you sit there in hypocrisy typing away on your luxury item. Im sure paris hilton thinks her diamond studded cellphone is necessary as well same as you think your laptop is necessary to you.

 

Interesting but in space you wont be able to up and leave. Youll need all kinds of people and things just as you do here.

 

Children are more likely to dribble on a computer than type, as my two kids prove every day. Lets be clear, its not a luxury item, thats why almost everyone now has one. They are necessities if you wish to give yourself the clearest opportunity.

The left are not hypocrits by not giving away their computers, as these are necessities, they would be hypocrits only if they refused to give up their own earnings in taxation for re-distribution. Not a single lefty on this forum refuses that.

To your question; I think that at a progressively increasing level, because man has limits on what he can usefully and continually use, richer people should be taxed more. This is not hypocrisy as I am willing to also be taxed at a higher level than someone who is poorer than me - this point, this argument is unassailable.

 

They should because it benefits everyone to have a well funded and well invested society, including you and your family. None of that higher percentage paying has ever stopped you or your family from acheiving their dreams so you have no reasonable argument to make.

 

The ignorance in this thread is beyond belief no wonder why we get the leaders we do in government
where do you liberals get you education on economics? from a crackerjack box?
The rich own the wealth they do because guess what you ignorant fools they created it

 

you tell that to many of the unemployed that lost their jobs because businesses left and went else where that didn't tax them to death
Detroit says hello as a shinning example

 

Lol. You think they'd have stayed for lower taxes? Try lower wages. A far greater saving.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm trained in economics from Strathclyde business school.

The rich did not create any such thing.

 

Not agree. Earth divide in sector and nation. When you born on a x sector, you're supposed to be a member(citizen) of the sector. And they have duty to the sector citizen.

If it's a nation, I mean by that an assembly of sector, when you're born, you become a member of that nation and the nation state have the duty to do to them.

I'm about sure I'm right about that.

And I forgot to say that to keep the citizenship so the right, the citizen need to fulfil his duty and respect the law. It is unclear if one of this duty is to join the army and obey; Sound that if the sector or nation is correct, I'd say yes.

 

And it doesn't matter why, nobody ever said the other kids couldn't gang up on his selfish asss and beat the crap out of him and TAKE IT. America's middle class needs to wake up and fight a class war.

 

This is what we need! We need Wall Street bankers hanging from trees in Central Park. Doesn't matter if they "earned" the money by the current rules or not! Just TAKE IT and then change the rules.

 

The rich organized the poor and paid them a wage to refine raw material. The poor agreed to the wage.

 

The rich didn't have to hang the poor to take their wealth from them. What you are suggesting is a communist revolution. Why can't you just use the free market to keep wealth amongst the poor? No one ever said you had to give your wealth to China or some other foreign entity.

 

like I said you got you education from a cracker jack box if they didn't teach you in your economics classes that wealth is created

and artist takes 50 dollars worth of paint and canvass and paints a picture then turns around and sells that picture for 300 dollars he just created 250 dollars worth of wealth

 

In that sense, with our fiat economy, the government prints wealth, and people transfer wealth to the wealthy.

 

Because there is no free market, the rich use things like Citizens United to BUY the unfree markets and conditions that benefit them, so I say fine, I say people should wise up, fight class warfare and go "Russia 1919" all over Wall Streets arses.

 

The $300 wasnt created by the artist, it was transferred to him. LOL.

But go ahead, since you think my education is bunk, perhaps you can cite some interesting scholarly work on the nature of wealth.