Do you have the right to say that a “rich” person isn’t paying enough taxes?

*Sigh*. It's obvious that you didn't understand a single word that I wrote.

 

I understand and agree.

Couldn't agree more.

Here's what I don't understand. I didn't mention the "poor" at all in my OP. In fact, the OP wasn't about poor people at all. Rather, my main point was that we live in a society where MANY hold others to a very high standard (e.g. "the rich should pay more taxes"), yet the same people exclude themselves from living up to that same high standard. This is an immature/childish notion since it is advocacy of irresponsibility: Such people want to pass a burden onto others, but do not want to take part in helping with that burden in an equal manner.

You shouldn't though. There are many hardworking and decent people out there living a healthy, altruistic lifestyle within their own means.

 

yes, if they are paying less taxes per dollar then the rest of us, then they need to be paying more

 

the war on drugs is a failure, it is not helping

Nixon started the war on drugs almost 40 years ago... long past time to end it

republicans love their wars, be it against the people of this nation or the people of nations overseas


.

 

Democrats are just as responsible for the useless "war on drugs" as the Republicans.

 

getting busted with small amounts in marijuana is nothing but a misdemeanor 1 or less depending on the state you are in and results in a fine. Our prisons are not filled with young kids busted with a few grams of weed. In Ohio its only a 150 dollar fine.

You're nuts if you think Americans are going to support the "freedom" to shoot up heroin without legal consequence.

You are NEVER going to see crack cocaine legalized. So this idea you have of black youths being able to stand on street corners and sling rock free of "Police Harassment" is fantasy.

 

I removed your name and modified the quote to something more accurate. The nanny states knows what's best.

 

The only people who support legalization of heroin are junkies. I guess its easy to hide your track marks on the internet eh junkie? Did you get hooked on pain meds prescribed and when they took you off you had to go chase the dragon eh? Kick the gong around a liittle?

 

Treatment is cheaper than imprisonment, the only people who support ending the war on drug are those who care about liberty. You know how to live peoples lives better than they do though.

Do you really think you'd be having a conversation of this quality with a heroine junkie? Wouldn't I have already quit my job and sold my computer to feed my habit? Of course you don't, just like you're fully aware that no one is going to start using heroin just because they can.

And let's get real, heroin is an opiate, and we sell lots of those OTC already.

This is way off topic so this is my last post here about it.

 

The debate should be focused on the nature of the addict. That analysis focuses on the rationality of the user. A rational addiction model, where the user appreciates how past and future consumption are related, assuredly leads to a 'legalise & tax' solution. We can't necessarily say the same with the other approaches (from 'regret' imperfect rationality to fully blown denial of rational choice). Friends of freedom would be talking out of their backside if they said we necessarily derive a legalise conclusion. Negative externalities, after all, are a form of coercive costs

Back on topic, it would be interesting to ascertain the extent that riches are generated through coercive relations. A highly progressive tax would become, in a sense, a righteous punishment. That's not how I see it, but 'friends of freedom' can derive a proper class warfare conclusion...

 

The US government is one of the largest drug purchasers in the world. Criminalizing some drugs and not regulating all drugs is merely playing a form of shell game with Statism, not providing for the general welfare.

 

Why is that form of "entitlement" spending not cut before entitlement spending that provides some benefit for real persons?

 

That's an absurd lie. The Portuguese parliament voted to legalize heroin. Do you really claim all the politicians who voted for legalization were junkies? REALLLLLYYY????

Get your head out of your @$$.

I support legalization of heroin, and I am not only not a junkie, but do not use the recreational drugs you probably use, like alcohol, nicotine and caffeine.

LOL! Stupidity.

ROTFL!!! Oh, OK, I get it: you actually support legalization, but are trying to make drug war supporters look like stupid, hypocritical, evil, corrupt, ignorant, lying sacks of $#!+. nvm

 

"Behind every great fortune there is a great crime." -- Balzac

 

Yes, in fact, they are.

Yes, in fact, you are.

 

Fine, criminalize all drugs then.

 

How realistic is that?

 

Why wouldn't it be realistic?

 

I believe we've had this conversation before. I concede that for most drugs, there is an optimal fine that should be imposed to recoup the social costs of the addict, but alas, another topic for another thread.

I assume this would include rents? In which case, the marginal rates could be as high as the percentage of the income that is acquired without producing anything. How on earth would one go about determining such a thing? If someone were extreme enough they could argue that virtually all profits (accounting, not economic) are forged on the back of the exploited.

 

Only a share of accountancy profit could be deemed to be rent. Its an interesting argument though, with progressive taxation becoming akin to a 'deterrence' punishment.

 

I'm reminded of a bad joke I heard:

An economist and an accountant are walking and spot a $20 bill.
The accountant scoops it up and offers to split it with the economist.
The economist declines and says that if the $20 bill were actually there, someone would have already picked it up.

That was mostly for the audience but also to ask, if there is a such thing as an economic profit?

Don't you need to understand the cause of a punishment though, in order to be deterred from the activity?

 

We would need a subjective probability of being caught. That would be a difficult business

 

Because our society would suffer serious consequences if all drugs are criminalized.

 

Nonsense. What is rent and what is not is determined by how it is obtained, not by how much it is, or how much "accountancy profit" a firm or individual has obtained. Progressive taxation merely pretends that the same fraction of the tax base is rent whether it is in fact 100% rent or 0% rent.