Give me a good reason why the rich should pay more taxes

Not speaking for him, but I would say it is misguided.

It is misguided as well.

"The greater good" is best served once we realize that the rights of the individual are paramount. Once the rights of the individual are unethically infringed, then at that point the greater good always suffers. It does not matter if the right is infringed by an individual or by a collective that votes do do so and approved by cranky curmudgeons wearing long, dark robes- that is irrelevant.

 

Yes, and I'm not rich. So much for you.

You continue to find new ways to be wrong.

I definitely know what I am talking about. Rich is defined by how much one owns, not one's occupation. Duh.

 

The United States has never had a zero balance on its balance sheet. Not once. That's false.

Which evidently, you fail at because I've already show you -- with a dictionary -- the difference between paying off and paying down.

Now your grasping at straws

Ill post the definition clear as day so the rest of the forum can see your apparent ignorance

Pay Off: a : to give all due wages to; especially : to pay in full and discharge

Now show me a point in history where the United States has ever paid off all of its debt in full.

Ill wait…

Clearly you have no knowledge of the US bond market. So ill educate you.

The United States borrows in short term. Why does it do this? Because it can't afford to borrow 30 year treasuries at an interests of 2.94 percent. Even at that low of an interests, the debt is much too high. So instead it borrows in short term.

What do you think happens when a bond comes close to maturity? The tea usury sells another and pays off a creditor with the money it makes. That's how the United States pays its debt. And it has always done this.

It would be better if you knew basic economics or finance before sounding like a fool.

 

A State is composed of Individuals, but is not an Individual person. What is your opinion of the body politic being analogous to the human body concerning the "greater good". Does not a person cede some individual authority to a physician in times of need?

 

My opinion is that a state does not have rights, but an individual does.

I have no opinion of your analogy. You would need to go into specifics. Analogies too often fail when placed under fire, becasue they are always flawed in some respects.

 

I subscribe to States and statism, as a form of socialism that is a form of "evolution" over purely capital markets in a vacuum of political power.

 

Taking the property of another person. I don't agree with that at all.

The greater good of whom?

 

It makes me laugh when I hear people agree that states, businesses, and the like count as people. It's like watching Obi Won do the mind fog on somebody and their eyes swirl. It's obvious that these things are not people, but composed of people. I suppose it should be obvious that this rather crazy notion is an attempt to weasel out of some regulations and taxes, but somehow it finds ground and sticks...weird.

 

I have no issue with states and statism. I have issue when states infringe upon the rights of the individual.

I am a statist as well, as long as I voluntarily pay for the specific services that I want, in addition to the direct costs associated with being a citizen:

Anything not associate with protecting these rights (police, military, courts) is a service beyond our governments mandate and is a service that should be charged (NOT taxed) to the citizen, and only with their direct consent via contractual law.

 

well the rich did just that..the system is rigged towards the rich so they can get even more rich and poor folk stays poor - not a big surprise if only rich people can make laws. i dunno, but rich folk finding loopholes (invented by rich poeple) not to pay taxes looks more like theft to me then taxing them more.
i guess taxing the rich properly is theoretically a pretty easy thing to do, but i doubt it´ll happen, the rich have just to much influence in these decissions...anyways this system that is designed to make rich richer and keep poor/black folk poor runs deep in american society, criminal law and especially the property tax funding of schools being two prominent and obvious examples

 

In our republic eminent domain compensates for the loss of property in a market friendly manner.

Let us assume, that in the US, it should be the People.

 

I am glad our Founding Fathers did a better job at specifically enumerating what constitutes the general welfare and the common defense, in Article 1, Section 8 of our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

 

So you believe that you have the right to take another person's property?

Which specific people are you talking about? How does the good of SOME people justify theft of others' property? That sounds very much like an "ends justify the means" argument.

 

I think that the question is why the rich are rich, and how has become rich? If we know the answers of these questions we can answer your question.

 

It may depend on the situation involved. Would you claim that I don't have the right to take away another Person's property in self-defense or that the Union, should have "surrendered" and let the South secede, merely because the People have a "right" to keep and bear Arms?

 

While a don't believe anyone has a right to steal the rightful property of another person, there may be situations in which self-defense mandates taking of another's property. For example, if someone burst into my house with a gun and tried to kill me, I would be justified in taking away his gun.

As far as your question about the Union, I don't agree that any person has the right to invade the property of another.

 

We are discussing simple examples. If life were that simple, we would not need States or Statism. What about more complicated issues like those resolved through social justice systems?

 

Taking the property of other people is wrong. Period. End of story.

It doesn't matter what your motives are. If you steal from other people you are acting unethically, even if you use your stolen money to buy things for poor people.

 

What if it isn't that simple? Consider this Case:

 

What is complicated about the case you cited? It sound like a straightforward case -- the man was stealing water.

 

It was on his own property.

 

So what? It may be his land, but the rain falling onto his land isn't his.

 

What if he were thirsty?

 

Irrelevant. Being thirsty doesn't entitle one to the property of others.

 

That is not my understanding of some instances of law; where a person may, in some cases, appropriate property for use in some Cases.

How would you resolve Cases in which there is ambiguity or simple appeal to the majority?