The irony of the cry for less government

you invent something like the iphone and make it affordable for 200 million Americans and then tell us the rich are not enriching our lives!! This is common sense to even a child.

 

easy to believe given that Trump won with less than half money Hillary had and that the rich candidates often lose. Also, if the rich had influence the top 1% would pay 1% of taxes not 40% and we would not have highest corporate rate in world. Sorry to rock your world. If anything we suffer more from discrimination against the rich.

 

are Founders were mostly libertarian so while I agree we a national military and national family/ moral standards I still have great sympathy for libertarians

 

Says the person who said, "the rich give most of their money to charity", then followed up with "When the rich die they give most of their wealth to charity ".

I called Bullocks and instead of providing evidence, you called me a Liberal.

That typical, not because you're Libertarian or whatever your ideological lean is, but because you make wild claims and you believe because you say them, that makes them true.

So, where is the evidence for either of these claims?

 

That cartoon echoes an argument I make in favor of very punitive estate taxes. The logic is simple and the duplicity of the counter is easy to detect. One of the ways we can create more prosperity is to redistribute the winnings of a capitalist system via taxation. We are now seeing what happens when you do not redistribute wealth via taxation, it accumulates. Now someone said that wealthy people do not impact them one bit. This might be true in the short term but in fact, this view fails to grasp how much old wealth controls all of us right now. Think of land and water rights and then consider who owns most of the land and water rights anywhere in the nation. You will find old deeds and claims going back decades in almost every location in the country. The limited land and water available to us is due to concentrations of power over these resources. the more concentration of land and water by the few, the more everything costs us every day either through increased prices, higher taxes or loss of access to the land or water itself. Think of the Kings River in California. One family owns the rights to 15-20% of the river dating back to the late 1800s. They are billionaires. They also drained Lake Tulare and benefit from all the dams and dikes and water storage along the river. What do we get in return? Almonds which we buy from them while the owners live in LA. The family is the Reznicks.

 

I could be wrong, but I think we're going to find out that Trumps win went far beyond money.

 

A liberal will always be wrong. It comes with the territory when you're a typical liberal.

 

Have you heard of gates and buffet about the two richest man in the world who are leaving all their wealth to charity and not to Liberal government where they know it will be wasted?

 

A death tax is typical of a nasty liberalism. It would merely encourage the wealthy to waste their money before they died. The rich are far better stewards of their hard earned money than liberal monopolist bureaucrats in Washington DC who are the champion money wasters all time

 

You mean when one of the many scandals that liberalism has been investigating for years finally bears some fruit?

 

Let's be honest stealing money from dead people is just one of 1000 government activities that liberals want because they have no sense whatsoever and thus are communists

 

Corporate personhood, the mechanism by which corporations are able to avoid meaningful repercussions for violating peoples rights and amassing wealth via monopoly, is a manufacture of government bureacracy, not freedom. Competition is the only reliable answer to the problem of extreme income disparity, and government regulatory authority is the best tool to quash competition.

 

No idea from your rambling contradictory post whether you are conservative or liberal and why. Can you rewrite in useful English?

 

You are absolutely right. Your posts are always well thought out and substantiated with evidence from reputable sources.

 

Yes All taken directly from Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell

 

Ok, back to reality.

LOL...See, James, the rest of us call that anecdotal evidence. Yes, it's true that two of the wealthiest men in the world aren't giving their entire fortunes to their children. But Gates and Buffet are 2 people out of millions who have sizable inheritances. You said, and I quote, "the rich give most of their money to charity", then followed up with "When the rich die they give most of their wealth to charity ". So unless you and I differ on the meaning of the word most, your still wrong.

I'll counter with the fact that the heirs of the Walmart fortune, over $140 billion dollars have given about 1% of their earnings to their own charity. CLICK HERE for the evidence.

I still call Bullocks on your claim James.

 

Why should they give anything to charity better to invest the money where it will help the economy more or reinvest in Walmart where they can help the world's poor with low cost Goods.

 

Since I live near many heirs to vast fortunes and know many of them, I do not share your view that heirs are effective stewards of money unless you think sitting on your ass every day on huge ranches is an effective lifestyle.

 

The rise of inherited wealth leads to revolution sooner or later. You can look it up under "Western Civilization, History of."

 

The government does not operate in a vacuum. It operates under the influence of those with it (influence). Support the severance of government and money and support ideas that take donor money out of elections, encourage voting, make voting easier (like a national holiday, or voting on weekends), and curb gerrymandering and our Congress might respond to the will of the people and not to the will of those that pay them.

But that's not what you really want, is it? You want your vision of America, not what the people want.

 

Dropping names of a few well-known economists still, doesn't make it true.

Evidence, please?

 

First of all, Friedman was indeed a rhetorical mastermind who took economics to the masses in the 70s and 80s at just the right time to challenge Keynesian orthodoxy. His free market rants and debates were tantalizing, they were master sales pitches delivered by a clever seemingly harmless old man who actually believed that the America of 1900 was a capitalist nirvana. One of his more famous episodes was his celebration of Hong Kong, a place that looked much like New York in 1900. He once debated the minister of the NHS in the early 50s on BBC. He bragged that America only spent around 2-3% of GNP on health care. Look at that figure now. As for Sowell, he is a partisan advocate for his own bias. His histories are celebrations of Western European achievements written without any consideration for the contributions of almost every society in the world, he thinks Europe alone turned us from barbarism to success. One of the most effective right wing strategies has been to continuously rewrite history to suit a narrative. The fact that you cited these two means they succeeded in your case.

 

The question was not whether it was true but whether there was evidence. Friedman and soul got to be the greatest in the world because they have the most evidence for their point of you. Ever heard of east west Germany

 

Do you want a Nazi government that prevents parents from giving their children their money their genes they're good looks their religion they are values? It is illegal in America to discriminate against the rich by stealing from them

 

If you have evidence of this I will pay you $10,000. Bet?