How Much of Your Wealth Should be Spread Around?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Being that it is now "patriotic" to 'spread the wealth around', I thought it was an appropriate poll question to ask of our esteemed contingent of intelligent posters. Please indicate, just exactly what percentage of your wealth is appropriate, patriotically speaking.

 

[Onceler]

Biden said it's patriotic to pay taxes, Dixie. He didn't say it's patriotic to "spread the wealth around."

Do you feel a need to lie constantly?

 

[ironhead]

There should only be a tax on unimproved land values, mineral wealth, other natural non-renewable resources, and pollution.

These are either things that no one created or affects everyone. Income should not be taxed; it is the sum of one's time, energy, and efforts - the end result of how one exercises their self-ownership.

Thus, no amount of one's wealth should be redistributed.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

There should only be a tax on unimproved land values, mineral wealth, other natural non-renewable resources, and pollution.

These are either things that no one created or affects everyone. Income should not be taxed; it is the sum of one's time, energy, and efforts - the end result of how one exercises their self-ownership.

Thus, no amount of one's wealth should be redistributed.

The first person to call for a land tax was Thomas Paine, who argued that land should be taxed at it's value and used to supply a guaranteed minimum income to every person. The first proposed welfare state.

 

[Norman Paperman]

Only what I choose to spread around.

 

[ironhead]

The first person to call for a land tax was Thomas Paine, who argued that land should be taxed at it's value and used to supply a guaranteed minimum income to every person. The first proposed welfare state.

That's true, though John Locke, Adam Smith, and others supported a LVT prior to Tom Paine.

However, this is not a welfare state. Unimproved land value was created by no one. Welfare is taking something that someone created, i.e. income, and giving it to someone else. Private ownership is a necessity in a free society, but the land was not created by anyone, and exclusivity of ownership denies others the right to use it for productive purposes. A tax on its unimproved value is not redistribution of wealth.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Being that it is now "patriotic" to 'spread the wealth around', I thought it was an appropriate poll question to ask of our esteemed contingent of intelligent posters. Please indicate, just exactly what percentage of your wealth is appropriate, patriotically speaking.

Well Bush took 700 billion to give to the wealthy, so when Obama becomes President I think he should take 700 trillion from the top 5 %. That should balance things out. So called "Compasionate Republicans" shouldn't have a problem with this! So called "Loving Christians" shouldn't have a problem with this!

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

That's true, though John Locke, Adam Smith, and others supported a LVT prior to Tom Paine.

However, this is not a welfare state. Unimproved land value was created by no one. Welfare is taking something that someone created, i.e. income, and giving it to someone else. Private ownership is a necessity in a free society, but the land was not created by anyone, and exclusivity of ownership denies others the right to use it for productive purposes. A tax on its unimproved value is not redistribution of wealth.

This is a silly argument. Sure no one created land, but someone owns it. Taxing the value of the land costs them money, which is something they earned. Using that money to provide a guaranteed minimum income to everyone was clearly the first proposed welfare policy.

 

[cawacko]

Well Bush took 700 billion to give to the wealthy, so when Obama becomes President I think he should take 700 trillion from the top 5 %. That should balance things out. So called "Compasionate Republicans" shouldn't have a problem with this! So called "Loving Christians" shouldn't have a problem with this!

Are you trying to be Dr. Evil?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

There is not 700 trillion dollars of wealth in the whole world.

 

[ironhead]

This is a silly argument. Sure no one created land, but someone owns it. Taxing the value of the land costs them money, which is something they earned. Using that money to provide a guaranteed minimum income to everyone was clearly the first proposed welfare policy.

But they are using the land that someone else could be using for productive purposes. The home, the building, etc. is all their own. The land itself was created by no one, which means all have the right to use it. In a free society with private property rights, the land should be owned privately. Again, this does not negate the fact that anyone else could be using the land and is being denied natural rights by the ownership. The taxation is simply compensation to those who cannot own a finite resource.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

But they are using the land that someone else could be using for productive purposes. The home, the building, etc. is all their own. The land itself was created by no one, which means all have the right to use it. In a free society with private property rights, the land should be owned privately. Again, this does not negate the fact that anyone else could be using the land and is being denied natural rights by the ownership. The taxation is simply compensation to those who cannot own a finite resource.

Then lets tax the land at 200% value and replace the income tax with it, since there's absolutely no negative points to the magical land tax.

 

[ironhead]

Then lets tax the land at 200% value and replace the income tax with it, since there's absolutely no negative points to the magical land tax.

That's an overvaluation/taxation of its value. The point is to pay for legitimate gov't services, not extract to the point of the current income theft.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Well Bush took 700 billion to give to the wealthy, so when Obama becomes President I think he should take 700 trillion from the top 5 %. That should balance things out. So called "Compasionate Republicans" shouldn't have a problem with this! So called "Loving Christians" shouldn't have a problem with this!

I have no problem with it, when am I getting my check???? C'mon, let's not dally, I got things to spend it on! In fact, why don't we just take all the money from the top 5%, it's not like they can do anything about it, right? Just let them fuckers starve in the streets! When is my check going to be here???? Soon, I hope!

 

[Sir Galahad]

I have no problem with it, when am I getting my check???? C'mon, let's not dally, I got things to spend it on! In fact, why don't we just take all the money from the top 5%, it's not like they can do anything about it, right? Just let them fuckers starve in the streets! When is my check going to be here???? Soon, I hope!

\


Starve? But Dano says that no one is starving in the great US of A. We'll give them a daily slice of "humble pie" and water for a year and then we'll give them all jobs as janitors, fast food workers and convenience store clerks. That should make them so happy!

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

That's an overvaluation/taxation of its value. The point is to pay for legitimate gov't services, not extract to the point of the current income theft.

If the state taking money is theft then all taxation is theft. Just face it. Welfare is in no way, shape, or form immoral. What is immoral is having a struggling working and middle class, while the only booming industry these days is the yacht-building one.

 

[KingCondanomation]

\


Starve? But Dano says that no one is starving in the great US of A. We'll give them a daily slice of "humble pie" and water for a year and then we'll give them all jobs as janitors, fast food workers and convenience store clerks. That should make them so happy!

If you disagree, then simply find me a picture of a starving American (and I don't mean starving because some freaks locked them up in a cage or something).

 

[KingCondanomation]

If the state taking money is theft then all taxation is theft. Just face it. Welfare is in no way, shape, or form immoral. What is immoral is having a struggling working and middle class, while the only booming industry these days is the yacht-building one.

Well of course all taxation is theft, which is why you seek to minimize it.

And your second line sounds like the typical worldview of a Liberal in love with Liberalism that has never had any real experience seeing the consequences of welfare firsthand. I don't really care whether the money for welfare falls out of the sky, the rich's pockets or your pockets or mine, you undermine a people's work ethic by giving value for nothing and worse they adapt to seeing the state as the provider for increasing their prosperity.

"Somehow, the fact that more poor people are on welfare, receiving more generous payments, does not seem to have made this country a nice place to live – not even for the poor on welfare, whose condition seems not noticeably better than when they were poor and off welfare. Something appears to have gone wrong; a liberal and compassionate social policy has bred all sorts of unanticipated and perverse consequences." – Irving Kristol


You know you just don't get it Watermark, lots of middle class and rich kids and teens like yourself are leftwing when it comes to welfare and the government helping and why not? You pay no taxes, have never lived in or near a welfare project and have not had any years to observe the consequences of what happens to a person on welfare.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Well of course all taxation is theft, which is why you seek to minimize it.

If it is theft then it should be abolished.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

And your second line sounds like the typical worldview of a Liberal in love with Liberalism that has never had any real experience seeing the consequences of welfare firsthand. I don't really care whether the money for welfare falls out of the sky, the rich's pockets or your pockets or mine, you undermine a people's work ethic by giving value for nothing and worse they adapt to seeing the state as the provider for increasing their prosperity.

"Somehow, the fact that more poor people are on welfare, receiving more generous payments, does not seem to have made this country a nice place to live – not even for the poor on welfare, whose condition seems not noticeably better than when they were poor and off welfare. Something appears to have gone wrong; a liberal and compassionate social policy has bred all sorts of unanticipated and perverse consequences." – Irving Kristol

*erased demeaning and irrelevant personal bullshit*

Sweden has eliminated almost all poverty. Can you think of any more amiable goal for a society? No. I say, get rid of the military, and poverty as well.