I assume that these are the "facts" to which you refer:
Message 19705681
Your articulated "solution" was a confiscatory
tax on the so-called rich.
First, why don't you define whom you consider the "rich?"
That should be a starting point in any real analysis.
Is it the "ultra rich" defined in one of your links?
If all their assets are handed over to the government,
please explain what that would accomplish?
In other words, what percentage of a single year's,
or series of years, Federal budgets would
the confiscated wealth cover? Now there's a fact that I would find interesting.
Do you have any idea? You should
given the positions you've taken.
If all of Gates' wealth were taken, or even half, or a smaller fraction,
what effect would that have on his foundation, MSFT stock, MSFT the company,
and all the other companies who derive their
income in some measure from MSFT?
And after you've confiscated all this wealth and
handed it over to politicians for either redistribution, or to help them buy votes, what then?
My issue with you, my friend, has to do with your
posts bemoaning "spoiled rich brats," your advocation of
blatant confiscation of wealth, and your use of both loose
language (the "rich") and the rhetoric of class warfare
to make your attempted "points". Those are the only issues I've addressed here, although you've
tried to extrapolate my comments into
something else altogether, which is just a means of
changing the subject.
I look forward to your definition of "rich" most anxiously.
It is also fairly evident from your posts that, whatever
your definition may be, it won't include you.
Your rhetoric is far too "us" and "them" for that.
If I'm wrong about that, I apologize in advance.
Don't think I am, though.
It's always much easier to advocate a position when
the pain you want to inflict is placed on someone ELSE.
And pain is what you seem to have in mind, based on the posts that caused me to respond in the first place.
Punishment of any taxpayer shouldn't be the basis for any system of taxation, IMO.
I'm sure that since you've had enough time to type
nearly 30,000 posts since 1999, that you'll
have sufficient time to ponder the matter. |
