Syrian Refugees

[BugI02]

I guess the authors of the constitution shouldn't have bothered to enumerate any powers of government, since in your interpretation "general welfare" contains any conceivable power whereby congress could argue that it promotes "general welfare". Locking everyone in their homes could be argued as "general welfare".



If the flat rate were, say, 7%, someone making $10K/yr would pay $700/year. Someone making $1M/yr would pay $70K/year. So, unless you're mathematically challenged, surely you can see that $700 =/= $70K.



Given that this is just an exercise, we don't need to define every detail of the plan. But if you insist, military spending is clearly within an enumerated power. So national defense, per se, would be included in the flat rate mandatory tax and would be subject to congressional over-site as it is now. Social security would obviously be impacted. Since the government doesn't have the authority to redistribute wealth, such a government program would be completely voluntary. <gasp/>

But to your question, I don't think every line item detail needs to be a check box. Congress would define what the check boxes mean. You check the "social security" box, it means whatever the law says it means. But do keep in mind, this is just an exercise to get people to think about the ways we use government to control the property of other people, especially when our own property isn't even in the game.

If I'm not paying taxes, what right do I have to tell other people what they should pay? What right do I have to vote their money into my bank account? How is it moral for me to say that people who make more than me, and are actually paying a higher portion of the nation's tax revenues than me, aren't paying their fair share? We try to say the 1%'ers are immoral for not paying even higher amounts, yet neither of us even earns in a year what these people pay in a year in taxes.

The secretary who complains that she pays more taxes than her CEO is not making an honest argument. She may pay a higher percentage of her income in taxes, but to say that means she pays higher taxes is an outright lie. Mitt Romney made somewhere near $20M in a year, and paid like $3 million in taxes. That secretary won't even make in her lifetime what Mitt Romney pays in taxes in one year. It's dishonest to say she pays more tax than he, and it's immoral to say he doesn't pay his "fair share".

Perhaps it is information like THIS Where Mitt Romney Hides His Money - Business Insider that might move some to think Mitt isn't intent on paying his 'fair' share

My problem with a 'flat tax' has always been that the people who flatten the tax can also open loopholes. I forsee '17% flat tax' and the removal of all deductions for the little people, followed by gradual opening of loopholes in the tax code, followed by a further increase in the tax rate for the 'proles' because "... revenues do not meet projections" - and all tax relief/deductioins for ordinary people are gone forever because they lack the resources/influence to buy enough congresspersons to even get a seat at the table

 

[jamil]

The point wasn't about whether Mitt Romney was trying to pay as little tax as possible. I though you guys admire that about Trump anyway. The point was to expose the nonsense that ordinary people paid less tax than he did, and that he isn't paying his fair share. Most lower middle class workers won't EARN as much in their lifetime as he pays in taxes in one year.

 

[david890]

I guess the authors of the constitution shouldn't have bothered to enumerate any powers of government, since in your interpretation "general welfare" contains any conceivable power whereby congress could argue that it promotes "general welfare". Locking everyone in their homes could be argued as "general welfare".

It's necessarily vague, as the Founders knew they could not foresee all future needs that would "promote the general welfare". It's not fundamentally different from Article 134 of the UCMJ.

We try to say the 1%'ers are immoral for not paying even higher amounts, yet neither of us even earns in a year what these people pay in a year in taxes.

The highest marginal tax rate under Eisenhower was 91%. Who do you think was behind the push to get those rates cut? It wasn't some secretary.

It's dishonest to discuss taxes and income in absolute values; it makes more sense to discuss how the tax will impact quality of life. A 10% tax on someone earning $10M a year will have little or no impact on their day-to-day lives. Romney is living as large on $17M as he would on $20M. However, a secretary making $22K and paying $2200 will see quite an impact, likely to the point of living paycheck-to-paycheck.

The same goes with the estate tax. Trump et al. want to eliminate it, but that tax (currently ~ 16% on estates greater than $5.45M) affected about ~5500 families last year; about 1 out of every 500 households. A 40% estate tax (the highest marginal rate at the moment) won't impact the quality of life of the heirs of the 6 richest Waltons. Each of those 6 has a net worth of ~ $24B; I'm sure their kids will get by just fine on the remaining $14.4B.

 

[david890]

he isn't paying his fair share.

So, what would be a "fair share"? An absolute amount or a marginal rate?

Bill Gates has $81B, and if his ROI were to be an abyssmal 0.5%, he'd still be making $400M. He could pay ALL of that as tax and it would not impact his quality of life. He could lose 95% of his wealth and still live large.

Can't say that for the average INGOer.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

https://pjmedia.com/homeland-securi...s-22-non-muslims-1-1-percent/?singlepage=true Sept. 1825 Muslims, 22 non-profit Muslims.

 

[BugI02]

https://pjmedia.com/homeland-securi...s-22-non-muslims-1-1-percent/?singlepage=true Sept. 1825 Muslims, 22 non-[STRIKE]profit[/STRIKE]prophet Muslims.

Fixy

 

[jbombelli]

So, what would be a "fair share"? An absolute amount or a marginal rate?

Bill Gates has $81B, and if his ROI were to be an abyssmal 0.5%, he'd still be making $400M. He could pay ALL of that as tax and it would not impact his quality of life. He could lose 95% of his wealth and still live large.

Can't say that for the average INGOer.

Yes, yes. The rich people are greedy bastards and it's not fair.

 

[jamil]

It's necessarily vague, as the Founders knew they could not foresee all future needs that would "promote the general welfare". It's not fundamentally different from Article 134 of the UCMJ.

It's not like this has never been brought up in our history. It's not like the founders wrote the constitution and never again commented on it.

[SIZE=-1]Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.
[/SIZE]

Madison made the same argument I did. If "general welfare" was meant to grant the power to tax and spend for anything possibly construed with the general welfare, then section 8 should have been much shorter because the enumeration of specific powers would be unnecessary. Madison's view was that "general welfare" explained the purpose for the specific enumerations of power. For a time, this narrow definition was the general consensus, but subsequent court rulings through our history have eroded that logical interpretation to justify every whim. Because of that clause, there is now nothing that government can't tax, and nothing that government can't spend. Why even have a constitution if we're ruled by the whims of men rather than the rule of law?

The highest marginal tax rate under Eisenhower was 91%. Who do you think was behind the push to get those rates cut? It wasn't some secretary.

That's not an argument. It does, however, provide further insight into what drives your belief.

It's dishonest to discuss taxes and income in absolute values; it makes more sense to discuss how the tax will impact quality of life. A 10% tax on someone earning $10M a year will have little or no impact on their day-to-day lives. Romney is living as large on $17M as he would on $20M. However, a secretary making $22K and paying $2200 will see quite an impact, likely to the point of living paycheck-to-paycheck.

Okay, first let's get some definitions straight. A flat tax rate is not an absolute value. It is a proportional value. If we tax everyone at the same rate, rich people are still funding much more government than everyone else. The only absolute value part of the argument is the dollars each income groups contribute, which is a significant part of discussion when you're trying to say that poor people pay more tax than rich people. Words have meaning.

There is zero deceit in saying that the top 1% fund more of our government than the bottom 90%. The deceitful claim is asserting that Romney paid less tax than his Secretary when he paid more money in taxes in one year than she'll earn in her entire life. If you mean to say Romney's wealth gives him a higher quality of life, and conclude that he should therefore have to pay until it hurts as much as it hurts less wealthy people, then just say that. THAT would at least be honest.

But instead progressives claim rich people don't pay their "fair share" and use an unsubstantiated claim that marginal tax rates define "fair share". Rich people not only fund most of government, they also fund most of entitlements. Some of their wealth is redistributed to YOU (rhetorically "you"). You should thank them instead of claiming they don't pay their fair share. And yet you want them to pay even more and redistribute even more. Because it's not "fair" that they've figured out how to produce more than you have. And it seems you think YOU have the honest and moral argument.

The same goes with the estate tax. Trump et al. want to eliminate it, but that tax (currently ~ 16% on estates greater than $5.45M) affected about ~5500 families last year; about 1 out of every 500 households. A 40% estate tax (the highest marginal rate at the moment) won't impact the quality of life of the heirs of the 6 richest Waltons. Each of those 6 has a net worth of ~ $24B; I'm sure their kids will get by just fine on the remaining $14.4B.

Yes, we should eliminate the estate tax. Absolutely. The only taxes that an estate should have to pay is on resources that haven't been taxed yet. I don't care how wealthy a person is. Fair is fair. Before people die they should have 100% say in what happens with their possessions after their death. A person's resources does not belong to the collective. You have no right to another person's wealth, even after he dies.

 

[jamil]

So, what would be a "fair share"? An absolute amount or a marginal rate?

Bill Gates has $81B, and if his ROI were to be an abyssmal 0.5%, he'd still be making $400M. He could pay ALL of that as tax and it would not impact his quality of life. He could lose 95% of his wealth and still live large.

Can't say that for the average INGOer.

That's not an argument. It's an emotional appeal.

Okay, let's talk about fair shares. First, what is the individual fair share of wealth in a society? Your fair share of wealth is what you've earned honestly without regard to what other people have. No one owes you anything other than just payment for the value you've provided them.

So what's everyone's fair share of taxes? It certainly can't be consistently based on a standard of "quality of living". That's about as subjective as "general welfare". What *can't* be justified on the basis of "quality of living"?

The fairest, most objective standard of "fair share" of taxes would be based on value consumed. Let's assume for a moment that everyone consumed an equal value of government (infrastructure, national defense, law enforcement/judicial system, etc.) Assuming that, the fairest way to divvy up each person's "fair share" of the tax burden would be to divide the cost of government by the number of consumers. Each person would pay their fair share of what they consumed.

But people consume different amounts of government. So in reality, the fairest tax would be one where taxes would be proportional to the value one receives from government. If you consume more government, you should pay more for government. But that's not workable, and not because it's not fair. It's impractical. Rich individuals and corporations arguably consume more government than most, so it's fair that they should pay more in the absolute. And they can afford it, so that's practical. But obviously poor people, especially the ones living on entitlements, can't possibly pay for all the government they consume.

Since it's impractical for poor people to pay for all the government they consume, I accept the concept that people who make more will have to pay more in taxes. A flat rate does that. But you think that's unfair because you tie "quality of life" to fairness. I think quality of life has nothing to do with fairness.

And you think fairness has nothing to do with value. I tie fairness to value, you tie fairness to outcome. We fundamentally disagree. There is no middle ground between our two worldviews. This is why our nation is torn now. You insist from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. I think that idea is insane, impractical, and not sustainable by humans.

 

[ghitch75]

if Obuma and Hitllary want these people here they should pay for it......Hitllary's foundation could buy them all houses,healthcare,food,jobs,ect....oh but they spend their money over seas......

little harder for IRS to keep track of it i guess....

 

[david890]

Yes, we should eliminate the estate tax. Absolutely. The only taxes that an estate should have to pay is on resources that haven't been taxed yet. I don't care how wealthy a person is. Fair is fair. Before people die they should have 100% say in what happens with their possessions after their death. A person's resources does not belong to the collective. You have no right to another person's wealth, even after he dies.

Except the Founding Fathers (among others) thought otherwise:

"A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

Adam Smith, paraphrased by Thomas Jefferson.

"Thomas Paine, like Smith and Jefferson, made much of the idea that landed property itself was an affront to the natural right of each generation to the usufruct of the earth, and proposed a "ground rent" — in fact an inheritance tax — on property at the time it is conveyed at death, with the money so collected to be distributed to all citizens at age 21, "as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property."

 

[david890]

Your fair share of wealth is what you've earned honestly without regard to what other people have.

Please define "honestly" in this context. Are you arguing that every billionaire has "honestly" earned every single dime they have?

So what's everyone's fair share of taxes? It certainly can't be consistently based on a standard of "quality of living".

Sure it can. Luxury taxes have existed for a long time. The tax on a 24,000 sq. ft. house should be higher than that of a 2,400 sq. ft. house, or a 1,200 sq. ft. condo. Kobe beef should be taxed at a rate higher than Grade A (or lower grades).

You insist from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. I think that idea is insane, impractical, and not sustainable by humans.

How dare everyone receive a basic education, affordable housing, basic nutrition, basic healthcare, etc.

Insane. Impractical. Unsustainable.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It's necessarily vague, as the Founders knew they could not foresee all future needs that would "promote the general welfare". It's not fundamentally different from Article 134 of the UCMJ.



The highest marginal tax rate under Eisenhower was 91%. Who do you think was behind the push to get those rates cut? It wasn't some secretary.

It's dishonest to discuss taxes and income in absolute values; it makes more sense to discuss how the tax will impact quality of life. A 10% tax on someone earning $10M a year will have little or no impact on their day-to-day lives. Romney is living as large on $17M as he would on $20M. However, a secretary making $22K and paying $2200 will see quite an impact, likely to the point of living paycheck-to-paycheck.

The same goes with the estate tax. Trump et al. want to eliminate it, but that tax (currently ~ 16% on estates greater than $5.45M) affected about ~5500 families last year; about 1 out of every 500 households. A 40% estate tax (the highest marginal rate at the moment) won't impact the quality of life of the heirs of the 6 richest Waltons. Each of those 6 has a net worth of ~ $24B; I'm sure their kids will get by just fine on the remaining $14.4B.

So, what would be a "fair share"? An absolute amount or a marginal rate?

Bill Gates has $81B, and if his ROI were to be an abyssmal 0.5%, he'd still be making $400M. He could pay ALL of that as tax and it would not impact his quality of life. He could lose 95% of his wealth and still live large.

Can't say that for the average INGOer.

1. Promoting general welfare is a general statement regarding a general purpose (i.e., the government is supposed to function for the well-being of the citizens, not a small group of 'lords'), which is to be accomplished by following the specific requirements contained within the Constitution strictly, largely opposite of present practice.

2. Marginal tax rates are not really relevant. The 91% top marginal rate of the Eisenhower years was accompanied by so many loopholes as to have more holes than a Swiss cheese. The reduction in marginal rate was accompanied by a reduction in loopholes, much the same as the trend in speed limits in which the posted limit has been raised but actual enforcement has generally hovered at approximately the same speeds in spite of the new standard being much closer to the actual limit than in years past.

3. Quality of life is irrelevant to any objective discussion. It does not matter that Bill or Donald could live a lifestyle to which I would like to become accustomed on a fraction of their income. They earned it through legally acceptable means and it belongs to them. If there is an issue of their accumulating wealth through unscrupulous albeit legal means, then the problem is with the applicable law which needs corrected, not 'compensating' by taxing the bejesus out of anyone with a little coin in their pockets.

4. Confiscating 40% of money WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED is unacceptable. Even if we lower the bar to accepting your merit-deficient quality of life argument, this has a major impact on heirs of estates near the threshold, particularly when the estate is divided among several people, as the threshold is based on the total value of the estate, not what any one heir stands to inherit, but I digress. Retaxing money which has already been taxed is already unacceptable regardless of any details. Incidentally, this is also the foundation under my opposition to property tax.

5. How do you apply your 'fair share' to the problem of government doing a great many things at great expense that constitutionally it clearly should NOT be doing? How can you claim anyone to owe a 'fair share' of a cost which should not be incurred in the first place?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Except the Founding Fathers (among others) thought otherwise:

"A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

Adam Smith, paraphrased by Thomas Jefferson.

"Thomas Paine, like Smith and Jefferson, made much of the idea that landed property itself was an affront to the natural right of each generation to the usufruct of the earth, and proposed a "ground rent" — in fact an inheritance tax — on property at the time it is conveyed at death, with the money so collected to be distributed to all citizens at age 21, "as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property."

Jefferson really believed this? Perhaps you should read his will. It tends to suggest otherwise:

I Thomas Jefferson of Monticello in Albemarle, being of sound mind and in my ordinary state of health, make my last will and testament in manner and form as follows.

I give to my grandson Francis Eppes, son of my dear deceased daughter Mary Eppes, in fee simple, all that part of my lands at Poplar Forest lying West of the following lines, to wit, Beginning at Radford's upper corner near the double branches of Bear creek and the public road, & running thence in a straight line to the fork of my private road, near the barn, thence along that private road (as it was changed in 1817) to it's crossing of the main branch of North Tomahawk creek, and, from that crossing, in a direct line over the main ridge which divides the North and South Tomahawk, to the South Tomahawk, at the confluence of two branches where the old road to the Waterlick crossed it, and from that confluence up the Northernmost branch (which separates McDaniel's and Perry's fields) to it's source, & thence by the shortest line to my Western boundary. and having, in a former correspondence with my deceased son in law John W. Eppes contemplated laying off for him with remainder to my grandson Francis, a certain portion in the Southern part of my lands in Bedford and Campbell, which I afterwards found to be generally more indifferent than I had supposed, & therefore determined to change it's location for the better; now to remove all doubt, if any could arise on a purpose merely voluntary & unexecuted, I hereby declare that what I have herein given to my sd grandson Francis is instead of and not additional to what I have formerly contemplated.

I subject all my other property to the payment of my debts in the first place.

Considering the insolvent state of affairs of my friend & son in law Thomas Mann Randolph, and that what will remain of my property will be the only resource against the want in which his family would otherwise be left, it must be his wish, as it is my duty, to guard that resource against all liability for his debts, engagements or purposes whatsoever, and to preclude the rights, powers and authorities over it which might result to him by operation of law, and which might, independantly of his will, bring it within the power of his creditors, I do hereby devise and bequeath all the residue of my property real and personal, in possession or in action, whether held in my own right, or in that of my dear deceased wife, according to the powers vested in me by deed of settlement for that purpose, to my grandson Thomas J. Randolph, & my friends Nicholas P. Trist, and Alexander Garrett & their heirs during the life of my sd son in law Thomas M. Randolph, to be held & administered by them, in trust, for the sole and separate use and behoof of my dear daughter Martha Randolph and her heirs. and, aware of the nice and difficult distinctions of the law in these cases, I will further explain by saying that I understand and intend the effect of these limitation to be, that the legal estate and actual occupation shall be vested in my said trustees, and held by them in base fee, determinable on the death of my sd son in law, and the remainder during the same time be vested in my sd daughter and her heirs, and of course disposable by her last will, and that at the death of my sd son in law, the particular estate of sd trustees shall be determined and the remainder, in legal estate, possession and use use become vested in my sd daughter and her heirs, in absolute property for ever.

In consequence of the variety and indescribableness of the articles of property within the house at Monticello, and the difficulty of inventorying and appraising them separately and specifically, and its inutility, I dispense with having them inventoried and appraised; and it is my will that my executors be not held to give any security for the administration of my estate. I appoint my grandson Thomas Jefferson Randolph my sole executor during his life, and after his death, I constitute executors my friends Nicholas P. Trist and Alexander Garrett joining to them my daughter Martha Randolph after the death of my sd son in law Thomas M. Randolph.

Lastly I revoke all former wills by me heretofore made; and in Witness that this is my will, I have written the whole with my own hand on two pages, and have subscribed my name to each of them this 16th day of March one Thousand eight hundred and twenty six. Th: Jefferson



I Thomas Jefferson of Monticello in Albemarle make and add the following Codicil to my will, controuling the same so far as it's provisions go.

I recommend to my daughter, Martha Randolph, the maintenance and care of my well-beloved sister Anne Scott Marks, and trust confidently that from affection to her, as well as for my sake, she will never let her want a comfort.

I have made no specific provision for the comfortable maintenance of my son in law Thomas M. Randolph, because of the difficulty and uncertainty of devising terms which shall vest any beneficial interest in him which the law will not transfer to the benefit of his creditors to the destitution of my daughter and her family and disablement of her to supply him: whereas property placed under the executive right of my daughter and her independant will, as if she were a femme sole, considering the relations in which she stands both to him and his children, will be a certain resource against want for all.

I give to my friend James Madison of Montpellier my gold-mounted walking staff of animal horn, as a token of the cordial and affectionate friendship which for nearly now an half century, has united us in the same principles and pursuits of what we have deemed for the greatest good of our country.

I give to the University of Virginia my library, except such particular books only, and of the same edition, as it may already possess, when this legacy shall take effect. The rest of my said library remaining after those given to the University shall have been taken out, I give to my two grandsons in law Nicholas P. Trist and Joseph Coolidge.

To my grandson Thomas Jefferson Randolph I give my silver watch in preference of the golden one, because of it's superior excellence. my papers of business going of course to him, as my executor, all others of a literary or other character I give to him as of his own property.

I give a gold watch to each of my grand children who shall not have already received one from me, to be purchased and delivered by my executor, to my grandsons at the age of 21. and grand-daughters at that of sixteen.

I give to my good, affectionate, and faithful servant Burwell his freedom, and the sum of three hundred Dollars to buy necessaries to commence his trade of painter and glazier, or to use otherwise as he pleases. I give also to my good servants John Hemings and Joe Fosset their freedom at the end of one year after my death: and to each of them respectively all the tools of their respective shops or callings: and it is my will that a comfortable log house be built for each of the three servants so emancipated on some part of my lands convenient to them with respect to the residence of their wives, and to Charlottesville and the University, where they will be mostly employed, and reasonably convenient also to the interest of the proprietor of the lands; of which houses I give the use of one, with a curtilage of an acre to each, during his life or personal occupation thereof.

I give also to John Hemings the services of his two apprentices, Madison and Eston Hemings, until their respective ages of twenty one years, at which period respectively, I give them their freedom. and I humbly and earnestly request of the legislature of Virginia a confirmation of the bequest of freedom to these servants, with permission to remain in this state where their families and connections are, as an additional instance of the favor, of which I have recieved so many other manifestations, in the course of my life, and for which I now give them my last, solemn, and dutiful thanks.

In testimony that this is a Codicil to my will of yesterday's date, and that it is to modify so far the provisions of that will, I have written it all with my own hand, in two pages, to each of which I subscribe my name this 17th day of March one thousand eight hundred and twenty six. Th: Jefferson

[The following text is included only in the court copy of the will.]

At a court held for Albemarle County the 7th of August 1826.
This instrument of writing purporting to be the last will and testament of Thomas Jefferson Deceased was produced into court and the hand writing of the testator proved by the oath of Valentine W. Southall and ordered to be recorded.

Teste: Alexander Garrett CC

 

[IndyDave1776]

One wonders why slow internet speed goes hand in hand with multiple posts of the same material.

 

[jamil]

Except the Founding Fathers (among others) thought otherwise:

"A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

Adam Smith, paraphrased by Thomas Jefferson.

"Thomas Paine, like Smith and Jefferson, made much of the idea that landed property itself was an affront to the natural right of each generation to the usufruct of the earth, and proposed a "ground rent" — in fact an inheritance tax — on property at the time it is conveyed at death, with the money so collected to be distributed to all citizens at age 21, "as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property."

The problem not resolved by Smith and Jefferson and Paine and others, to my satisfaction, is who owns it and who has the right to decide what happens to it when a person dies. I don't think "society" has that right. In the practical sense, the inheritance tax isn't going away. I don't think there is anywhere near enough support to get that done. Inheritance tax is probably the only middle ground between the idea of ownership and "rent" that can be had. I utterly reject the notion of Paine WRT that.

 

[jamil]

One wonders why slow internet speed goes hand in hand with multiple posts of the same material.

It shouldn't matter how slow your connection is. A post is a post whether it's fast or slow. Did you perhaps click "post" twice? A slow connection may prevent you from seeing immediate feedback, so you click it again without thinking about it. It's happened to me. And it may not actually be a slow connection causing it. INGO uses a lot of javascript and submits posts via javascript (AJAX). Firefox, for example has a really ****ty javascript engine and is prone to freezing.

If you have a lot of browser windows/tabs open which also use javascript extensively, it can make that worse. Just like with a slow connection, if your browser's javascript engine freezes you might click "post" multiple times without thinking about it because you didn't get that immediate feedback. Then when your browser finally gets around to executing the javascript that submits your post, it submits for each time your browser thinks you clicked it.

I'm not saying that is the problem, I'm just saying it can happen, and that's happened to me. There are ways to mitigate against double posts. I would think Vbulletin would do that.

 

[jamil]

Please define "honestly" in this context. Are you arguing that every billionaire has "honestly" earned every single dime they have?

We have a civil court system to determine that. Sue the rich person if you think he or she has defrauded you out of what is rightfully yours. Lawyers like to sue people in return for money. They especially like class action suits in case the ill gotten gains were at the expense of a large group of people.

Sure it can. Luxury taxes have existed for a long time. The tax on a 24,000 sq. ft. house should be higher than that of a 2,400 sq. ft. house, or a 1,200 sq. ft. condo. Kobe beef should be taxed at a rate higher than Grade A (or lower grades).

What is "luxury"? One man's necessity is another's luxury. I'd rather find a more objective standard.

In your example, it seems to me that property taxes are already based on something fairly objective: value. Same with "grade A" vs other grades of beef. If they are more valuable, and command a higher price, then one pays more. The 24000 sf home costs more and is already taxed more.

If the sales tax on beef is 5%, you'll pay $5 in sales tax for a $100 steak. You'll only pay fiddy cent in sales tax for a $10 steak. See? Value based. Objective. We can haggle objectively about rates. We can't haggle about where the line is between what is luxury and what is not because there is no common ground between our worldviews.

How dare everyone receive a basic education, affordable housing, basic nutrition, basic healthcare, etc.

Insane. Impractical. Unsustainable.

Market solutions are:

• Not insane; you don't have a right to other people's labor. That's not just insane but immoral.
• Not impractical; all those things you mentioned don't require communism to get.
• Not unsustainable; all those things are more affordable and of higher quality in a truly free market.

 

[BugI02]

Well said, sir

jamil* (*NHRN) you are on a roll

+10 Dark Rep (only detectable by its gravitational effects)

(Don't forget to remind David that if that 2400 sq ft house is in Palo Alto or the 1200 sq ft condo is on the Upper West Side they would be vastly less affordable than the 24000 sq ft house. Value is by far the least arbitrary standard because it is set by market forces, not by apparatchiks)

 

[MCgrease08]

More confirmation that terrorists are posing as refugees to cross borders and coordinate attacks.

Majority of Paris attackers entered Europe posing as refugees ? The Foreign Desk