In the sense you apparently intend, I am utterly a-moral, not a subscriber to moral, an utter non morality person. Funny that you would project that.
Dividendn payouts tend to increase over time, which negates the "inflation tax".
Fred Phelps had zero respect for anyone who cannot manage to get by without gay sex. To ban people from doing stuff we should need a better reason than that they can get by without it.
In a democracy when the people want a government service they're supposed to vote to tax themselves to pay for it. What's turning our country into a kleptocracy is our culture of getting services by voting to tax someone else to pay for it.
Most people do not buy Aston Martins in order to drive them until they wear out. I suspect that most people who buy Aston Martins purchase them assuming their value will hold, long term or perhaps increase.
I was pretty clear about my reasons for believing we need to take the wealthy especially the uber wealthy more. The other reason is the implicit fact that the very wealthy benefit more from the infrastructure that everyone’s tax dollars pay for. They get a greater benefit so they should pony up to remake t that greater benefit.
Thomas Sowell called it "Self-congratulation as social policy".
Nonsense. If they could pay for it themselves, they wouldn't need the government to provide the service at all; They could just pay a non-government provider to supply the service.
Nonsense. What's turning your country into a kleptocracy is your habit of electing conmen and thieves to office, and then refusing to do anything to remove them, on the spurious basis that the other guy would be just as bad*, and at least the incumbent has experience of how to run a government.
Yes -- you appear to perceive them as your enemy so you'd like the government to treat them as its enemy.
As noted upthread, the average one-percenter is paying his fair share and twenty-nine other people's fair share too. When you say they benefit more so they should pay more, you are perpetrating a rhetorical bait-and-switch. "Benefit more and pay more" is equally compatible with benefit three times as much and pay twice as much, benefit three times as much and pay three times as much, and benefit three times as much and pay four times as much. You appear to be encouraging readers to feel "benefit three times as much and pay four times as much" is less than their fair share by fudging which of those scenarios you're talking about. You have at no point supplied any evidence that the infrastructure that everyone’s tax dollars pay for is used by the wealthy in a proportion greater than the proportion they pay for it.
Where did you get that idea? It's ridiculous. We're all supposed to have an equal say in who wins the election. Not the same thing at all. Whoever gets to decide whose names are on the ballot evidently has enormously more say in who elected officials are than the rest of us who just get a multiple choice test. That's how democracies are designed to work.
Quite so. That's why governments should not treat some of us as the enemy. Hurting a minority group for the sake of hurting them is not a proper use of government power.
No, I see the fact that we have so structured our laws governing corporations and taxes in such a way as to allow some small number of people to accumulate billions of dollars as antithetical to the existence of democracy.
While it is a fact that it was noted upthread, what was noted upthread is not a fact but an opinion. You have yet to establish why your opinion as to what constitutes a “a fair share” prevails over Toni’s opinion or anyone else’s opinion. Hence you are modelling your quote from Thomas Sowell.
No, the uberrich has our current government treating us commoners as it's enemy, and we wish it was otherwise.
People like Jarhyn are really bad at modeling other people's minds. They know this about themselves; yet they go right on trumping up baseless accusations about other people's thought processes with reckless disregard for the truth, trusting in their incompetently constructed models.
Yep. That’s the thing. If we’re going to go after a guy hard because he has more than me; how do I know that I’m not next?
Well, actually we are subsidizing Musk. SpaceX lives on government contracts, and Tesla would have had a tough time finding a place in the market without electric car and Powerwall subsidies.
That's religious catechism, not economic reasoning. If a guy does not have the skill set to increase any employer's revenue enough to cover the cost of supporting himself and his family, he has a problem. When an employer buys the guy's labor at fair market value, she's solving part of his problem for him. If you solve part of somebody's problem, that does not magically make his whole problem your problem. You might as well claim his food stamps are a subsidy to his grocer because the grocer doesn't sell him $500 worth of food for the $200 he can earn himself.
Corporations pay corporate income taxes that help finance that infrastructure. You haven't shown the tax revenue is less than the cost of providing the service.
Corporations, like most other economic actors, shed positive externalities that they don't get paid for into their economic ecosystems by the boatload. The reason local governments offer tax breaks is because they want those externalities. That's only a subsidy if the externalities are insufficient to make up for the lost tax revenue, i.e., if the local government officials made a bad deal. Local officials are sometimes stupid or corrupt, sure, but often they offer tax breaks because it's a good deal for their community.
Overall, Amazon and Walmart have increased people's choices enormously.
You owe him an answer, first.
Not because he has more than you, but because he did nothing to merit it.
... says the guy who said they're 'hardly using any “common property”'. Pretty vacuous statement in the absence of any facts or figures.
