NationStates Jolt Archive

If you are delinquent on taxes, you should forgo your right to vote until you are paid up.No thanks.

I always pay my taxes... but I still wouldn't want to live in a society with this rule.

I understand the logic, but it's just too risky if you're not sure you can trust your government. It would be far too easy for an unjust or corrupt government to "see to it" that political opponents or activists are "conveniently" caught up in tax-related problems during an election year.

It may be that our government would never do it. It may be that we'll never be so unfortunate as to live under such a corrupt government.

I hope that's the case. But civil liberties do not rest on what we "hope" our government will do. Civil liberties protect us from what we fear government might do.

Voting restrictions are an inherent violation of civil rights in a democracy.

Why?

The ability to vote is the ultimate expression of free society. Your taxes are how you pay back that free society from the benefit you gain from it. If you willingly ignore your responsibility, perhaps you should not gain the greatest benefit.

No thanks.

I always pay my taxes... but I still wouldn't want to live in a society with this rule.

I understand the logic, but it's just too risky if you're not sure you can trust your government. It would be far too easy for an unjust or corrupt government to "see to it" that political opponents or activists are "conveniently" caught up in tax-related problems during an election year.

It may be that our government would never do it. It may be that we'll never be so unfortunate as to live under such a corrupt government.

I hope that's the case. But civil liberties do not rest on what we "hope" our government will do. Civil liberties protect us from what we fear government might do.

Voting restrictions are an inherent violation of civil rights in a democracy.

Fair enough...like you I can see it in theory, but perhaps you're right. Any ability to restrict ones right to vote could become a tool of corruption

ya know...usually I think you're pretty freaking out there, but I could get behind this..

Arthais101, I'm glad you are see some logic in it. Basically all of my arguments come straight from the ideas of the American Revolution. So, it is not me, but our great Founders, and the inspiration and great blessing of Almighty God, that deserve the credit and the glory.

The ability to vote is the ultimate expression of free society. Your taxes are how you pay back that free society from the benefit you gain from it. If you willingly ignore your responsibility, perhaps you should not gain the greatest benefit.

You would be willing to suspend the "greatest benefit" of our society over something as trivial as unpaid taxes?

We aren't talking about a social club, here, we are talking about your country.

You would be willing to suspend the "greatest benefit" of our society over something as trivial as unpaid taxes?

We aren't talking about a social club, here, we are talking about your country.

When you enter into a state of society, you are agreeing to a social compact. If you do not pay your tax, you are in breach of your social compact, and you suspend access to the full benefit of society.

The "right to vote" is not a inalienable right anyway. It's better to forgo the right to vote, and have the protection of your life, liberty and property, than the other way around.

The "right to vote" is not a inalienable right anyway. It's better to forgo the right to vote, and have the protection of your life, liberty and property, than the other way around.
How can you have the above three without the right to vote on it?

When you enter into a state of society, you are agreeing to a social compact. If you do not pay your tax, you are in breach of your social compact, and you suspend access to the full benefit of society.

How many people make a rational choice as to what society would be best to enter into contract with? The idea that there is a social contract would require some enormous bending of the meaning of contract.

Even through that, I certainly don't disagree that those who don't pay taxes don't deserve the full benefits of society, but to remove their voting rights is not an appropriate penalty.

I don't know how to put it exactly, but the non-payment of taxes is a civil disobedience, and to exclude someone from voting for a civil disobedience seems counterproductive.

The "right to vote" is not a inalienable right anyway. It's better to forgo the right to vote, and have the protection of your life, liberty and property, than the other way around.

There is no such thing as an inalienable right, but I do agree that life and liberty are more important than voting rights.

How can you have the above three without the right to vote on it?

I would suppose a government that fears revolution would provide those for most people. At least to the level that the population is accustomed to.

I would suppose a government that fears revolution would provide those for most people. At least to the level that the population is accustomed to.
The bread and circuses argument?

But if you cannot vote for said government, and then check it with voting aproval on its actions, do you really have them, or are they just being nicely held on for you?

You should watch your command of English - you're mistaking equity for equality.

Equality - when everything is the same.
Equity - when things are fair.

In this case, you are contrasting equity with being fair, when they're actually the same thing. Or your economics teacher is, which is kind of amusing.

Command of the language, or stubbiness of my fingers on a keyboard and the judicious use of a spell checker? meh. But you are correct, my apologies – typo so noted.

Wrong. 50% of income tax is paid by the top 5% of earners in the US.


First I was speaking of my country and not the US. And yes based on the 2003 IRS report your statement is indeed correct. http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=129270,00.html#_tables


Wrong. First - your definition of a millionaire is incorrect. I think what you mean to say is someone who earns $1mil annually. Huge difference. That is considerably higher than the top 5% of earners. Regardless. I'll presume you meant someone who earns $1mil annually. After the tax adjustment their earnings would still be the same - that is, $1 mil annually.


First thank you for granting me the lapse in terms, Yes I meant someone who earns a million annually. As for your blatant dismissal of my point I would parry with a change of my terms. “…and for doing absolutely nothing different that millionaire would be ‘grossing’ substantially more money.”


So what? Other than demonstrating your math aptitude this does nothing for me. Do you not feel the need to support your government's spending or do you just prefer to force other people to spend thier money on government folly?


No actually I would love to be able to able to support my government’s ‘folly’ because inherent in that statement is the assumption that I have some ability to pay – or it least there should be that implication.

That said I don’t consider the money theirs. I consider money to be a socially agreed upon symbol. It’s an arbitrary value applied to a slip of paper which entitles the bear to goods and or services. Albeit with great difficulty I could theoretically petition my parliament to refuse to honour any legal tender.

I consider money to be something of a privilege. A symbol granted to people for efforts that their society decided had value. And I think that more people would do better to remember that. Money can’t belong to you it is granted to you.


Which is why they paid ver 100 times more money than you in tax.


Yet per capita there is no difference. I thought the purpose of the flat tax was to make things ‘equal’. What of someone who makes slightly less or slightly more than me? They still require protection of their person. Do I get less or more based merely on the amount of money I contribute? Isn’t this how slummy neighbourhoods and ghettos get started?


so?


This ties into the above statements in regards to the application of government services. I grant, in the very next sentences, that people with more money in a capitalist system should logically drive the economy. Those with wealth are granted the privilege of greater access to infrastructure. Moreover once a certain level of income is achieved it begins to snowball due to wealth retention policies, compounding the problem.


once again - so what? First - not everyone who is born a millionaire stays one (I think in fact, it is less than 50%) Second - just because their parents can purchase more stuff (including education and busienss opportunities) does jot justify punishing them. Once you and they hve achieved pariety in income they will still have more assets than you. Fortunatly - equality is not measured or bought with dollars.


And how am I punishing them? I am merely telling them to pay into the system that has allowed for their successful lifestyle. If they drop in income they pay less tax. It is as simple as that. As the monied lifestyle granted to them provides them more than enough wealth to give more proportionally I see no problem in asking them to do so.


Wrong. You started your post discussing the flat tax rate - so lets keep to that here. If everyone paid 15% income tax then everyone would spend 15% of the year working to pay their taxes. Period.


Actually I was referring specifically to the costs of living as they are laid our in the consumer price index. Bread, fuel, etc. Existing in any given market economy requires a certain amount of cash. What I was referring to was that someone making more per hour reaches that arbitrary cost of living number faster. What I was trying to suggest was that progressive taxes increase the cost of living on those who make more. Thus trying to equalize the amount of man hours any given individual must exert to function inside my country.

As for the flat (in regards to how many hours of labour it would take to make up taxes) – of course you are correct. However, citizens in a market economy incur many more expenses than just the ones the government places upon us. As this number is fixed for each person progressive taxes simply try to equalize the cost of living.


As I pointed out in other posts - if government service were priced by the market it would not cost nearly so much. I don't know anyone who has ever made a purchase decision based on how much income tax the provider of the goods or service would be paying.


Then you obviously don’t associate with a lot of people :D. Perhaps consider the ‘fair trade’ coffee craze that is exploding in N. America. Not my bag but it does exist.

In regards to the government’s ability to provide the service there is nothing inherently inefficient about the government. Or at least no more so than any other organization – us human beings are quirky. I will grant that the market does possess a balance to eliminate any inefficient organizations – i.e. by the competition of other ‘more efficient’ organizations – but there is nothing inherent in government that would suggest that has to be inefficient.

And before you feel the need to respond to that, my source; “…a common belief has emerged that private sector service is better than public sector service. Citizens First sets the record straight about citizens’ ratings of public sector service. It reports that Canadians do not rate the quality of private sector services higher than that of public sector service. Canadians gave seven private sector services an average rating of 62 out of 100, and similar ratings to public sector services used in the past year. More specifically, federal services received an average rating of 60 out of 100, provincial services an average rating of 62, and municipal services an average rating of 64. The fact is, some public sector services rate higher than some private sector services…”(Canadian Centre for Management Development, 1999, p.8)

And while I cannot get you specific stats on money efficiency I have at least shown that government can be competitive.

As I mentioned the market does have the inherent balance of clearing out inefficiency - through competition – that unfortunately the government cannot boast, private sector service has to be in theory inefficient. With every activation of the service some of the money needs to be collected as profit.

So I guess the question becomes do I want my inefficiency to pad the pockets of the wealthy elite or provide extraneous jobs for people who may or may not be working other wise. Personally I’d wish for the latter. Union jobs generally make for happier people.


You just spent a considerable effort justifying that income and assets are the most measure of equality and fairness.


Yes I have just tried to liken the distribution of resources to a measure of fairness you are correct. My statement stands. If I have to make a choice of living penniless for the rest of my life to accomplish what I intend to do with my life so be it. I believe I have more to offer this world than another half fulfilled lawyer or politician.


Ah yes, theft is always an option. Funny you should compare it to taxes.

Really? I was trying to liken it to self defense and preservation. La propriété, c'est le vol.


I view our tax policy as a moral issue. When the "shot that was heard round the world" was fired in Lexington, Massachusetts, the point was that people have certain inalienable rights, that first people are individuals who voluntary delegate the protection of their rights to government.

The miracle of America wasn't that our politicians made a calculation and said that a low tax/low regulation state was best for business, it wasn't even in the minds of most people. The point was that it was the moral thing to do, it was God's law.

When we enter into a state of society (voluntarily), we do not forfeit our individual rights, in fact, we only join the state because it ENHANCES our individual rights. Now, when people want to enter into arrangements over and above this, they can enter into voluntary groups. The "mandatory" force of government should only be used for protection of our most basic rights, no more.

I am almost, almost, in agreement with you. I grant that there are certain inalienable rights to human beings. And while I am not a Christian I would have to concede that these rights do transcend our material existence.

I would disagree in regards to the enhancement of individual rights however. You are effectively saying that through human action we are improving upon something (for lack of a better word) God given. And I don’t sit on that comfortably.

In regards to the theory of limited government I must admit that I do find many aspects of it appealing. Under our current societal conditions however I could not abide by it.

I find something very romantic about the ideas of the founding fathers, each citizen owning enough land to provide for themselves so that they would not be indebted to anyone. I believe it was Madison however who used the example of the textile workers. He disliked the way that the urban population of New England favored normalized relations with Britain. He felt that they were motivated through greed – as many of their livelihoods depended on the British market. The republican was to have been a man that indebted no others, was not indebted, and answered to ‘himself and god’.

Now people in situations like mine skew the process. I am left asking myself if the reason I dislike small government is because it leaves my fortunes in the hands of my creditors and my employers – or because big government is truly better.

To be honest with you one of the reasons I support welfare systems and the like is so that citizens would have and automatic mechanism for support so that they, like the original republican citizens, could provide for themselves. It would hopefully change the question of who to vote for from “What’s best for me?” and “What do I think?” to “What is the greatest good that I can do with this vote.”


So, the question is, why should people have to yeild a certain percentage of their income to government? When taxation theoretically is only supposed to be used for our share of cost for the protection of our individual rights.

Government services should be privatized, if that can't be done it should be funded by user fees, and for the basic core of government it should be a fixed, per-adult fee assessed to each citizen. Whatever can be done by local government, as oppposed to national, should be done at the local level.

See above.


(To the majority Marxians on the Forum: government/the state =/= society/community/neighborhood)

Heh. Not a follower of Marx myself but I might hold a point of contention against you there. But I digress. That would be another thread onto itself and an argument that I don’t feel like getting into right now :D

If you are delinquent on taxes, you should forgo your right to vote until you are paid up.

That’s kind of funny actually considering the Supreme Court here ruled that suspending a convicted felon’s right to vote is unconstitutional. Sauvé v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 519

In regards to the suspending of voting rights I would have to ask; What happened to certain undeniable human rights – granted by good and inalienable by man? Or are you saying that it is sometimes acceptable to abridge an individual’s rights to preserve the rights of others – like perhaps charging someone a little more tax to preserve Nervun’s right to life?

*Added*

I would also suggest that ‘liberty’ would cover representative government as far as the whole rights thing goes.

personally i think there should be a flat tax rate none of this higher tax rate for the wealth BS.

I don't know how to put it exactly, but the non-payment of taxes is a civil disobedience, and to exclude someone from voting for a civil disobedience seems counterproductive.Actually, I think that's the perfect way to put it.

Being civil disobedience, I shouldn't be surprised if I'm jailed for it. But don't take away my right to vote.

(For that matter, I am strongly opposed to the common practice of denying felons the right to vote... at least as long as many things counted as "felonies" may, in fact, have the nature of civil disobedience to them.)

Command of the language, or stubbiness of my fingers on a keyboard and the judicious use of a spell checker? meh. But you are correct, my apologies – typo so noted.

All of the above. What is commonly called a grammar nazi is actually a miraculously enlightened individual transcending the rotting masses :D

... oh this will never catch on...

I favor the fair tax (http://www.fairtax.org/), which is designed to do the following:

* Abolishes the IRS
* Closes all tax loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
* Maintains our current Social Security and Medicare benefits
* Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
* Allows American products to compete fairly
* Reimburses the tax on purchases of basic necessities
* Enables retirees to keep their entire pension
* Enables workers to keep their entire paycheck

NERVUN, your story is a tear-jerker, but you still don't make the moral case for why your neighbors should be compelled (by force of government/possible prison time) to take care of you?

Life.

I think that NERVUN has all the right to force his neighbors to give him something that would not cease their living, while providing HIS living.

If person A needs something to live, and person B can give that something without dying, then person B should be forced, by whatever means, to give that to person A.

No "but it's not fair" bullshit.

Life.

I think that NERVUN has all the right to force his neighbors to give him something that would not cease their living, while providing HIS living.

If person A needs something to live, and person B can give that something without dying, then person B should be forced, by whatever means, to give that to person A.

No "but it's not fair" bullshit.

Well put Defiantland – the situation could almost be likened to that of standing beside the pool with a life preserver and having up to date life gaurding papers watching someone drown.

Copout, I said show me what you would cut and the numbers. I'm not going to tollerate a pull some nice slogans out of your ass.


Gee - and you were demonstrating such strong aptitude in math before. What I provided is straight forward enough for any six year old to figure out. - and I'm siure you are at least that capable.

Ain't reading comprehension a bitch?

Especially when you keep trying to change things around.

No, my point was and has always been that you cannot show me the US Army is the same as a roll of tolietpaper.

It would be as if you were trying to tell me that hiring Bob the Builder to build a chicken coup is the same as constructing the Golden Gate Bridge.

Nope - as I have illlustrated over and over again - your argument was (and still is) that the value cannot be determined. It was the core of your position. I have illustrated repeadedly, using your own examples, that the value is determinable. Thought you may have got me with the Bob the Builder one. THe Golden Gate bridge absolutely has a value - but I don't think it is possible to place a value on a non-existant chickencoop made by a fictional character. By your own standards then - you have successfully compared the military to a chicken coop built by Bob the Builder. Congratulations. It compliments your postulate quite well, just not they way you would prefer.

Then you SERIOUSLY did not understand a word I said.

I understood fine - you communicated fone. You are simply just trying to weasle out of a poorly contrived argument rather than admit it was lame.

snip

snip



snip


SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP!!!!!!
.


Dude - you really need to consider focusing on just one thing, condensing your posts or breaking it into smaller posts spread out. I really have no desire to post a page long response - in spite of the fact that I valued your responses. Maybe later I'll come back and address just one or two - but I don't have the sort of time to respond to a 2250 word post and it is not fair to other posters take up nearly a whole page with one post.

Am I the only goddamn libertarian in favor of progressive taxation?
No, I support it too. However, that said, I oppose income tax that goes above 30%. It is daylight robbery. Nothing more.

No, I'm saying that if government fails, you have a lot more to lose.

Actually, they tend to get more. But the point is that even if wealthy communities receive less in direct expenditures, more of their wealth is dependent on government stability than is that of the poor.

This should be obvious from the simple fact that great wealth requires complex social systems: simple societies never develop the incredible wealth that can be possible in complex economies. If that doesn't convince you, just look at how stock markets often react to even the slightest rumor of government instability. If investors don't think that their investments will be protected by a stable government, they have a tendency to cut and run.

Right. And the only reason the wealthy tolerate it is because most of them have been intelligent enough to realize that without the minor redistributive policies of the welfare state, they risk the much more dramatic costs of social disruption, widespread strikes, and threats of revolution... which is precisely what they were dealing with before hitting on the government solution of welfare.

The wealthy, in fact, probably receive more benefits from welfare than all of its actual recipients combined.

The cops are in the inner city because if they keep large parts of the population in prison, they effectively keep them contained.

If you want to measure police resources, just look at the divergent reactions to a suburban break-in and an inner-city break-in. On which one do you think the police will spend more resources?

One of the most serious problems with the inner city is that they do not recieve sufficient police protection.

Where the fuck do you get this shit?

I could dig for more recent data, but offhand I have this... In the inner city schools the per student expenditure is $5590, while in a suburban school the per student expenditure reaches close to $11,000 (Kozol, Jonathan (1991). Savage Inequalties: Children in America's Schools. New York: Crown Publisher, Inc.)

Bullshit. The Athenians had a very advanced tax system well over two thousand years ago... and beginning with Pericles' populist movement--you guessed it, it was progressive.
:rolleyes:
You are wrong on multiple points. First - when government fails everyone loses. Maybe some people lose more property - but when you lose everything else property quickly loses importance.

Second is your confusion between the creation of an environment condusive to the greation of wealth and the actual creation of wealth. A condusive society does not create wealth - the people within that society are responsible for their wealth (or lack thereof). The people who have it are not responsible for the creation of the society - and the society is not responsible for the creation of wealth.

Third - I am certain that the responsibility of inner city police is not to 'contain' the population by keeping a large percentage of them in jail. Last I checked the duty of police was to enforce laws, apprehend law-breakers and eat donuts.

Finally - Schools budgets are not that disparate. You are looking at numbers which have been greatly massaged by methods which may or may not be valid. Regardless - it is criminal to not give inner-city parents and children a choice in schooling.

I favor the fair tax (http://www.fairtax.org/), which is designed to do the following:

* Abolishes the IRS
* Closes all tax loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
* Maintains our current Social Security and Medicare benefits
* Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
* Allows American products to compete fairly
* Reimburses the tax on purchases of basic necessities
* Enables retirees to keep their entire pension
* Enables workers to keep their entire paycheck
Heh this sounds interesting...I'll give it a look.

Bullshit. The Athenians had a very advanced tax system well over two thousand years ago... and beginning with Pericles' populist movement--you guessed it, it was progressive.

:rolleyes:
He meant progressive taxation in its current form. The Athenian system was different. Taxation as we know it today was different back then. It was most certainly not a welfare economy, if that is what you think Athens was. The rich paid for certain things, such as allowing the poor to go to the theatre and such, but it was pretty limited on the whole. Oh, and another thing; the Athenian democracy was more of a plutocracy in reality, and at times an oligarchy (even before Sparta conquered it). At worst, it was a tyranny by majority.

And, to compare to another example, does an electronics store charge different price for the same TV based on who the customer is?
Nope, but stores in different parts of the country charge different prices - you can afford to charge more in rich areas. Pretty much everything is more expensive in London than elsewhere in Britain, for example. Tax is the same thing, but more efficient, as the government knows how much you earn so doesn't need to guess using vague demographics.

Really? The 'system' decides who gets to be rich and then makes them that way? Not exactly. However, since the system allows some people to be rich, people can become rich; since people can become rich they benefit more from the system than a poor person would, therefore they should pay more to support the system.

Heh this sounds interesting...I'll give it a look.The 'Fair' Tax, like nearly all sales taxes, is regressive, so it's only worth looking up if you favor regressive taxes.

By instituting the fixed amount, everyone is equally in the boat.
No they are not.

Fixed amount =/= proportionality.

A trifling expense for a judge means bankruptcy for a bricklayer. Just because they receive the same bill, does not place them in the same boat. One guy floats serenely onwards, the other drowns.

No they are not.

Fixed amount =/= proportionality.

A trifling expense for a judge means bankruptcy for a bricklayer. Just because they receive the same bill, does not place them in the same boat. One guy floats serenely onwards, the other drowns.

Don't bother. I've already tried that. The response is generally "well it's not 'fair'".

So much for being "progressive" while supporting a regressive taxation system.

You are wrong on multiple points. First - when government fails everyone loses. Maybe some people lose more property - but when you lose everything else property quickly loses importance.No. You have to be blind to think that the rich do not have more to lose than the poor.

Government "failure" can mean anything from absolute anarchy to a simple change in regime... and a change in regime may mean anything from a change in the election cycle to a change in the whole economy.

Any time something like that happens, there is the possibility that I won't actually survive the transition, which may be violent--which is, of course, one of the principle reasons it makes sense for me to pay into a government even when I am very poor.

For those who survive, however, the poor have practically nothing to lose--and may potentially gain from a systemic change!! The rich, on the other hand, have much to lose if a new regime changes the rules, or the existing rules break down. This is so obvious I can hardly believe I'm even arguing it!

Second is your confusion between the creation of an environment condusive to the greation of wealth and the actual creation of wealth. A condusive society does not create wealth - the people within that society are responsible for their wealth (or lack thereof). The people who have it are not responsible for the creation of the society - and the society is not responsible for the creation of wealth.Perhaps you should look up words like "reciprocal responsibility" and "conditional variables." If a conducive society is necessary to the creation of wealth, then it makes sense for those who want to create it (or maintain it) to pay to maintain such a society. The point is that in a different society, their earning potential might be severely reduced.

Third - I am certain that the responsibility of inner city police is not to 'contain' the population by keeping a large percentage of them in jail. Last I checked the duty of police was to enforce laws, apprehend law-breakers and eat donuts.Right... and as usual, you refuse to consider the possibility that the system may work in less than explicit ways.

Finally - Schools budgets are not that disparate. You are looking at numbers which have been greatly massaged by methods which may or may not be valid.Maybe... I'd say my numbers are still better than yours, which are nonexistent. Regardless - it is criminal to not give inner-city parents and children a choice in schooling.Have we suddenly shifted to a debate about vouchers and school choice? Where the hell did that come from?

He meant progressive taxation in its current form.Then he should have said so. Instead, he insisted that "governments" have not even been able to "collect" taxes until the last century. The Athenian system was different.Obviously. My only point is that they successfully "collected" taxes, and they did so according to decidedly "progressive" rules.Taxation as we know it today was different back then. It was most certainly not a welfare economy, if that is what you think Athens was.Did I say any such thing? My point was about the collection of taxes, not what they decided to do with them (namely, in Periclean Athens, mostly construct impressive buildings and conduct war). The rich paid for certain things, such as allowing the poor to go to the theatre and such, but it was pretty limited on the whole.Yep... but they still managed to collect taxes. Amazing.Oh, and another thing; the Athenian democracy was more of a plutocracy in reality, and at times an oligarchy (even before Sparta conquered it). At worst, it was a tyranny by majority.For the record, while you are correct on the first two points, it was never a tyranny by the "majority." Around 400 B.C. Athens had about 40-50,000 adult male citizens... yet the amphitheatre in which they conducted the Assembly held at most 5,000 people--and contemporary sources note that if it were "ever" filled to capacity, no orator would have the voice to reach them all.

Most of the time, Athenian politics was characterized by deeply partisan politics between loosely defined "parties" (not the same as modern ones) cohering around relationships of friendship and family... with, at its "democratic" height, rough coalitions representing the "oligarchic" interest of the rich and the "democratic" interest of the (relatively) poor.

But whatever it was like, they managed to institute progressive taxation.

:)

The bread and circuses argument?

But if you cannot vote for said government, and then check it with voting aproval on its actions, do you really have them, or are they just being nicely held on for you?

What's the difference?

Not exactly. However, since the system allows some people to be rich, people can become rich; since people can become rich they benefit more from the system than a poor person would, therefore they should pay more to support the system.

It is not 'the system' which allows it - it is the persons own decisions and freedoms to make them. The 'system' has no more to do with their wealth than the water they drink or the food that they eat.

The 'Fair' Tax, like nearly all sales taxes, is regressive, so it's only worth looking up if you favor regressive taxes.
Based on that simple definition all consumer transactions are regressive. Why should taxes be any different?

It is not 'the system' which allows it - it is the persons own decisions and freedoms to make them. The 'system' has no more to do with their wealth than the water they drink or the food that they eat.No. The system which allows income inequality is different than a system where there is income equality.

Based on that simple definition all consumer transactions are regressive. Why should taxes be any different?No, however even if you were correct in that all consumer transactions are regressive, taxes should be different because they aren't consumer transactions.

For those who survive, however, the poor have practically nothing to lose--and may potentially gain from a systemic change!!
Oh really? You feel the poor of Somalia are beetr off since their government collapse? Or maybe you feel the poor of Iraq are really ahead of the game! How about the poor of North Korea! That revolution paid them HUGE dividends, right?

No?

Well then - you really must be full of shit to presume that the porr have nothing to lose.


Perhaps you should look up words like "reciprocal responsibility" and "conditional variables." If a conducive society is necessary to the creation of wealth, then it makes sense for those who want to create it (or maintain it) to pay to maintain such a society. The point is that in a different society, their earning potential might be severely reduced.
So then you are suggesting that taxes are really nothing more than blackmail or protection money. Gee - that's civilized. Sign me right up for that!

Right... and as usual, you refuse to consider the possibility that the system may work in less than explicit ways.
So you mean it is not their policy manual to 'lock up darkies"? (shock!)

Maybe... I'd say my numbers are still better than yours, which are nonexistent. Have we suddenly shifted to a debate about vouchers and school choice? Where the hell did that come from? I was discussing your own numbers. Why would you want me to provide others? Not exactly sure how we got on the subject of vouchers... Been a while since there was a thread on that one though...

No. The system which allows income inequality is different than a system where there is income equality.
That is no different than saying a well which produces potable water vs one which produces toxic water allows a society to create wealth. The well does not create the wealth - but you couldn't have wealth without first being able to safely satisy the need to drink. There would be no reason for a wealthy person to pay more for the water than everyone else. Same goes for a free society. You cannot create wealth without one - but everyone has the same need for freedoms so charging one person more is quite inappropriate.


No, however even if you were correct in that all consumer transactions are regressive, taxes should be different because they aren't consumer transactions.
First - name a single consumer transaction by your definition which is not regressive. Second, explain why you feel taxes shouldn't be paid in the same manner as every other transaction ?

That is no different than saying a well which produces potable water vs one which produces toxic water allows a society to create wealth. The well does not create the wealth - but you couldn't have wealth without first being able to safely satisy the need to drink. There would be no reason for a wealthy person to pay more for the water than everyone else. Same goes for a free society. You cannot create wealth without one - but everyone has the same need for freedoms so charging one person more is quite inappropriate.No, everyone doesn't have the same need for freedoms. I don't need the fire department to put out the fire in my summer home - I don't have a summer home. I don't need the police to find out who stole my luxury car - I don't have a luxury car. The rich get more benefit from the system, therefore they should pay more.
To refer this to your analogy, since the rich get more potable water, they should pay more for it.

First - name a single consumer transaction by your definition which is not regressive. The purchase of caviar is not regressive (and likewise a tax on caviar wouldn't be), however most sales taxes would be regressive.

Second, explain why you feel taxes shouldn't be paid in the same manner as every other transaction ?Because people don't have the option to not pay taxes, and shouldn't have the option to not pay taxes.

Voted no.
An incremental 'step' tax based on income would be most equitable. The "poor" 0%, low-middle x%, high-middle y%, etc. up to a max around 15%, with no loopholes. Forget tax paperwork - the IRS sends you a bill based on your income. They do it anyhow, but make us suffer through multitudes of tax paperwork to get to their number.
Of course, this will never happen due to political pressure from different groups (farmers, whalers, native americans...)
But personal income taxes are the easy part. Business taxes should also be stepped. They would be based on net profit, however. This would still encourage reinvestment and still keep the wheels of our Gov grinding away (destroying everything in its path - kidding, kind of.)

No, everyone doesn't have the same need for freedoms.

Thjink carefully and long about what you just wrote. Reflect on it for a long time. I just may make it my new siggy if you stand by it.

I don't need the fire department to put out the fire in my summer home - I don't have a summer home. I don't need the police to find out who stole my luxury car - I don't have a luxury car. The rich get more benefit from the system, therefore they should pay more.
This is how you define freedom? How pathetic. You didn't even use services which are paid for with income tax. You have even failed in your attempt to conjur up inequality. The fire dept and police dept will put out fires and investigate auto theft regardless of your economic status or the value of the property in question. The fact of how many you may posess is irrelevant to the fact they provide these servies to anyone who requires them. The rich get exactly the same benefit as everyone else - unlimited.


To refer this to your analogy, since the rich get more potable water, they should pay more for it.
Now you want to argue that the rich drink more water?! LOL! You are really losing it.

The purchase of caviar is not regressive (and likewise a tax on caviar wouldn't be), however most sales taxes would be regressive.
The poor pay less for caviar than the rich? Really? Can you provide a link to the store which does this?
QUOTE=Jello Biafra]
Because people don't have the option to not pay taxes, and shouldn't have the option to not pay taxes.[/QUOTE] So, when people are compelled with no choice we can do to them whatever we wish? That is your justification?

Thjink carefully and long about what you just wrote. Reflect on it for a long time. I just may make it my new siggy if you stand by it.There's nothing wrong with the statement I made. I don't need the freedom to have an abortion, however women do.

This is how you define freedom? No, it's one definition of freedom.

You didn't even use services which are paid for with income tax.Fire and police departments are paid for with income taxes and donations.

You have even failed in your attempt to conjur up inequality. The fire dept and police dept will put out fires and investigate auto theft regardless of your economic status or the value of the property in question. The fact of how many you may posess is irrelevant to the fact they provide these servies to anyone who requires them. Certainly, however the rich will use those services more often than the poor were. The rich get an unequal benefit from these services than the poor do.

The rich get exactly the same benefit as everyone else - unlimited.Nobody gets an unlimited benefit; the benefit we get from the police force is equal to the amount we would lose without the police force. Since the rich would lose more without the police force, they benefit more from it.

Now you want to argue that the rich drink more water?! LOL! You are really losing it.Uh, it was your analogy; the water is the service that the government provides.

The poor pay less for caviar than the rich? Really? Can you provide a link to the store which does this? Yes, the poor pay less for caviar than the rich - they pay nothing for caviar since they don't buy caviar. The rich do buy caviar, so they pay for it.

So, when people are compelled with no choice we can do to them whatever we wish? That is your justification?No, we can't do to them what we wish and nobody is arguing that we can; with that said, one of the requirements of a consumer good is that people have the choice of whether or not to consume it. They don't have this choice with taxation, therefore taxes are not consumer goods.

Err . . . far too late for me to really get into this conversation . . . might as well throw my thought in.

Personally, I would be in favor of a sales tax (the same on everything except perhaps food and maybe a couple other things like that). That way, you are taxing consumption rather than production, which is good. The disadvantage is that the tax burden is not obvious to the people, and thus they shall not gripe so much when the government wastes money.

As for the argument that "Taxes aren't a commodity purchase" and thus the idea of equality shouldn't apply there, that is, in my opinion, BS. It is quite true that they are very different, as one has no choice whether or not to pay taxes, but this should make the idea of charging everyone equally even more important. If it is wrong to discriminate against a certain group of people in the form of charging them more for something that they don't have to buy, then it is far, far worse to discriminate against them by charging them more when they absolutely have to pay for it.

If people have already said this, then good job to them.

Oh really? You feel the poor of Somalia are beetr off since their government collapse? Or maybe you feel the poor of Iraq are really ahead of the game! How about the poor of North Korea! That revolution paid them HUGE dividends, right?

No?

Well then - you really must be full of shit to presume that the porr have nothing to lose.Stop talking out your ass, turn around and read what other people are saying.

I never said the poor have "nothing" to lose... I said that by comparison to the wealthy, they have "practically" nothing to lose (assuming they survive).

Or who do you think lost more, in monetary terms, in North Korea, the rich or the poor? Or, for a better example, who lost more in the Cuban revolution... the poor, or the rich who are still bitching about it?

So then you are suggesting that taxes are really nothing more than blackmail or protection money. Gee - that's civilized. Sign me right up for that!Ah, first twist someone's words, then supply sarcastic comeback. How civilized. :rolleyes:

It is a truism that wealth depends on government for infrastructure and security. If you cannot see that, then you are either stupid or willfully ignorant. I'll not insult you by assuming the former.

I was discussing your own numbers. Why would you want me to provide others?Because your basic claim is that mine are inaccurate. If you know better, you must be able to supply contradictory evidence. Otherwise, you're just talking out your ass... as usual. Not exactly sure how we got on the subject of vouchers...Me neither, but I do know you're the one who tried to deflect the discussion from the real disparity in resources between the inner city and the suburbs by suddenly shifting to the question of school "choice."

Is English a second language for you? Because if that's why it's so hard for you to understand what other people say, I'll have to forgive you. Otherwise, I'll have to ask you to grow the hell up if you want to debate with the grownups. :rolleyes:

Oh really? You feel the poor of Somalia are beetr off since their government collapse? Or maybe you feel the poor of Iraq are really ahead of the game! How about the poor of North Korea! That revolution paid them HUGE dividends, right?

No?

Well then - you really must be full of shit to presume that the porr have nothing to lose.


Since you're not getting what he's saying, perhaps a practical example might help.

If society in my city were to break down tomorrow, what would happen? Well, perhaps the biggest things that would happen to me is that, as a now ex-college student, I wouldn't have $25,000 in student loans to pay back. Additionally, since there are no police anymore in this anarchical situation, I would no longer have to pay rent to my super unless of course he could use his own coercive force to make me pay rent, which given that most of our complex assistants are significantly weaker than me or women is a dubious proposition. So as a poor college student, anarchy would, at least in the short term, be a great thing for me. For the building superintendent, who loses my rent money, or the man who owns the 7-11 down the street that I'd now be stealing my dinner from, however, it's a bad thing. They lose money because of the absence of police protection and, in the long term given my willingness to exploit the situation, lose any incentive to provide goods and services, because there is no possibility of profit if I'm going to steal everything or simply camp on their property. So in short, anarchy does not help them; it hurts them and their business.

So to put it really simply, Bozzy: I don't benefit currently from society, because I owe more to society in the form of loans, rental money, and food prices than I am being paid back. As such, I really have no natural inclination, beyond looking out for my long-term best interests, to care about or support society at all. The business owners, by contrast, have a very keen interest in making sure that society works. The bankers depend on the government enforcing contracts to make sure their loans get paid off. The guy at the 7-11 depends on the government to prevent me from looting my dinner as opposed to buying it. The super depends on the government to keep me paying my rent. Their income and their business, in other words, depends upon stable government to make it all work. As such, they should pay more than I do, because they have more value for the services government provides than I do.


So then you are suggesting that taxes are really nothing more than blackmail or protection money. Gee - that's civilized. Sign me right up for that!


Well, first of all, civilized has got nothing to do with it. Either government has value to you or it doesn't, and in the sense that it makes profit possible for businessmen, they ought to pay into it, and the more successful they are, the more businessmen can legitemately be charged for the services government provides. If government has no value to you, either you're deterred by the threat of coercion or you aren't.

Second of all, taxes go beyond mere calculations of value, but Anarchyel was trying to get at the issue in apparently the only way that makes sense to you, given your apparently rabidly pro-capitalist leanings. Put simply, you apparently don't see any value beyond capital value, so Anarchyel was framing taxation in terms of "taxation makes capital value possible, therefore it has a capital value as well. The more capital you acquire, the more valuable the benefits of taxation become, ergo, you ought to pay more." It only appears like blackmail or protection rackets because that's the only aspect of taxation you either can or want to appreciate.

Since you're not getting what he's saying, perhaps a practical example might help.

*snip*
Thank you, that was a fine example. You obviously have far more patience than I do.

:)

Since you're not getting what he's saying, perhaps a practical example might help.
(snip)_
.


OMFG! It took me two days to stop laughing. I almost thought the two of you were thoughtful intelligent people. Phew - that was close! You know what they say about debating with fools... Damn though, I just might come down to your level anyway.

Since you don't understand the real world and can only relate to a fantasy land where you get to make up your own fictional story-endings - let me try my hand at it. I'm pretty good at fiction too.

Once upon a time Xeno woke up to the news that his government had completely collapsed. "Cool," he thought to himself "I don't have to pay my bills any more".
For the most part he was right. It did not take long before the utilities stopped working. No water. No electricity. Luckily he lived by a river, he could go out and get water by the buckets to flush his toilet. Whoops! No sewer service - toilet backed up already. "Damn!" he muttered. He decided to go online to find advice from all the people on the NS forum who are so much smarter than him.. "Wha!" he exclaimed. "No phones? No internet? No cellular? DAMN!"

Being the first of the month it didn't take long before his formerly affluent landlord was knocking on his door. "Xeno - I sure have enjoyed having you as a tenant these past few years. I've decided in this period of uncertainty to allow you to continue renting from me. Of course, with our currency valueless you will have to find alternate methods of paym..."
Xeno gleefully and triumphantly declared "Kiss my ass you formerly affluent landlord bastard! I don't have to pay you shit and there ain't nothing you can do about it. Muhahahahahahaha!!" He slammed the door in the face of his formerly affluent landlord and wondered to himself if he would watch when the rest of the tenants decided to lynch him.

It didn't take long before there was another knock at the door. Xeno was sure this was the lynching announcement. He opened the door to see two strangers he'd never met before. They were quite large.

The smaller one said "Mr. FAL (Formerly Affluent Landlord) sent us. He said you needed some help negotiating your rent. "

"What the fuck are you talking about? How can I pay rent? There is no currency nor is there a government to force me. Ha!"

"Well, Mr. FAL is paying us to help him. He's pretty smart ya know. He moved a lot of cash overseas and converted to foreign assets. He now pays us in money which is still good. Of course, he also has provides us with weapons, ammunition, food and a place to live. All we have to do is protect him and his tenants. Not a bad deal, eh? Now, as for your rent, he says you can pay him in foreign currency, weapons or ammunition, food or other services."

Xeno was shocked. His simple mind never considered the barter system would work like this. He never fathomed that other nations could exist independent from his own. He never dreamt that people from outside could influence things in his own country.

"I don't have any foreign currency. I'm just a student! I don't have any guns, food or even a job I can do for you and Mr. FAL. Help me! I'm scared!"

"Don't worry" the smaller giant said. "Mr. FAL told us that you may be in dire straights. He is a kind man and has an offer for you. You may continue to live here and Mr. FAL will even provide you some food. All we need for you to do is perform a certain number of 'gratifying' activities each week for Mr. FAL, us or any of his 'clients'.

"Are you nuts?! I won't do that!" Xeno got an inspired idea. "I know! Lets work together and WE'LL run this apartment! We can lynch Mr. FAL and WE will split the profits from the tennants!"

"OK smartypants..." said the smaller giant, "And just where will you get the foreign currency Mr. FAL uses to buy our guns food and ammunition? The tennants? They cannot raise nearly as much as we would require to keep up our operation. Mr. FAL has nearly unlimited resources and connections. We would quickly run dry without him - but I'll be glad to pass on your regards to him."

"This is so not fair!"

"Oh come on, you only have to do seven 'gratifying' experiences per week - that's cheap. The attractive girl upstairs has to do 28! You're getting a heluva deal! It’s a fair deal considering you have nothing else."

Xeno felt cold. "B-b-b-b- but..."

"Exactly!" said the little giant. "You think about it. We'll be back tonight to wrap up the deal or help you pack". With that they were gone.

Xeno stumbled out of his apartment and wandered the streets in a stupor. As he rounded a corner he saw something unexpected; two uniformed police officers. "The police are still active! How fortunate for me!" He ran to them and asked for help. They agreed to hear his situation and followed him back to the apartment.

"...so you see, they expect me to prostitute myself for rent. You can't let them do that!" Xeno said as they entered his apartment.

The larger policeman said "I can understand, and you're right - he really ought not do that. We'll look into this. How do you plan to pay us?"

"What do you mean?" asked Xeno.

"Pay - you know - foreign currency, guns or ammunition, food, even fuel. What have you got? We'll be expending some resources protecting you and will need some reimbursement. Otherwise we won't have anything to help protect the next person. We don't get a salary or even supplies anymore".

"B-b-b-but I don't have anything." Xeno cried.

"Awww, that's too bad." one policeman said. "Well, Mr. FAL HAS agreed to pay and provide for us. He asked us to protect him, his business and his tenants according to his wishes which we'll do. So if anyone other than Mr. FAL or one of his friends bothers you - you let us know, OK?"

Xeno thought about it. He liked it better when the police were paid for by other people. Now that he has to pay for himself he really didn't think it was so fair. He shared those thoughts with the policemen.

"That's odd. We thought just the opposite. You paid nothing before and got full access to our services. Mr. FAL paid a considerable amount in taxes and he didn't get any more access than you - We protected everyone’s rights the same. Now things are more fair. We protect just the people who pay or provide for us. If you can provide for us we'll be glad to help.

"I cannot. I have nothing." Xeno said in a resigned voice.

"So be it." The larger police officer said. Well, before we leave there is one last thing we need to discuss.

"What." Xeno said with resignation.

"Mr. FAL did say that in addition to cash and ammunition, he would provide us each with one 'gratifying' experience per month from each tenant. We plan to exercise that option right now."

Xeno looked up shocked. This turn of events was completely unexpected.

"Bend over bitch! It's time to appreciate the freedom of anarchy!"

"I thought you were my frrrrrrrriiieeeend! ouch! Waaaa!"

Hmmm, who's story is more credible. I suggest you go to Somalia and research that.

Don't be pig!!!

Don't be pig!!!
Don't be naive.

Hmmm, who's story is more credible. I suggest you go to Somalia and research that.

cries a tear of laughter. brilliant! :D

Hmmm, who's story is more credible. I suggest you go to Somalia and research that.

You do realize that your story applies well to Somolia, and not to any developed western economies, correct?

You do realize that your story applies well to Somolia, and not to any developed western economies, correct?


Of course! - The foolish point was that the wealthy have more to lose in the absence of a structured government. I illustrated a situation which refutes that. I then suggested anyone who doubts the credibility of my story over the silly one prior could investigate the probabilities of either one in a place where structured government HAS broken down.

There is no need for you to point out the dissimilarities between my illustration and a developed economy; of course it would have no bearing on any developed economy! (Western, Eastern, Northern or Southern really has no bearing upon it unless you are some sort of bigot). The working term is developed - not western. By nature of collapse itself no nation which is developed is ever going to be near collapse. As soon as they are they no longer are developed. That's one of those "duh" observations.

Once every adult has an equal income and an equally good quality of life, then you can start taxing everyone a fixed rate.

Once every adult has an equal income and an equally good quality of life, then you can start taxing everyone a fixed rate.

Riiiiight. because income is, afterall, the only true measure of equality.

cries a tear of laughter. brilliant! :D

Thanks :)

B0zzy, are you going to address my points or not?

Riiiiight. because income is, afterall, the only true measure of equality.

That's why I said quality of life.

Fixed amount tax doesn't bring equality and it favours the wealthy. For them it's a good deal because the more you earn the less the tax effects them. Poorer the one the more heavier the tax burden gets.

So whether to support the idea it's eventually only about are you rich or not.

I voted no because i ain't rich..

Riiiiight. because income is, afterall, the only true measure of equality.
You try feeding a family on 80 dollars a week.

You try feeding a family on 80 dollars a week.


By your standards they are lesser people than those who make more.

B0zzy, are you going to address my points or not?
You made a point? What was it? Please tell me you're still not stuck on that whole 'rich people get more from the police than poor people' argument. I pretty much blasted the shit out of that fallacy with my story "Xeno Finally Gets It"

Fixed amount tax doesn't bring equality and it favours the wealthy. For them it's a good deal because the more you earn the less the tax effects them. Poorer the one the more heavier the tax burden gets.

So whether to support the idea it's eventually only about are you rich or not.

I voted no because i ain't rich..


Pretty much every economic fact in life favors the wealthy, does it not? Isn't that the whole point of wanting to be wealthy?

That's why I said quality of life.



oooooh. You're so smart to use a subjective term as a shield to cover your ass!

You made a point? What was it? Please tell me you're still not stuck on that whole 'rich people get more from the police than poor people' argument. I pretty much blasted the shit out of that fallacy with my story "Xeno Finally Gets It"No, you didn't, as a matter of fact; if you insist I'll nitpick your story and point out where you went wrong.

Anyway, taxes can be viewed as insurance. Insurance payments on something worth $200,000 (say, someone's income) would naturally be higher on something worth $40,000. (Assuming that something isn't a car.)

That's why I said quality of life.

That's kind of subjective, though. What constitutes a good quality of life can be differ drastically between two economically identical people. It's rendered even more subjective by the fact that personal taste factors in to that judgement; for example, a person who loves living in the city might see a country estate offering an inferior quality of life.

Pretty much every economic fact in life favors the wealthy, does it not? Isn't that the whole point of wanting to be wealthy?

Sad but true. If we really wanted equality we needed to invent a completely new system. Well it has been tried couple of times eg. communism, democracy but the problem really is that people are selfish and that's a fact we can't change.. I just hope we get away from this planet before we destroy ourselfs..

Sad but true. If we really wanted equality we needed to invent a completely new system. Well it has been tried couple of times eg. communism, democracy but the problem really is that people are selfish and that's a fact we can't change.. I just hope we get away from this planet before we destroy ourselfs..

Inequality has its merits, however. It motivates us to try and rise above everyone else and to work hard to achieve that higher standard of living; if we were all equal, much of the motivation to try and distinguish ourselves would be lost. In fact, we might run the risk of slipping in to a dystopic, stagnant egalitarianism along the lines of "Harrison Bergeron".

Inequality has its merits, however. It motivates us to try and rise above everyone else and to work hard to achieve that higher standard of living; if we were all equal, much of the motivation to try and distinguish ourselves would be lost. In fact, we might run the risk of slipping in to a dystopic, stagnant egalitarianism along the lines of "Harrison Bergeron".

Yes i agree with you on that. Though i wish there was a better way.. :(

Yes i agree with you on that. Though i wish there was a better way.. :(

If we successfully address the problem of resource scarcity, then at least no one will have to suffer poverty or starvation; it might not solve the problem, but at least the worst will be prevented. If we're lucky, that will come to pass before this century ends...a long time, but there's still an end in sight.

No, you didn't, as a matter of fact; if you insist I'll nitpick your story and point out where you went wrong.
My biggest point was that you can create fiction all you want - it is still fiction. Why don't you just tell me everything inaccurate about Harry Poter as well?

Anyway, taxes can be viewed as insurance. Insurance payments on something worth $200,000 (say, someone's income) would naturally be higher on something worth $40,000. (Assuming that something isn't a car.)
Actually - as usual - you are wrong. The larger the value of the item being insured (and the corresponding premium) the lower the cost of insurance per mil. Quite the opposite of how taxes are priced.

Sad but true. If we really wanted equality we needed to invent a completely new system. Well it has been tried couple of times eg. communism, democracy but the problem really is that people are selfish and that's a fact we can't change.. I just hope we get away from this planet before we destroy ourselfs..


There is no reason why everyone who wants to be cannot be financially successful.

There is no reason why everyone who wants to be cannot be financially successful.

Follow that out to its conclusion: What if everyone in the world were financially successful?

There is no reason why everyone who wants to be cannot be financially successful.

Only if that was that simple.. :rolleyes:

My biggest point was that you can create fiction all you want - it is still fiction. Why don't you just tell me everything inaccurate about Harry Poter as well?Actually, I was going to write a story where I argue against your points, but it's much simpler to ask you if you meant this Somalia:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4020259.stm
http://www.netnomad.com/crigler.html


The larger the value of the item being insured (and the corresponding premium) the lower the cost of insurance per mil. Quite the opposite of how taxes are priced.The cost of insurance per mil is a different way of looking at it. I was referring to the amount of the premium itself - it is higher, which is contrary to the ideas of the OP who said that everyone should pay an equal amount, and as you seemed to agree with the OP, an argument against you, as well.

The wealthy get better services out of governement and more to lose if government collapses than the poor do. Rich neighborhoods get better roads and information infrastructure, better schools, and better police protection.
Good, that's how capitalism was intended.. You know, the rich got where they are by hardwork and ideas. Sure some inherited that power, but unless they're competant they won't be able to keep it. Capitalism rewards the strong, the brave, the intelligent, and the lucky.. if you have a clearly valuable skill then you should be entitled to things someone else can't get because they lack the skill. What they need to do is use thier own skills to find thier nitch and make it big as well.

And some people, like myself, don't even want to hit it big. Being rich is a huge responsibility and alot of preassure. It's not easy being the leader. And everyone always whines and bitches that you're such a meany, but sometimes you have to be or else people will just walk all over you and leech off your success.

For so many liberals believing in Darwin's theory, you sure like to argue about the logical reasoning behind capitalism..