Is the Purpose of Taxes to Raise Revenue or Punish the Rich?

How much money a person makes is irrelevant. Why do you keep trying to bring that up? It reeks of jealousy.

You exagerate so much! SOME labor laws are too restrictive, SOMETIMES the minimum wage obstructs small cottage industries from springing up. America isn't going to descend into Robber Baron days if we do a line by line audit of the budget and regulatory processes.

 

Natural resources are not wealth.

The claim that ownership of natural resources does not bottle them up, violating the rights of others to use what nature provided for all, is a flat-out lie. You are just lying. All apologists for greed, privilege and injustice lie. That is a natural law of the universe. There has never been an exception to that law, and there never will be.

 

Don't be stupid. One could argue that is theft, but not slavery. Slavery is labor compelled by force. No one forces you to labor.

Compare places with government to places without: you are just objectively wrong.

 

You don't have a natural right to anything that I can keep you from using by force.

Your definition of greed, privilege and injustice is simply to insane to even be applied to the real world.

Private Property is sacred right given by God, (*)(*)(*)(*) mother nature and what you think she provided you.

 

And you don't have a natural right to have it either, and when hoarders like you get prosecuted or otherwise essentially forced to give some of it up, don't come crying to me.

 

The only thing you'll get from me is scorched earth and a pile of bodies. I'd dump toxic waste and salt the land to make sure no noe else gets it. I'll make sure the land is dead for a century.

 

You obviously haven't thought this through, 'mutha, but let me help you out here. Private industry survives ONLY because of the government. How many private engineering firms (you know, those companies that build the bridges, freeways, airports, levees, aquaducts, etc.) are you going to put out of business with your tax cuts?

 

you don't communicate you spew repubic talking points and lies and show no proof

 

The difference is Republican talking points are based on objective economic facts that can be shown and proven.

Democrat Talking points are based on conspiracy theory about a small group of evil, greedy men called "the rich" who don't even exist as a monolithic class.

 

There was a time when putting something aside and saving for the future was a good thing, even encouraged. Now if you don't spend everything you make and then rely on the government when the rainy days happen, you're labeled a "hoarder" and folks demand the government seize whatever you managed to save.

 

*shrug* It's likely you could live on 60% of your income as well. That you could live without all you own doesn't mean my taking it from you and spending it how I see fit would be any less theft.

Look: if you see a bunch of folks knocking a woman down and taking her purse... well, speaking up about it isn't defending millionaires, defending women, defending Jews, Catholics, or whatever she happens to be... it's defending people.

 

The resources about which you hand-wring may be limited - the Earth is only so large - but the fact is that all the resources that the Earth contains hasn't even come close to being tapped.

You complain that "the rich" control it all. Poppycock: much of it hasn't even yet been discovered. So what's supposed to happen? The rich are supposed to pay the cost of discovery for the poor?

You complain that some sort of horrid economic injustice is being perpetrated against the poor, and you use as basis for your claim that the resources of this Earth are limited, and scarce. The fact that they've not been tapped to date (or even close) squashes your claim that they're limited, in terms of using that as a viable basis of arguing that that's why the poor are kept down, and the fact that new resources are discovered all the time (see the billion barrel oil discovery in the Gulf) counters your claim that these resources are scarce!

In addition, the type of resources we can use is constantly changing. What mineral will we find a use for that we didn't know was possible?

In short: offering the canard that it's "unfair" for the rich to be the ones at the pinnacle of the exploration/exploitation/implementation of natural resources is an asinine claim, and easily defeated.

 

It's meant to create revenue, which is next to impossible when corporations and CEO's get away with paying little or no taxes at all thanks to loopholes put in place by with minions in the republican party...

 

There is no right to natural resources except the right to own property.

I'm not stupid, I'm open minded. Government is the cause of 99% of the problems in human society. Also government fails at everything it does, it has the negative Midas touch. Everything the state touches turns to crap.

Taxation, especially the income tax is indeed slavery, by definition. Government is the epitome of organized crime.

It may be you that is stupid for not being able to comprehend that.

 

No, I'm not ignorant, I'm likely better informed than most.

Resources are hardly scarce, they are abundant, most are renewable and they are not common property. The ignorance belongs to those that feel entitled to what belongs to others by right.

The majority is already controlled by the minority, it's called government.

 

If resources are not scarce why do people have to pay so much for them?

One would think that a world of abundance would afford everyone on the planet with a comfortable life but this does not seem to be the case. Perhaps you could explain why this is so.

 

We live in a day of age where Consumption is the only thing saving Mankind from going back into the Dark Ages. Too bad we are just bound to stupid paper and cannot to succeed to a whole next political/economic/spiritual/biological system. We are still bound by a piece of paper which has no real wealth. Even on a standard, its has no real wealth. But we are (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid human beings.

 

What resources do you refer to? I'm paying too much for gasoline and oil but that is the fault of government. I'm paying a bit much for coffee and dairy products, but again that is the fault of government.
The deliberate and systematic devaluation of the US dollar, combined with regulation, is causing the price of resources to "necessarily skyrocket."
There isn't a shortage, just an unwillingness to exploit them to their greatest capacity.

 

So just exploit all resources so future generations are screwed over from your mistake? I hope that never happens, because we all know Liberty will not save them. I hope you rethink unless you are that selfish on screwing future generations with your so called "Freedom." Because future generations will not have any freedoms, it will be the extinction of the human race.

 

So, you are claiming government interference is the primary reason why everyone on the planet cannot avail themselves of food and clean water and education and health care and quality opportunities so they can achieve a satisfying life.

Perhaps you are right, after all it is government that upholds the property rights of those who squander the wealth of the planet on frivolous items like i-pads while a billion people cannot afford enough food, two billion have no access to clean water, three billion cannot gain enough income to afford education and 5 Billion cannot get adequate health care.

 

Most resources are renewable, by exploiting them to their fullest potential is not "screwing" anybody.
It's the state that is currently "screwing" it's citizenry by making idiotic regulations.

Government is certainly the reason why the poor cannot dig themselves out of poverty. The leftist/statist agenda is to keep their subjects as slaves.

 

I disagree. I think it is the rightist/state agenda which has generated the impoverishment of so many, or at least impeded their ability to improve their lot.

The negligence and malfeasance of the state has created the enslavement of the citizenry for private interests through the sequestration of resources into private ownership. Leaving the citizenry bereft of control over resources has created a world of wage slaves and abject poverty ruled over by an elite few who wallow in negligent wealth while corrupting the levers of government to keep the masses enslaved in their ignorance.

There is more than enough wealth in the world right now to provide every person on the planet with adequate food, clean water, health care, education and opportunity with enough left over for steady economic advance. It is only the concentration of the world's wealth into the hands of those who seek only personal gain which does not allow this. I do not believe this to be a fault of the leftist state so much as a consequence of the rightist state.

 

Petroleum is one of the most regulated industries there is, and the state makes more in profits than the companies do. If you don't like the product or the company selling it, don't buy it. You can't do the same thing with regulation, you're coerced into compliance.

I disagree, while the right, especially the neoconservative right, is as authoritarian as the left, the issue of citizens becoming slaves is the burden of the left. The idiocy of "social justice" which demands wealth redistribution through coercion, has made tax slaves of the middle class.

Wealth is unlimited, it's up to the individual to pull themselves from poverty. Unfortunately it's becoming harder and harder to do so because of regulation, the compliance cost of regulation eliminates competition and allows larger, more established companies to flourish, since they can absorb and pass on the cost to consumers with less price impact than a smaller competitor.

 

There is nothing "idiotic" about wanting your fellow man to not suffer from poverty and deprivation, to want social and economic justice. It is psychopathic to disregard the suffering of others.

If business had not acted with such malfeasance and disregard for the general safety and health and economic security and well being of the public over the years there would likely be far fewer regulations these days. But they did so there are, and since there is no sign that business has suddenly gained some sense to act in a socially responsible manner they are likely to continue for some time.

Your position has no merit, only a vague argument from a questionable economic standpoint.