Yann forwards:
     At a time when the top 1% of U.S. citizens owns more wealth than
     the bottom 95% the new U.S. President wants to further cut the taxes
     of that wealthiest 1% while vast numbers of the bottom 95% live
     paycheck-to-paycheck and owe enormous credit card debts.
     Those 'wealthiest' persons currently 'contribute' a 33% 'share'
      of the income taxes extracted while only creating 15% of the
      Those bottom 50% pay less than 5% of the income tax burden.

      Why should any person pay more or less to fund a monopoly service
      which has force as its insurance to obedience?
      Answer: Simple benefits received principle.
So if this nation were to be 'invaded' ... the military would surround
and protect individuals and their estates (property) in descending
order based upon the amount of taxes paid?

     One of the primary responsibilities/benefits of government
     is protection of property, obviously the "rich" value this
     benefit much more highly than do the poor.
Do they?  Look at those wealthy individuals who are against
the freedom to allow others the ability to do with their accumulations
as they desire.

    A second major responsibility is enforcement of contracts/the legal
    system again the benefits are clearly weighted towards the wealthy.
This cost is minuscule compared to the transfer of plunder to

      A third benefit is protection from foreign invasion, again those
      with the most to protect should pay the most for the protection.
I reiterate the 'surround' idea from above ... in a 'free society' which
stresses equality ... Government looking in another's wallet and
then discriminating accordingly should necessarily be taboo (just
as other forms such as race, sexual preference should ALSO be
prohibited by Government).

The only legitimate purpose for Government is the protection of
citizens from force and fraud -- if you or others do not
appreciate/enjoy/like the LEVEL provided, there are private
alternatives which can bolster this protection at your own expense.

     Since the distribution of WEALTH is more heavily skewed than
     the tax burden distribution one can argue that the wealthy actual
     get a good deal at only having to pay the 33% share cited above.
Not for the ACTUAL benefit received.
Each American receives the same protection of their life -- that some
have exchanged portions of it (past and present) as reflected in
property has no bearing. ... though with the Welfare State which
has been implemented, the Government instead provides GREATER
protection to 'parasites' at the expense of the enslaved 'producers'.

Government is the ONLY entity which should be prohibited from

Yann forwards:
      The fact is that tax rate for the wealthiest Americans was 88% in
      the two decades following World War II, a time when the U.S.
     economy was booming. Working-class and middle-class Americans
     saved more and charged less then, too.
     The cost of Government was far less than $100 per person as well.
     That those 'wealthier' people have not be bludgeoned by the theft
     of taxation to the same degree as the 'poorer' is merely a function
     of time.  Lessening the burdens of taxation for EVERYONE (especially
     those who actually shoulder the burden) will necessarily help to
     improve evereone's lot.
     The problem is spending (most of which is unconstitutional).
     **Only unconstitutional according to your interpretation of the
        constitution, the Supreme court has not ruled it to be so.
I make no 'interpretations' -- your straw man.  :)

The Supreme Court is NOT the Constitution.  This ideal is yet
another unconstitutional usurpation.

    The Constitution is the fundamental law for the federal
    government. If that government's own court's can
    arbitrarily change it's meaning, the government becomes
    a law unto itself --- that is a lawless government, a
    government of men, not of law. -- Joseph Sobran

      It is simply more expedient to create factions to create diversionary 
      Again, why should any person pay more or less to fund a monopoly
      service which has force as its insurance to obedience?
      Answer: Public Goods.
There is no such thing -- a Good is either a Private Good or a Government


And is not this the point that we have now reached?
What is the cry going up everywhere, from all ranks
and classes? All for one! When we say the word one
we think of ourselves, and what we demand is to
receive an unearned share in the fruits of the labour
of all. In other words, we are creating an organized
system of plunder. Unquestionably, simple out-and-out
plunder is so clearly unjust as to be repugnant to us;
but thanks to the motto, all for one, we can allay
our qualms of conscience. We impose on others the
duty of working for us. then, we arrogate to ourselves
the right to enjoy the fruits of other men's labour.
We call upon the state, the law, to enforce our
so-called duty, to protect our so-called right, and
we end in the fantastic situation of robbing one
another in the name of brotherhood. We live at other
men's expense, and then call ourselves heroically
self-sacrificing for so doing. Oh, the unaccountable
folly of the human mind! Oh, the deviousness of greed!
It is not enough that each of us tries to increase
our share at the expense of other; it is not enough
that we want to profit from labour that we have not
performed. we even convince ourselves that in the
process we are sublime examples of self-sacrifice;
we almost go so far as to call our unselfishness
Christlike. We have become so blind that we do not
see that the sacrifices that cause us to weep with
admiration as we contemplate ourselves are not made
by us at all, but are exacted by us of others.
-- Frederic Bastiat

Reply via email to