Metal Reviews

You started with the ad hominems. My position is invalid because I'm a student? How do you know I wouldn't back up the theory I support if I had the means to do so? This has nothing to do with social spending.

You do have the means to do so... or does your hedonism come free of charge?
I'd guess not, because I know damn well that going out and partying can add up.
Instead of pub crawls, which are a luxury, why not give that money to someone less fortunate?


No, you don't do any such thing; instead you believe someone else should have their money taken from them.

Honestly, V, what is your excuse for righting me off? I now work two jobs, have had a job since I was able to and still really am into taxation. I must be brainwashed.

Equal taxation only makes sense when there is equal wealth. The top 10% control 75% of the wealth. Why does it not make sense that they would pay 70% of the tax, they have 70% of the money.

The idea that my daddy earned all this money so I should get to keep it is the exact opposite of the American mantra of hard work is how you earn things. It's more comparable to hereditary nobility of the old world than anything I learned growing up. It only perpetuates inequality that some will have better opportunities than other and that will have a bearing on what that person is able to accomplish. I don't see how that is a desirable system.

As for communism being theft, if it develops out of the people insofar as it is a popular movement how can a self-governing body steal from itself to help itself?

Yet that is his right, and my right too, and has been the way of Western societies for quite a while now.

You're equating social spending and social democratic policies with some form of mad charity gone wrong. I'm saying what everyone else here has been saying, that those who have enough money to be unaffected by higher taxes are not taxed highly enough.

Nonsense.
Income is private property.
And
this:



is nonsense as well.
People work hard for their fortune, this isn't the 19th century, and this isn't England.

As for this:



is, sorry, completely wrong;
the American mantra, whatever that is, notwithstanding, redistrubition of wealth goes against EVERYTHING the founding fathers had in mind when they laid it all out. Private property rights are one of the pillars this country was founded on.
This is NOT a socialist country; never was, and it never will be.

And you just stated that the rich, or top ten percent ARE paying their share,



Nobody is saying they should pay less than their share, are they?
So what's your point?

yeah, but he believes that right only applies to some.

How do you work that one out?

Bullshit.
THEY ARE TAXED HIGHLY ENOUGH. How much should they contribute? 90%?
Who are you to decide how much of their own money a person is allowed to keep?


The only other person that has been saying that the rich should pay more is Trapt, and well, he's an avowed Marxist.

You are not willing to guive up your luxuries but expect others to, luxury being relative.
Oh you can play semantics games all day long, but that is what it boils down to.

The accumulation of private property can only be done to the extent that it doesn't harm others. Having so much resources when others have none, most importantly are going hungry or sick not just being broke, is letting your accumulation take resources that others need access to. That is unjust a la Locke, the Founding Fathers' home boy.

Private property is what you put your labor into and you have earned. Not what others have earned and you simply inherited. Via Locke, the man who, so influentially, was read by and revered by the Founding Fathers.

America was founded on what you earned you keep, not that you get what others have earned because of your name or blood. Private property rights are fundamental but what is private, the individual or the individual and all the familial linkage he can come up with? As I stated earlier, to the Founding Fathers, property was what the resources that the individual "mixed with his labor" to prevent the unlawful seizure of one's property by the govt. However, I don't see how inheriting wealth is founded on the act of laboring and therefore I don't see it as unlawful seizure since that individual never had a right to it insofar as they never earned it.

I don't understand tax terminology well enough but the way I understand the top is only paying 35%, throw in loopholes, all of those tax cuts which they receive on that chart I had on the page prior to this and those fuckers are not paying 75%.

1. Other people have a surplus of luxury they don't even use.
2. Regardless, even if I was a hypocrite, this has nothing to do with the validity of social spending.

Quoting Locke doesn't make your argument any more valid, or sound any smarter.
The rich generate wealth, they do not take away the access to resources, on the contrary, they supply jobs. Wealth is not a zero sum concept.

Explain to me how wealth redistribution is in any way shape or form in line with what the founders of this nation had in mind.



If it was aquired legally it most certainly is private property, regardless of what you may think.
It doesn't matter whether it is inherited, made by playing the stock market, winning the lottery or by any other means.
Life is not fair, grow up.



Where in the constitution does it qualify one way of aquiring wealth over another? Where is this distinction listed?
Private property is what you have aquired through legal means, regardless of the amount of "labor" that was put into it.




No, private property is private property.
And you just made my argument for me (bold red), thanks.

By rejecting my argument via Locke, you've rejected the foundation of whatever the Founding Fathers put forward. Stripping the context from what they were saying, you get this greedy, self-interested, petty squabbling. So be it. No desire to go in circles with you, pal.

No, that is wrong.
The FFs read Locke no doubt, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.
They read lots of stuff.

Where in the Constitution does it state that the concept of private property only applies to a specific means of aquisition?
That's the question I have for you.

Basically, you're not understanding what they said how they intended it and instead you're getting the meaning of these historical documents through the interpretation of a society hellbent on maintaining capitalism in its concrete form and the Founding Fathers didn't give a fuck about capitalism but about living prosperously and beneficently with others.

Whatever, I can guarntee you that the FFs had no intention of a system of wealth redistribution, regardless of Locke.

Why can't you just admit this?

Oh and answer my question.

This.

Then you answer my question as well: where does the Constitution say the governmaent is required to differerntiate between means of acquisition?
And where does it state that the government is allowed to engage in wealth redistrubution?