SEARCH BLOG: TAXES
Yesterday, I got into an online discussion with the left-wing group at Economist's View. The discussion was about the post "The "Dramatic" Reduction in the Progressivity of Federal Taxes." The point many of the commenters were making was that the wealthy are not paying their "fair share." I wrote about a "fair" (but not confiscatory) tax approach here.
Some felt that the wealthy got more "protection" from society ... no, not by society... from society (you and me just taking it) so they should pay more taxes (protection money?).
Others felt that individual wealth was just evil in itself. There was a jolly old guy named Josef/Joseph who spouted the same thing and ended up killing millions of his own countrymen in the name of the "common good."
I had a brief email chat with another gentlemen who, while philosophically far apart from me, can put together more than two words to make a rational sentence. He argued that:
For starters, I simply don't believe that wealth as great as $100 millionI picked the arbitrary number of $100,000 (why not?). His argument was that we must limit personal wealth for the common good and $100,000 is way more than most people have. Turn it over to the government. Let "Karl" tell us what to do.
(to pick an arbitrary number) is "theirs" in the sense of belonging to any
one person. It requires a large organization to control the resources that
such a figure represents, and the fact that some of that organization is
embedded in the legal system is beside the point. Mega-wealth is not
personal property; it is a command-and-control organization, albeit one that
is sometimes subject to individual whim.
"When I look at what Bill Gates has done with his money versus what Diane Feinstein has done with "our" money, I choose Bill Gates."
In case you haven't read about Diane....