too rich?

[Tiberius]

The association is in your own head, which you apply to my writing. An old person could say 'it taxes me to climb these stairs', there is no implication of a government in that statement.

The association is in my head because of your writing.

You said: "it would only take a 25% tax on 100 people to end extreme poverty"

You further said: "if they don't sort this out themselves, it is time to make them pay."

Both statements combined gives the distinct impression that you meant a tax levied by a government. Yes, it is true that the phrase "it taxes me to climb these stairs" has no such implication, but that is not what you said, and the "25% tax" you did talk about does have that implication. Why don't you just admit that is what your original post was about, but that you didn't mean it, and it was the result of a bad choice of word on your part?

This trait of yours to read into a statement what is in your head, rather than what is on the page, is shown here again. The quote you use does not mention a tax, but your reply is all about governmental tax. What do you want me to do, explain what I have written or what is in your head?

Your quote didn't mention tax, but your original one did. I was merely linking the two together. I think you should explain what you mean by the word "tax", because you've avoided that question now, despite someone listing all the definitions of the word "tax". I can't see any that matches what you said, that isn't to do with a tax levied by a government.

So yes, please explain what you have written. If you really didn't mean a tax levied by government, what did you mean? Or, why not admit that this is clearly how it comes across because of your wording, and that your original wording was wrong?

My accusation of 'daft' was in response to you saying.

In this statement you seem to be saying that a new tax would lead to abuse, I responded by pointing out that, that abuse had already taken place, as such the proposal that a new tax is causal to an abuse is daft.
Governments abusing their control, does not depend on which taxes they impose, to say it does is daft.

My point was, governments always abuse the powers they are given. If they are given a power to take tax from people just because they have enough money to do something, they will only abuse that power. I never implied that a new tax is causal to abuse; I implied that governments abuse their powers generally.

Furthermore, it is irrelevant if abuse of some kind has already taken place. That does not prevent it from taking place again. I hold that with the precedent we were discussing, if the banks were to go under again, what would stop the government from abusing the new tax to fund the bailout?

Tibs you have a very intense gaze. You can channel your vision onto something and see detail which others find it very hard to see

No, what I see is there as plain as day. You used the word "tax", and you used it what I can only interpret as a government tax. You have rejected this idea, but you have failed to actually clarify what you meant by the word "tax", or whether it was a mistake to even use that word. You've even gone so far as to try and compare what you said to saying "it is taxing to climb these stairs", despite the fact that that kind of "taxing" does not have a percentage anywhere near it (which yours does), and does not involve money (which yours does). A tax that is measured as a percentage, and involves money, is - to me, and others I think - clearly one involving a government.

but in looking at your correspondence I have noticed that you seem to find it hard to differentiate the vision you have from your own preconceptions and these preconceptions are colouring the result you get. This seems to mean you do not look at things with fresh eyes, as such; If you have decided what a thing is you can only see it that way. It seems to me if you could learn to at times re-evaluate your preconceptions, as well as use that intense vision, and differentiate between the two, you would be in a very strong position.

I can't help if you aren't very good at wording things correctly, or don't explain your positions, but rather reject mine and then refuse to clarify what you actually meant. You've had multiple chances to explain what definition of "tax" you were using. Please enlighten me.

---

Would you please clarify in what sense you meant the word 'tax'?

tax   /tæks/ Show Spelled[taks]
noun
1. a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
2. a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.
verb (used with object)
3. (of a government)
a. to demand a tax from (a person, business, etc.).
b. to demand a tax in consideration of the possession or occurrence of (income, goods, sales, etc.), usually in proportion to the value of money involved.
4. to lay a burden on; make serious demands on: to tax one's resources.
5. to take to task; censure; reprove; accuse: to tax one with laziness.
6. Informal . to charge: What did he tax you for that?
7. Archaic . to estimate or determine the amount or value of.

You see in even in the above definitions, that the word tax is not solely defined as pertaining to a government.

Right, but can one lay a 20% burden on someone, or make 20% serious demands on someone, or accuse someone 20%? No. Your use of the word tax had to do with percentage and money. As far as I can see, only a few definitions in that list make sense with those constraints. To further constrain it with your "time to make them pay" remark, it is clearly one of the demands.