RE: too rich?
January 23, 2013 at 9:06 pm
(This post was last modified: January 23, 2013 at 9:08 pm by Tiberius.)
Again, I was talking about the precedent. The precedent being giving a government more power, specifically, the ability to just take money from the rich whenever they feel like it. The tax isn't the thing that causes the abuse; the ability to create the tax is.
If the government is allowed to just take money from the rich for no other reason than "they have it, and we need it", it creates a precedent which can be abused if the situation ever arises again.
But tell me, I've explained my arguments (several times now). Are you ever going to tell me what definition you were using for the word "tax" in your OP? Or are you going to (finally) admit that maybe "tax" was the wrong word to use?
How about the following amendment to your statement:
"it would only take 25% of 100 people's incomes to end extreme poverty."
or
"if we could encourage 100 people to give 25% of their incomes, it would end poverty"
If the government is allowed to just take money from the rich for no other reason than "they have it, and we need it", it creates a precedent which can be abused if the situation ever arises again.
But tell me, I've explained my arguments (several times now). Are you ever going to tell me what definition you were using for the word "tax" in your OP? Or are you going to (finally) admit that maybe "tax" was the wrong word to use?
How about the following amendment to your statement:
"it would only take 25% of 100 people's incomes to end extreme poverty."
or
"if we could encourage 100 people to give 25% of their incomes, it would end poverty"
