Will Oprah need to pay more taxes under Obama?

[Renob]

@Diogenes the Cynic

And without those laws, the rich person wouldn’t have shit.

And without rich people the government wouldn’t have shit.

I would beg to differ with this. Certainly not all rich people did anything to earn it (what did Paris Hilton do to earn her money, for example? Or GWB, for that matter?) and others are grossly overpaid or profit greatly beyond any real work. many of them profit on the backs of others’ labors, not their own.

Yes, Paris Hilton was born with money, but she also works as a model and a designer. As much as I despise her I’d have a hard time saying she is mooching off the system.

Others are “grossly overpaid.” How do you know that? Do you have some special knowledge that lets you know the correct amount people are paid? Personally I think the system that allows people who like products and services to buy those products and services and thus reward with money those who made those products and services available. But I guess a system where you set salaries would be more “fair,” right?

He did so under the protection of state laws and services.

Yes, he did. And I don’t really have a problem with him paying in some way to support the state. But to think that he owes the state more because he has more still makes no sense to me. Your idea that “he’s rich because there is a government” doesn’t start to set any type of equation where one could determine tax rates. It’s basically at the whim of those like you who think some people “earn too much.”

Without a government, distinctions of “rich” and “poor” would be meaningless. There wouldn’t be any protection for wealth. There wouldn’t even be printed currency.

You really need a history lesson, don’t you? You do realize that that governments didn’t always print currency.

The main purpose of the law is to keep the poor from murdering the rich.

No, I didn’t realize that. Perhaps because it’s a ridiculous thing to say.

Take away the government tomorrow, and I’d bet on today’s “poor” people to kick the living shit out of the rich people.

Or the rich would pay off some people to protec them from people with your attitude. The poor, no longer able to rely on the rich to pay taxes so they can sit on their asses, would soon starve because they don’t know how to work.

Sure, I’m painting with a broad and inaccurate brush, but I feel it’s in keeping with your scenario.

I don’t know where you’re getting that I think taxes are a “punisjhment.” I think they’re a responsibility.

When someone takes something from me by force, I don’t fool myself into thinking I’m being responsible. But if it helps you to think of your promotion of theft as a “responsibility,” go for it.

[Ludovic]

@Renob

The poor, no longer able to rely on the rich to pay taxes so they can sit on their asses, would soon starve because they don’t know how to work.

One thing people don’t do when they are starving is sit on their asses.

[stolichnaya]

There’s a lot of fuzzy sociology in this thread. Can we agree that not all wealthy people are evil fat cats or heroic supermen and not all poor people are slothful mooches or victimized butterflies? In fact can we agree that the grand majority of both types are schmoes like you and me who behave the way that they do because the system and their self-interest incentivizes them to do so?

Because then we could talk in a more logical and thoughtul way about this blaxes proposal.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Renob

And without rich people the government wouldn’t have shit.

Not so. Governments can exist just fine without rich people. Just look at China. Rich people are allowed to exist only by the kindness of the government. Governments don’t have to allow private wealth at all.

Yes, Paris Hilton was born with money, but she also works as a model and a designer. As much as I despise her I’d have a hard time saying she is mooching off the system.

No, she’s mooching off her parents, just like anyone else with inherited wealth.

Others are “grossly overpaid.” How do you know that?

I follow professional sports. I also know that CEO’s are paid at grotesquely inflated rates, far out of whack with what is paid to those who actually do the work.

Personally I think the system that allows people who like products and services to buy those products and services and thus reward with money those who made those products and services available. But I guess a system where you set salaries would be more “fair,” right?

But the system deosnt reward those who did the labor. It rewards those who exploit the labor of others.

As for set salaries, do you a problem with a minimum wage? Do you think it should just be like a feudal system with serfs and lords? Why such low self-esteem? Why such self-loathing? Why such adulation of the wealthy. Do you really think they’re better than you are?

Yes, he did. And I don’t really have a problem with him paying in some way to support the state. But to think that he owes the state more because he has more still makes no sense to me. Your idea that “he’s rich because there is a government” doesn’t start to set any type of equation where one could determine tax rates. It’s basically at the whim of those like you who think some people “earn too much.”

It needs to be a rate commensurate with maintaining the stability of the state. When the state is in debt, those who benefit the most have the mostresponsibility.

You really need a history lesson, don’t you? You do realize that that governments didn’t always print currency.

So? The point was that weath is an abstract concept. Without laws, it doesn’t exist.

No, I didn’t realize that. Perhaps because it’s a ridiculous thing to say.

I was paraphrasing Napolean (who actually said that about religion, not law) but I think it’s essentially true. Laws are about protection of property.

Or the rich would pay off some people to protec them from people with your attitude.

Pay them with what? Without a government, there isn’t any money.

The poor, no longer able to rely on the rich to pay taxes so they can sit on their asses, would soon starve because they don’t know how to work.

Without a government, there is no money. What part ogf that do you not understand. Without a government, there aren’t any wages, because nothing can be sold, because there is no such thing as legal “property.”

Saying that poor people “don’t know how to work” is ludicrous, by the way. Most poor people DO work and most of them work harder than GWB ever has,

When someone takes something from me by force, I don’t fool myself into thinking I’m being responsible. But if it helps you to think of your promotion of theft as a “responsibility,” go for it.

But you AGREE that the government needs to collect taxes. You just disagree about what it should be spent on. If you really objected to the government taking money by force, you’d be an anarchist (or a communist). If you believe in capitalism, you have to support taking money from people by force.

[Sampiro]

@Bryan Ekers

Maybe he can arrange for Oprah’s book club to get a reading room in the Library of Congress?

That’s when you’d see a contingent of the American Library Association reenacting the movie 300 on the marble stairs under the Minerva mosaic (though if you’re lucky we won’t wear thongs).

“Tonight we perform reference interviews in Helllll!”

[Frostillicus]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I also think he should paint the White House black.

That’s the final straw. I’m voting for McCain.

[42fish]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I also think he should paint the White House black.

'They call it the White House, but that’s a temporary condition" Parliament, ‘Chocolate City’

[crowmanyclouds]

@Renob

… Or the rich would pay off some people to protec them from people with your attitude. …

Ahhh yes, the [DEL]gory[/DEL] glory days of capitalism,

I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.
~ Jay Gould (orig. Jason Gould) US financier and railroad businessman (1836-1892)

Any friend of Boss Tweed’s is certainly [DEL]an enemy[/DEL] a friend of mine!

CMC +fnord!

[Voyager]

@Renob

Of course it is. So? Yes, the rich person has more dollars. Why does that mean he has less of a right to those dollars than a poor person has to his dollars? Does your right to your money decrease as you have more of it?

The notion that people should be forced to pay more merely because they can has nothing to do with “fairness.” It is simply those who don’t have as much trying to take from those who do have as much. I freely admit that those with more have an ethical obligation to help the less fortunate. However, no one has the right to use force against someone to take it.

I guess you didn’t get the all dollars are not created equal part. Why not have everyone pay to a more or less equal level of pain?

If you don’t like our government and taxation system, I suggest you invent a time machine and return to the glories of the 19th century. Or find a society today which doesn’t wrest your money from your poor unprotected pockets. Or go off in the woods somewhere and live off the land - I don’t think you’d have to pay any taxes then.

[Voyager]

@Sampiro

That’s when you’d see a contingent of the American Library Association reenacting the movie 300 on the marble stairs under the Minerva mosaic (though if you’re lucky we won’t wear thongs).

“Tonight we perform reference interviews in Helllll!”

But quietly!

[Telemark]

@Diogenes the Cynic

No, she’s mooching off her parents, just like anyone else with inherited wealth.

Actually, her income from TV, movies, products, etc is far more then her projected inheritance or any money she needs from her parents. Regardless of how she got into that situation, she is independent and producing wealth now.