🚀 go-pugleaf

On 06/17/2010 12:11 PM, Michael Coburn wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 23:46:26 -0700, Sam Spade wrote:
> 
>> Roy Carin wrote:
>>
>>> However, the wealthy do not OWE the state government of California any
>>> more than what they've already provided. Those "wealthy" who are
>>> creating businesses and jobs have already contributed much more than
>>> the average person.
>> Most Democrats and public "service" employees are incapable of
>> understanding that concept.
> 
> This religious affliction concerning the contribution of the rich still 
> drives the moronic rightards even though reality says otherwise.  This 
> country has not been destroyed by Democrats.  

Yes it has. The Democrats have proven to themselves, all future 
politicians and the voting public that it's possible for the people to 
vote themselves money from the U.S. treasury. The moment that happened, 
our republic started toward its demise.

> It has been destroyed by 
> lying pig Republicans and their fascist pig shit.  As to the wealthy 
> owing government of California more or less the rational person attempts 
> a FAIR system of taxation as opposed to arguing about who is to be
> billed. That fair system existed in California until Prop 13 destroyed 
> it.  I would like to add that no one is FORCED to live in California and 
> that people can leave any time. 

Ah, and they will, and that's the killer. A strongly progressive tax 
requires that the wealthy stay in state for the state to suck (more) 
money from them UNLESS California gets more bailouts.

That's why some people on the Right correctly see bailouts as taxes 
(punishments) on people who did the right thing and balanced their 
budgets (both personal and governmental). These taxes are done to save 
they sorry backsides of people (states) who spent profligately.

I live in a state that has a very serious budget deficit, but I know I 
have no right to demand that Virginians bail us out.

That said, bailing out the states is more ethical than bailing out Wall 
Street.

> People want to live there because of the 
> natural attributes of that area.  Only the rich can afford to live 
> there.  But the rich must have government services, lawn care, 
> restaurants, massage parlors or house calls, grocery stores, and let us 
> not the forget the major need which is lots of people to kiss their 
> illustrious butts.  No government, no private property enforcement.  

Of course that includes enforcement of natural resource private property 
rights. There's no sense in paying any money to a government that 
doesn't protect your claim on your natural resources.

> The 
> rich will ever try to have others pay for their needs.  The proper 
> funding of government is via asset taxation.  

For what? Certainly the people should have some say in how much they are 
taxed, and certainly the people should have some veto power on wealth 
redistribution attempts, and certainly the functions of government 
should be limited so that people are never forced to pay 95% taxes.

> The greater the value of 
> your assets the more you NEED government.  Land is the asset that cannot 
> be hidden. It is available to all in a government enforced market.  And 
> all you have to do is outbid all the other people.  The land exists 
> without anyone "providing it".  It is just "there".  The recipient of the 
> payment for inhabiting a particular location should be the government 
> that enforces the use claims (e.g. the right of exclusive use).  It is a 
> fair and honest system.
> 

So the government taxes just enough to enforce property rights 
(including natural resources [including oil and water]). I have no 
problem with that. We finally agree on something ;-)