What if I want to endow educational scholarships or support the Church of my choice or help in humanitarian ways.
Then perhaps you haven't reached the point I'm speaking of yet.
Why do you think some of my income would become less important?
What I mean is -- exactly how your income is put back into the economy isn't as important to you. You may impulse buy more often, you may give more arbitrarly decided sums of money to different charities. I mean, you don't have to be nearly as careful with your money because you have enough for yourself. That's just how things play out with human nature. Everyone's primary concern is themself. Once that has been met, how they use their money is very different. I shouldn't have said your money "isn't important" -- I meant your money isn't as important -to you-. You're already covered.
Another angle to look at this is -- the government could be the most efficient and fair way for you to get money to those who need it.
Who gets to decide which part of my income is less important to me?
Obviously these are difficult questions. But we don't always get what we want from government. I'm not sure how to answer this one. Obviously I want to say that you completely decide where your income goes, but I'm not sure that's practical for society.
Maybe [Kerry] should be forced to donate a couple of his wife's homes for humanitarian reasons. Don't you think he has some income that's less important to him?
Of course I think he has income that's less important to him. In fact he thinks so. And I do think its ridiculous that his wife has so many homes. But please don't take that to mean that I now, me alone, get to decide to take those homes away. Its a difficult question -- I mean, how is it that Kerry's wife has been able to get those homes? In part, its because of society's support. Doesn't that mean she should be giving back to society?
I do think there are reasonable arguments behind this kind of thinking, it is not all completely bogus, though many of the ways it has been implemented are.
ROTFLMAO
LOL
How much of what I own belongs to you? Or the "country"?
Wrong! I don't need government intervention to help support charities in my community. If I decide to endow a wing to my local library, I don't need the goverment to help me spend that money because I sure as heck don't need to support the government wanting to take their 2 cents or more out of the amount I want to give.
If I choose to build lower income housing, I don't need a government cottage industry to spring up telling me who should qualify and how they should qualify for lower income housing. I don't need nor would I tolerate all of the red tape the government would throw my way. It would be a waste of my time and my money.
If I choose to build a hospital in my community, I don't need the federal government interfering other than accreditation once the hospital is built.
If I choose to donate my money to local charitable organizations, I don't need the government standing by to grab their percieved part of my money.
If I choose to open a food pantry, offer free classes to legal immigrants, offer free counseling to new home buyers, etc. Why the heck do I need the federal government whose inefficiency and so called fair policies would only add to the cost of what I'm wanting to spend my hard-earned money on.
Most importantly, why should I depend on the government to decide where my money should go? And how it should be spent. Do you not realize how overblown and money-hungry the federal government is?
The thing about Heinz-Kerry's money is, it's hers to do with as she chooses. If she chooses to own 5 homes, numerous cars, designer dresses, yachts and all of the trappings of extrememe wealth, it's still her money to do what she wants with it.
Obviously I want to say that you completely decide where your income goes, but I'm not sure that's practical for society.
To what extent am I responsible for society? Who makes that decision? Who decides what the cut-off is between being rich enough to support the style I want to live in and that I have too much and it should be taken from me.
As far as Heinz-Kerry, how did society support her to accrue the homes she has? She married a rich man, they made investments and they bought the things they bought. Society didn't support her in her purchases. Capitalism did. Should she be giving back? It's her money and it's her decision to give back, not because the government tells her to but because she chooses to.
The truly rich spend a small portion of their wealth. Most of it is invested. With the exception of government bonds, that money goes to businesses. Those businesses compete for profits by trying to provide us with better and/or cheaper goods and services. This improves our lives. In their pursuit of profits, jobs are also created.
Taxing the rich assumes that the congress will do a better job for us with the money than corporations. Where is the evidence for that? Beyond defense and a few justifiable expenses, most of the money is spent by congress to enhance the reelection chances of the members.
I am far from rich, but I say "tax cuts for the rich!". I say it because it is the best hope for the poor and middle class.
I just got home and started to read this thread for its entertainment value. (Although indie had been zotted by the time I clicked on my 'puter.) I agreed with you in the very beginning.
He totally outed himself here (actually he had already, but with this statement he placed a target on his chest and committed suicide):
"Another angle to look at this is -- the government could be the most efficient and fair way for you to get money to those who need it."
I almost threw up when I read that.
Well, it's easy to tell you are public skewled! and educated in the Berkley tradition!
I see you passed Socialism 101 with and A+
The money I don't "need" at moment, it put into savings for me to support my wife and me in retirement! It will go to college educations for my children!
There is not such thing as money I don't need! I need every penny the government, your idol, doesn't steal from me!