Didn’t anybody else immediately think “I would tax Raquel Welch” while reading this thread?
Nice boobs, OP.
So you define “stealing” as “random non-progressive taxation”? Or what?
Who determines what’s “the most good for the most people”?
It sounds like your definition of “reasonable” is actually “redistributing wealth to put it towards things that do the most good for the most people”. Do you agree?
What do you mean by “real human rights”?
Taxes do impinge upon this purported right to immediate personal safety. What do you think happens when people refuse to “pay their taxes”?
Finally, your definition of socialism seems to contradict that of Marx, which was something like “common ownership of the means of production”. In other words, it wasn’t just about redistribution of existing wealth.
Then why did you say otherwise before?
Well I’m not sure. That’s why I asked. Originally you distinguished between salary income and rental income (i.e. “salary income” and “rental income” are mutually exclusive categories), but later you said that some salary income is rental income, which would mean they’re not mutually exclusive categories. Either that or you’re using different definitions of “salary income” and “rental income” from what I understand to be the traditional definitions. Which is it?
I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean. Explain.
But I thought you consider “income from capital” (which you’ve defined as “income from rent and interest”) to be bad and “income from labor” (which you’ve defined as “income from wages and salaries”) to be good. So if a union acts like a bloodsucking leech - that is, if it’s earning any income from capital - then, by your reasoning, it should be taxed. Are you now saying that you consider some income from capital to be good? If so, exactly when do you consider it to be good and when do you consider it to be bad?