Top income brackets should be taxed at 99%.

Oh, it is. Forcibly taking land as private property has robbed, enslaved, impoverished, oppressed, tortured, starved and killed more people than any other evil.

 

Own? I'm not sure what you mean by own. Can you define your terms?

 

First explain what makes it his.

 

Can you point a finger at the culprit?

 

He owns it.

Which is to say that no other person has a more legitimate claim to it than him.

 

Non-responsive. Why does he own it rather than anyone else or no one at all.

So you mean he is the one who is making the most compensation to those whose liberty rights he is abrogating by keeping them off the land? That is the only source of a legitimate claim to secure, exclusive tenure I know of.

 

Either individuals own land or the state (i.e. certain people) owns the land. I'm not a commie, so I'm in favor of individuals owning land.

 

Every landowner is a culprit. Some are just more culpable than others. There might be 500M landowners in the world today, and they kill 12-15M people per year, so they average one murder each every 35-40 years or so.

 

We need the income tax rates previous to 1913.

 

I'm not a commie. I don't want the politburo to own all the land.

 

No, that's just obviously false as a matter of objective physical fact. Until a few thousand years ago, no one ever owned land.

OK, so you are abandoning your claim of legitimacy. Good. You are also claiming, falsely, stupidly, and disingenuously, that Hong Kong has been communist for over 160 years.

 

I want you to keep your commie hands off my property.

 

Ownership is considered to comprise four rights: exclusion, control, benefit and disposition.

 

And you want to abrogate my rights?

 

What would the point be to go to work?

 

Back to the subject of this thread. Those with higher "Ordinary Income" should not be taxed a higher percentage than other persons "Ordinary Income". Those that earn less will pay less. If the flat tax is 10% for all with no credits or deductions, an individual earning 10,000/ year would owe $100.00. Fair, as they are getting all benefits offered by the Federal Government for 100$. While someone that has ordinary income of 100,000 will owe the same percentage, or 1000.00$.

Those with investment income, capital gains will pay Capital gains rates on that income.
Fair?

 

You forgot the right of enjoyment.

That is a legal definition. I don't care about a legal definition of ownership. The state isn't legitimate, so neither are legal definitions.

 

No, that's included in benefit.

No it isn't. It's what ordinary people mean by owning. You're just wrong.

More accurately, you don't care for clarity because clarity makes it harder for you to get away with evasions.

Absurd garbage with no basis in fact. Without a state, what determines legitimacy (which is just Latin for accordance with law)?

 

A judge agreed to by the parties having the quarrel.

 

What rights? You have no right to abrogate others' rights without making just compensation. That would be self-contradictory.

 

BWAHAHAHHAAAA!!! Why would the party with more power agree to a judge that might rule in the other party's favor??

And what, exactly, do you incorrectly imagine the current situation evolved from, hmmmmmmmmmmm?

<Rule 2>

 

Because everyone expects him to submit to an arbitrator rather than be killed outright?

From statists.

<Reply to Deleted>

 

<yawn> So, you can't offer anything better than the exact same "argument" slave owners used. Thought so.

 

Me neither. That's just some absurd $#!+ you have made up to avoid considering the facts.

 

I don't own any slaves nor do I wish to own any slaves nor have I made any argument in favor of enslaving any person.

You need to learn a new trick, pony boy.