The Wealthy Do Pay Income Taxes

I read an article a couple of weeks ago. It said that Jackson County was one of the top marihuana producing counties in the state. Yet only 25% went to the legal market. Although the local black market all but dried up with legalization, there are still states like Utah and Idaho, where the demand is just as high. Although marihuana is not native to the Northwest, it grows here, like many plants, better than elsewhere.

 

However your, and Sowell's, arguments are based upon a false premise. It might be that your problem with liberals is that we insist on empirical evidence. You can't just throw out an argument that sounds good. It has to square with reality, which yours doesn't. While typically a person's wealth will increase over their lifetime, the wealth one accumulates rarely is sufficient to significantly boost one along the socioeconomic spectrum.

For instance a janitor type might have started out 30-some years ago at $2.65 an hour and now makes $10 an hour. At the same time an engineer type would've started at the equivalent of $15 an hour and now making about $60 an hour. I really doubt one will see a lot of each moving into the other's neighborhood.

 

Not even close to what we were talking about. Of course you can't break the law, that goes without saying. It must be convenient to just be able to change the subject matter so you actually have a point. You were arguing in favor of being taxed based on how much wealth you had and now, so you have a point, you've changed to some argument about breaking the law?....ok

 

No, they aren't, and nothing you posted demonstrated that they are. Why am I not surprised?

 

Non-responsive

 

No, I responded to what you said. You spewed out data like it was fact after calling someone out for the same thing.

Once again, I expect this.

You can point to where I said this whenever you're ready and then we can discuss it. This is NOT EVEN CLOSE to what sanskrit said either. I also said nothing that could even be remotely interpreted this way.

You put in your post a quote of what sanskrit said and grossly changed the wording to mean something completely different.

If you want to discuss that, then we can, but we're not discussing your rewording of it.

Try going back and reading the original quote and you'll see that it's not claiming what you seem to think it is.

 

Well most commercial growers don't produce outdoor, they prefer a indoor controlled environment! Granted there is nothing like seeing a Christmas size cannabis plant with kola's the size of your forearm, but unfortunately mites like cannabis as much as humans do I have already been approached by several growers in the area trying to get me to sell but I'm holding out to see just how demand will drive the price up once those last five reconsider in Nov's vote.. Hell I might not sell it at all and just and just deed it to my nieces and nephews as I haven't any children of my own, be a hell of a Christmas present!

 

Not even close to the truth. I never argued in favor of being taxed based on how much wealth you had. I read the posts on taxation of wealth and I assumed everyone was being reasonable and was talking about inheritance taxes. So that's what I referenced but you have an uncontrollable compulsion to attack and criticize in any case.

 

You say things and then deny it and spin it. Watch. I'll show you.....

How's this: "The "poor" are, for the most part, the same people as "the rich," just at different points in their careers."
See post #73.

 

In the real world, everything is finite -- except the dishonesty of apologists for privilege and injustice, of course.

The inevitable descent into absurdity.

You obviously can't even tell the difference between owning and consuming, let alone owning and earning.

 

Remember folks, NEVER attempt a discussion with a leftist unless there is a written record of what was said.

Perfect example above, even though the LW -knows- full well it distorted what was actually posted via the second quote above, purposefully attempting a straw man by way of non sequitur because it had no reasonable answer for the point as posted, it will persist in arguing and arguing the same point it lost already as if there isn't a record right here for all to see. What a fascinating behavior and cognitive flaw that amounts to. If this weren't a written discussion, there wouldn't be a record, and the innate dishonesty couldn't be illustrated. ALWAYS have a record of any discussion with a leftist/statist/Complex.

 

Abstractions such as "wealth" are infinite, not static. Raw materials are more static, yet with technology can become near infinite as well. Do you know what silicon is and what it's made of? Do you know what the CPU in the inexpensive supercomputer you are using is made of?

For just one example among hundreds possible, the wealth and quality of life increase inherent in the difference between a telephone that hangs on a wall and a telephone-supercomputer one carries around cheaply in the palm of the hand, both gifts to you from the capitalist profit motive (for which I am sure you are very appreciative), is near infinite.

 

Wrong. That was said in a completely different post.

Go to your post #86 where you responded to Sanskrit. You were NOT responding to that quote, you were responding to and entirely different post altogether.

We're done. This is beyond useless. Keep twisting....you wouldn't be a lefty if you didn't.

 

And your inhibitions hold you back and control your thoughts Digital wealth has no finite ceiling, that all in your head!

 

Wealth is not fixed, it has no ceiling, but that does not mean it is infinite.

 

Wealth is not an abstraction, don't be absurd.

False dichotomy fallacy. Not being static is not the same as being infinite, that's just absurd nonsense on your part.

They can be increased, but not "near infinitely."

Yes. Do you know what relevance is, and how remote from it your "points" are?

They are not gifts of the capitalist profit motive, they are gifts of scientific curiosity, freedom of inquiry (and a lot of government support for pure research), liberty to produce, and justice that secures property in the product to its producer.

 

Look, if you want me to reply to the whole post, don't put an irrefutable error of fact at the top of it. "Wealth" isn't an abstraction? Well why don't you go ahead and post some pictures of "wealth." Or better yet, link some amazon or ebay listings for "wealth." Look around wherever you are, and point out some "wealth." Maybe your Walmart has boxes of "wealth" on the shelves, mine doesn't.

Wealth is an abstraction as a matter of irrefutable fact and not opinion. The end... and also where I stopped reading.

 

I don't have to. You are looking at this post on some wealth.

That is a category error. Wealth includes everything listed for sale on amazon and ebay.

Sure it does. The boxes on WalMart's shelves are full of wealth.

No, it is not. You are making a category error. The concept of wealth -- like all concepts -- is an abstraction, but that does not mean wealth itself is an abstraction. Consider pollution. Like wealth, it is a materially real thing that can take many forms, and we might disagree about what we want to call pollution, but it is not an abstraction. It is a real, material thing.

And thinking.

 

It comes down to some wanting more government than can be efficiently supported.

 

Large government equals more wealth disparity. Not the other way around. The more you consolidate power, the easier it is to consolidate wealth. It's just common sense.

 

History has shown that governments always serve the wealthy.

 

That isn't common sense, that is no sense.

 

Just remove all deductions and 15% is gravy.

 

Wealth -is- an abstraction. There is no such -thing- in the world as "wealth." The end. Getting funny though, keep squirming around.

Remember folks, when attempting -any- discussion with a leftist, always have a written record. Sometimes that's for keeping them honest, other times (like this) it's for laughing at them as they try to talk or "feel" into an alternate reality instead of accepting they are wrong about the reality that is. It's why they don't learn no matter how much educational product they buy, why their faculties don't improve, why their critical reasoning skills, as is apparent 100s of times a day on this forum, are so atrophied.

 

Actually, velocity of money reduces worth higher taxes. Less transacting = less taxes.