Re: Flat tax proposal
royls_at_telus.net
Date: 07/13/04
- Next message: Johnny 5: "Re: The 'working poor' scam"
- Previous message: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Flat tax proposal"
- In reply to: Johnny Marcos: "Re: Flat tax proposal"
- Next in thread: Johnny 5: "Re: Flat tax proposal"
- Reply: Johnny 5: "Re: Flat tax proposal"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 07:40:43 GMT
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:11:08 GMT, Johnny Marcos <johnny5@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>royls@telus.net wrote in news:40ef048e.11097759@news.telus.net:
>
>>>- they are the first
>>>adopters of new expensive gadgets and technology
>>
>> Because they have the money. Duh.
>
>They have the money because they usually did something productive for
>themselves and society in the past.
Nope. In many if not most cases they have simply placed themselves in
the path of others who want to do something productive, and charged
them a fee for not interfering.
>>>- they provide the
>>>incentive for the free market - you invent something new so you can
>>>sell it to the rich to get thier money at high prices - then as time
>>>progresses - more people buy it, more competitors produce it, the
>>>better and cheaper it gets for the masses.
>>
>> That would happen just as well if the rich had less and the rest of us
>> had commensurately more.
>
>No the pace of the rising tide can either be slow or fast or negative -
>you want balance in a way that slows things down I think.
Nope.
>Bill Gates did
>a lot of work younger, it took effort to steal all those ideas and unite
>them and then provide them to the public cheaply - this made him RICH -
Copyright monopolies made him rich.
>now that money goes into helping poor people, new technology, usability
>studies that makes things easy for dumb people or are you using Linux
>instead of Windows? He has publicly stated he will not leave more than
>10 million to his hiers and donate all the rest to charity - what do you
>want Roy L?
I don't really have anything against Gates personally, and I think it
shows a certain amount of wisdom to not leave his billions to his
kids. But the world doesn't need more charity. It needs more
justice.
>My father had a legacy that he couldn’t see, a legacy he only got because
>he is white. His ancestor, John Prescott, came from England in 1638. The
>Massachusetts Bay Colony granted him land in central
>Massachusetts—something no people of color got—and he built the first
>sawmill there. As far as I can tell, none of his descendants have ever
>been poor. Some of my ancestors moved west to Ohio in the 1800s, where
>they may have received land under one of the Homestead Acts—government
>programs closed to people of color.
>
>However ROY L today we have cheap mortgages, free internet, the water is
>there, but people are LAZY.
You refuse to understand the importance of land ownership in
determining people's economic status and future.
If you own land, you are on the excalator. If you don't, you are in
the stairwell. It's that simple.
>http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/cabinet.html Here are pictures of
>the presidents cabinet if you are not too lazy too look.
>
> I see black men, chinese women, mexico boy, condoleeza rice - who is
>being oppressed that they can't get out of it without some work ROY L?
??? Being in Bush's cabinet shows willingness to serve the rich, not
ability to enter their ranks.
>Mexico boy next door to me can get rich if he were to learn more and
>apply himself, but he is happy going to the casino every weekend and
>blowing his paycheck. I am not, I want to get to a point where I can
>step off the 9 to 5 elevator. Don't hate my ambition.
There is a difference between ambition and greed.
>>>- they weren't very oppressed, but todays society is an opressive
>>>one - and the only way to escape this oppression is to invent and grow
>>>and produce to get rich yourself and then you opress the little ones -
>>>then one of them must change something to escape his oppression and
>>>get rich and up and up it goes in a positive feedback loop
>>
>> Nope. Landowners and other rent collectors don't have to contribute a
>> thing.
>
>They did in the past though,
Nope. There are many ways people have acquired wealth without earning
it: inheritance, crime, corruption, luck, sharp practice, dishonesty,
and most often, being on the receiving end of government-created rent
collection privileges.
>that is how they got rich and became
>landowners,
Some did. Many if not most didn't.
> my friend does not own 3 trailers because he is a bumb, he
>was the worker ant and the guy next to him was the lazy grasshopper and
>has only 1 trailer.
Trailers are products. He paid the people who created them. No
privilege there. The landowner, however, did not pay the creators of
the land, because there were none.
>> Why is it that the poor are claimed to work less if they are given
>> something for nothing, but the rich are claimed to work more if they
>> are given something for nothing?
>
>The guy with three trailers, Mr. Hanson, he worked hard, and ate cheap,
>and suffered quality of life in his youth so he could have safe
>retirement, the couple next door to him that is getting evicted - they
>partied in thier youth, big steaks and martinis, they traded quality of
>life in youth for security in old age.
Even in the cases where the privileged have worked and contributed in
order to buy a privilege, that does not legitimize the privilege.
People worked to buy slaves, too. That didn't make slavery right.
-- Roy L
- Next message: Johnny 5: "Re: The 'working poor' scam"
- Previous message: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Flat tax proposal"
- In reply to: Johnny Marcos: "Re: Flat tax proposal"
- Next in thread: Johnny 5: "Re: Flat tax proposal"
- Reply: Johnny 5: "Re: Flat tax proposal"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
