Occupy Wall Street Protester: "I got some money and I should be taxed more."

"I'll tell you a secret. I got some money and I should be taxed more."

That's what an Occupy Wall Street protester told Republican presidential candidate and former two-term Gov. Gary Johnson (R-N.M.) as he toured Manhattan's Zuccotti Park on the evening of Tuesday, October 18.

"I actually inherited money when George W. Bush decided to have no estate tax," the protester continues, "and I think that is totally outrageous. So I decided to keep 20 percent for myself and give 80 percent away. But I think if we rely on the kindness of strangers that the poor will keep getting screwed, so civil libertarians don't work for me for the poor."

Video produced by Reason.tv's Anthony Fisher.

About 30 seconds long. Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions of our videos and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel for automatic notification when new material goes live online.

A longer video of Johnson's conversations with the Occupiers will be posted later today.

For Reason's coverage of the Occupy movement in New York, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and elsewhere, go here.

Here's a playlist with Reason.tv's continuing coverage of Occupiers:

Comments

[*]

Sounds drunk.

[Bob]

And stupid.

[Drunk, Middle-Aged OWS Lady]

I GOT NO BRAINS AND I SHOULD BE TAXED MOAR.

[Mr Whipple]

I bet if he had asked her, she would have shown him her tits.

[Occupied France]

There's gotta be a video of someone passing out Mardi Gras beads at these protests.

[Montani Semper Liberi]

OWS protesters dining on gourmet food.

"We're running a five-star restaurant down there,'' crowed Eric Smith, 38, the ex-le Chef de Tournant at the Sheraton in Midtown, who works out of a soup kitchen in East New York, Brooklyn, churning out the meals for more than 1,000 protesters every day...

"We use organic, grass-fed meats, and the other day, we made a wonderful fried rice and root vegetables and all kinds of soup."

Oh, and they have taken over a homeless food kitchen. I'm sure the actual homeless people who used to eat there don't mind.

[Gambol]

Ask some and get back to us.

[H man]

For the record, I'm shocked, shocked that's there's gamboling going on here.

[Sudden]

It sure beats frolicing

[Fluffy]

I don't really mind this.

If you're going to undertake an enterprise, you may as well do it well.

If they've got people donating food and they've got people with these kinds of cooking skills, this is how they should eat. If they ate gruel to make some kind of point they would be wasting those fallow resources.

The Shakers were primitive Communists but they lived pretty damn well. Because they didn't let their skills go to waste.

[mitch]

No sex is "pretty damn well?" It sure didn't feel that way in college.

[Zeb]

The no sex thing also meant that everyone was there voluntarily, so I don't think that the no sex thing was a big problem for them. Also a reason why there are no Shakers anymore.

[FlyoverCountry]

During college I worked as a historical interpreter at Living History Farms and I had a lady tell me that her grandfather was a Shaker. I looked at her husband and said, "Not a very good one, though, huh?" The husband laughed, but the wife didn't get it.

[T]

I know crap about Shakers, but did they have the rule like the some of the Skoptsi sects had? You could only become a full member after you had some kids so the sect would carry on?

[Jingles]

Nope, they just adopted orphans until religious groups were forbidden from doing so. Fuck if I know--or even if any of them knew--what was supposed to happen once the whole world was converted.

[PR]

did she pay the gift tax when she gave it away? did the people she gave it to pay income tax? or did she she give it away in a fashion to avoid taxes? or is she lying?

[wylie]

No sensible person on their deathbed would keep her in their will.

[Invisible Finger]

She? I guess you have to play the video to hear the voice, the picture looks rather androgynous.

[robc]

If she had paid estate taxes, she couldnt have controlled where the 80% she is giving away went.

As it is, she has control. And she hates this. That says something right there.

[Mr Whipple]

Yes, responsibility is such a hardship. It is much better for the government to relieve people of it.

As Milton Friedman said, "the government doesn't have any responsibility [to the poor], people have responsibility. This building doesn't have responsibility, you and I have responsibility".

Please tell me, what good is paying taxes if instead of using the money to help the poor, the government creates machines of mass destruction to kill the poor?

I suppose it is more efficient to just kill the lazy fucks of the world, yes?

[Cowboy]

"I actually inherited money when George W. Bush decided to have no estate tax," the protester continues, "and I think that is totally outrageous.

What's outrageous to me is how people somehow thinks the government deserves any part of someone's inheritance

[Tony]

It's a source of wealth that is 100% the product of blind chance... If you don't care about whether wealth is the product of hard work and ingenuity, but rather that "finders keepers" is the height of economic morality, then I don't think you have much of a claim to that armed police force who protects your sacrosanct property claims.

[Tony]

In fact, I think that armed police force should shove a gun in your face and take your property from you.

[affenkopf]

This statement is not only true for liberals. Anyone who supports any form of involuntary government agrees with this statement.

[Another Phil]

...and the mask comes off.

That wealth belonged to people who earned it. They had a right to do with it whatever the fuck they wanted. Even give to someone they cared about. It's not "finders keepers" if the owner gives it to you voluntarily, you disgusting parasite.

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

It's a source of wealth that is 100% the product of blind chance

So? How does that magically transform it into the rightful property of the State?

[JohnG]

^This. If I've earned the money and paid taxes on the money, why should the fact that I give it to someone else when I die entitle the gov't to take a portion of it?

[John]

"It's a source of wealth that is 100% the product of blind chance... "

No it is not. It is the product of hard work by the people who made it. They should have a right to give it to whomever they choose. It is their property.

[Tony]

The inheritor did exactly zero work to earn it. If you're basing your economic beliefs on a morality of work, I don't see how inheritance fits in.

[John]

Where does it say you can only keep money you worked for? I guess we should eliminate the lottery and tax all gambling winnings at a hundred percent. And it should also be illegal to give anyone a gift since they didn't work for it.

And Tony, only someone with a complete lack of irony and self awareness could from the liberal side talk about the morality of work. I guess you will be all for abolishing welfare.

[Tony]

You're the one who claimed that people should be able to keep wealth because it is the product of work. I'm okay with random luck bringing people wealth--provided it's heavily taxed. It's the essence of a progressive tax system. Or do you prefer that wealth stays within families generation after generation because their blood is just purer than everyone else's?

[Red Rocks Rockin]

Or do you prefer that wealth stays within families generation after generation because their blood is just purer than everyone else's?

Translation: "I'm a theif that needs the government to rob from people because I'm too much of a pussy to do it myself."

[Tony]

Taxes have to come from somewhere.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

Taxes have to come from somewhere.

And yet you believe they should never come from the people who are demanding the services the taxes pay for.

[Nils]

Very true. How about voluntary taxes? The video was one example of that (I'm inferring that she gave the money to the government, since she was so outraged they didn't take it themselves).

[Dave O.]

+1

[Bill]

That does not happen that often. Sometimes the people left the money did help earn it. Sometimes those left the money waste it and end up penniless (but at least this is stimulus, right Tony). The data say that wealth in the USA is very fluid and that most of those who are poor at one point are not down the road and the wealthy don't always stay wealthy. You have based all of your policy prescriptions on myths and straw men. The bigger problem is the cronyism whereby people obtain the same wealth, possibly passed down through generations as you fear, but they really did not earn it. It was who they knew, who they bribed (whether legally or illegally). Yet you are for having the govt. pick the winners and have massive programs. So you are in favor of what you are so violently against if it happens in the private realm. At least as far as the wealth not being earned. I assume you would still tax the shit out of inheritances and not give those who had suckled on the govt. teat an exemption.

[Tony]

Let me tell you what I'm for. We now have wealth and income inequality in this country as bad as 3rd world nations, worse than it's been since before the Great Depression. 1% of the people control 40% of the wealth. This is not because that 1% worked so much harder than their predecessors, but because government policy (under Republican trickle-down bullshit theory) has allowed this accumulation to happen.

I don't particularly care about the specifics as long as the end result is a more sane distribution of wealth. You can make up all the principle-like excuses you want for keeping wealth exactly where it is, but eventually something's gotta give.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

I don't particularly care about the specifics as long as the end result is a more sane distribution of wealth.

Unfortunately for you, the real world works on specifics, not meaningless generalities like "sane distribution." Math doesn't give a shit what you consider to be sane.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Dear Tony,

The accumulation of wealth is not a zero-sum game. Ergo, discussing "redistribution" is invalid.

Thanks,

RBM

[Tony]

You might have a point if it didn't seem so zero-sum in this country right now.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

You might have a point if it didn't seem so zero-sum in this country right now.

Well, it seems to Tony that something is zero-sum, therefore it must be a fact. Thanks Tony - when I want your subjective sensations to rule the day, I'll meet you in the bath house.

[Another Phil]

Poor baby.

[Restoras]

We now have wealth and income inequality in this country as bad as 3rd world nations

Citation, please.

I am curious, who do you think is better off, a poor person in the US, or a poor person in (insert 3rd world country here).

[DEM]

This is not because that 1% worked so much harder than their predecessors, but because government policy (under Republican trickle-down bullshit theory) has allowed this accumulation to happen.
_________________

Sergey Brin is a billionaire because of Ronald Reagan? Wow, I bet he'd be shocked to learn that. And he probably thought that he invented a massively useful product or something.

[yonemoto]

1% of the people control 40% of the wealth. This is not because that 1% worked so much harder than their predecessors, but because government policy (under Republican trickle-down Keynesian bullshit theory) has allowed this accumulation the wholesale theft from the poor to happen.

FIFY.

[Johann Amadeus Metesky]

Actually, income inequality is a myth:

http://blog.american.com/2011/.....-is-wrong/

Since you brought up the topic of wealth, how is wealth created?

[Another Phil]

Wealth and income inequality, huh? Not poverty. Inequality.

Pathetic. Your constant shrieking about social justice--and it's all about envy.

[Alpheus]

I'm not exactly in this 1%, but I'm somewhat content with my "station" in life...although I certainly have room for improvement. But why should I give one whit for what the top 1% owns? What does "40% of the wealth" even means, anyway? Does it mean 40% of the televisions? 40% of the indoor plumbing? 40% of the food? 40% of cars and the fuel to run them? 40% of the computers? (Which, depending on how "cloud computing" pans out, might not be a bad thing anyway.)

Besides which, why focus on only Republican trickle-down bullcrap theory that has allowed this accumulation to happen? Why shouldn't we believe that Democrat share-the-wealth-via-high-taxes-and-regulation bullcrap theory didn't have a role in this, either? After all, we have created such a monstrous bureaucracy that forces some big businesses to lobby just for protective purposes, and enables other big businesses to lobby for taxes and regulations that kills their smaller, more nimble competitors (and therefore entrenches their monopoly position in the marketplace).

[Brandon]

Some people actually raise their children to be honest and hard-working, and want to leave them a good base to build on, and pass on to their children in turn. In short, not everyone hates their children like your parents did.

[Lucky to be alive]

Shouldn't the government have to work for its money instead of just inheriting by the luck of tax law?

[Chicago Sucks]

So by your logic, charity and welfare should be either taxed or illegal. After all, the recipients did "exactly zero work to earn it."

[Lucky to be alive]

Government would be taxed or illegal too since they did nothing to earn it.

[R C Dean]

The inheritor did exactly zero work to earn it.

Neither did the government. Which already taxed it, anyway, when it was made.

[##]

My father worked hard his entire life in part to have something to leave behind to my mother and I. It wasn't blind chance and he already paid taxes on every damned bit of it. He wanted to leave us something so that we wouldn't be solely dependent on government handouts. You know, those very same handouts that you say it should be taken to finance. Stuff it Tony. Stuff it deep and hard.

[Rhywun]

It's a hateful world that folks like Tony inhabit, where giving is punished. It fits, though, if your mindset is that all should grovel to The State.

[GroundTruth]

It has nothing to do with the inheritor, that's the whole point. If this person wanted " to keep 20 percent for myself and give 80 percent away" he can, it's HIS money. It's called OWNERSHIP. You get to do with your stuff what you want.

[Tony]

And I get to pay for men with guns and courts to make sure you get to keep it?

[Dick Fitzwell]

In other words, this woman's parents had no right to give their money to someone who did nothing to earn it but it's perfectly acceptable for this woman to decide to give her money to a charity that did nothing to deserve it.

Principles...how the fuck do they work again?

[Tony]

They have a right to give it, but you do not have an absolute right to receive all of it.

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

Based on what?

[Pantless Deviant]

Fuck you in the ass, you dickless piece of shit.

[Fluffy]

That's a great big pile of ontological fail, Tony.

You haven't "given" something to someone unless they actually receive it.

"Giving" is a transaction.

In addition, the "100% blind chance" bit takes a "fairy godmother" view of birth that is prescientific and extremely dubious. As we've discussed before. There was no "lottery" to determine where I would be born and who my parents would be. I didn't "win", and no one else "lost". Because there's no element of chance at all. I would either be the son of my parents or I would not exist at all.

Also, it strikes me as odd that collectivists want to claim all sorts of mystical connections between people that bind them into indissoluble groups when that helps them argue against individual rights, but when confronted by a group unit that has an actual basis in the nature of Man (the family) they want to claim that it's not real and it's the product of "blind chance". They're all for group identities, except for the basic group unit people voluntarily choose. If I gave a billion dollars to some asshole foundation or charity so they could get themselves talked about on NPR, you bitches would be totally cool with that. But giving my estate to a group that I choose based on strong biological and psychological drives somehow is bad. Whatever.

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

That's a great big pile of ontological fail, Tony.

Fuckin' A, Fluffy. +1000

[Tony]

You're talking to a spoofer. I am not making any moral claims. It's the morality of work that you guys use to justify why you should have men with guns and courts to protect your claim to your stuff. Those things have to be paid for, though.

[J_L_B]

why you should have men with guns and courts to protect your claim to your stuff. Those things have to be paid for, though.

Except that vast majority of funding goes toward medicare, social security, defense, and interest on the debt. Only one those four facilitates any creation of wealth. Infrastructure, what you always site as the reason for taxes, often has funds siphoned off to usually useless programs favored by interest groups.

[Tony]

Medicare and Social security also facilitate the creation of wealth by freeing people from the burden of going bankrupt caring for their elders, allowing them to go be productive.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

Medicare and Social security also facilitate the creation of wealth by freeing people from the burden of going bankrupt caring for their elders

Right up until the very end, when they're spending money on nursing homes, and tens of thousands of dollars in medical treatments to keep them alive another three months.

[Tony]

Whereas they should just take their parents out back and shoot them once they hit 65.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

Whereas they should just take their parents out back and shoot them once they hit 65.

Don't project what you progressives would be doing if the state wasn't providing you with your gimmedats.

[Quinn the Eskimo]

We prefer ice floes, much tidier.

[J_L_B]

Why not then new programs freeing people from the burden of going bankrupt caring for their children, pets, homes, friends, distant relatives?

Is there any other centuries-old family function we can outsource to government?

[Tony]

Centuries ago people did not live for an average of 78 years.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

Centuries ago people did not live for an average of 78 years.

Does that mean families are any less capable of taking care of each other?

[Tony]

It's the crux of the issue. It means it's increasingly expensive to take care of your family. It means many families, through sheer blind luck, will have absolutely no opportunity to invest in their own future because they will have to spend every penny taking care of mom and grandma. That's the entire reason a safety net for old people was invented. Plus it frees up the workforce for younger people.

People living this long is a new phenomenon in human evolution. It stands to reason the old ways won't work.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

It means it's increasingly expensive to take care of your family.

If that was true, parents wouldn't be letting their deadbeat college graduate kids live at home with them.

It means many families, through sheer blind luck, will have absolutely no opportunity to invest in their own future because they will have to spend every penny taking care of mom and grandma.

Families do invest in their future by leaving inheritances to their descendants. Yet you've spent this whole thread arguing that this investment needs to be siphoned off by the government.

That's the entire reason a safety net for old people was invented. Plus it frees up the workforce for younger people.

The "safety net" is unsustainable without constant, exponential growth in inflation and population. As soon as this growth slows or ends, the system collapses.

[J_L_B]

People living this long is a new phenomenon in human evolution.

Lifespan is the same, life expectancy is longer because we have less people who die as infants and children.

People did not used to die at 60 and now die at 78. People used to die at 1 to 5 and others at 78, bringing the average down to the 60's. Thanks to medicine, we have less of the former, and hence the average age of death has gone up.

[J_L_B]

That's the entire reason a safety net for old people was invented.

No the safety net was not planned, it was reactionary. It came about because seniors were investing their retirement in the stock market (some leveraged up 10 or 20 times) during the 1920's. When the market crashed in 29 and crash landed from 1930 to 1932, many of them lost nearly all their retirement funds.

Roosevelt's bleeding heart hemoraged, and the power of government was used to ensure no senior would ever be allowed to unwisely invest their money. But for seniors losing lots of their investments in the crash of 29, we would not have social security (it's also the reason why margin requirements on stocks are 50%).

Yet his plan is only marginally better than losing it all. 12.4% of your salary is siphoned off to pay current retirees and any remaining amount is invested in non-marketable bonds that earn less than inflation. During retirement, you are paid with contributions from current workers, and any difference is made up with those bonds. To call his solution less than ideal would be a massive understatement.

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

It's the morality of work that you guys use to justify why you should have men with guns and courts to protect your claim to your stuff.

I don't know where you got this strawman from. The libertarian position is that any property that is rightfully obtained (exchange of goods, exchange of labor, gifts, inheritance, etc.) is rightfully owned.

[Chicago Sucks]

Bravo Fluffy, I'm printing this one.

[Bill]

You choose you family?

[wylie]

If they're listed in your will when you die, then you choose to be a family with them. You had plenty of time to disown the little fuckers.

[wylie]

(so no, you don't get to choose at birth, but later down the line, both sides can choose whether to remain a family unit)

[T]

I sure as shit choose the ones I still talk to. And that list keeps getting shorter.

[Fluffy]

If I leave money to them in my will, that's an act of choice.

I have powerful emotional reasons why I would choose to do that, but I'm still choosing it do it. I could spend all my money and give them nothing, or I could give it all away to strangers. (There are some states where they make you leave your spouse something or your will is invalid, but you definitely choose your spouse.)

[Brandon]

Funny how similar Tony's logic is to that Bill Clinton "Warlords" skit on SNL back when SNL was relevant. Of course, Clinton was against the warlords, and Tony seems to be for them.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

They have a right to give it, but you do not have an absolute right to receive all of it.

Which is irrelevant when it comes to private exchanges between individuals.

If I have a million dollars (which I've already been taxed on) and I want to leave it to my nephew whom I've never met, it's none of the government's fucking business.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

Hell, look at the incident with Oprah giving her audience a bunch of cars a couple years ago. Those people had to pay the taxes on those vehicles, even though they were gifts--and Oprah couldn't cover the tax herself, because that would have been considered "unearned income," and those people STILL would have had to pay tax on that, too. This is for a GIFT between individuals, which has nothing to do with the government whatsoever.

If you can't see how fucking absurd that is, it shows just how intellectually ossified academia has become, and the sooner these institutions crumble, the better.

[J_L_B]

you do not have an absolute right to receive all of it.

If the recepients have no right to receive the whole sum, why do we NOT tax charitable contributions?

[Tony]

You're talking to a spoofer.

[J_L_B]

Perhaps of you, I imagine the woman in the video might think congruently.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

You're talking to a spoofer.

Tony is pulling a Jon Stewart here, I suspect.

[wylie]

Tony is pulling a Jon Stewart

You mean being an insufferable tool? I thought that was just S.O.P. (for both of them)

[Invisible Finger]

Spoofer, troll... a distinction without a difference.

[PP-l]

Whether spoofer, troll, or sincere the appalling truth is the only difference between Tony and millions of real-life statist fuckstains out there is that Tony is more articulate and has better spelling and grammar.

[GroundTruth]

Why?

By grabbing it as taxes, you have de facto said that the owner can't do with his stuff as he pleases.

What if the will said "all my assest shall be converted into paper which shall be burned at my funeral"? Note that I say paper, as opposed to money. By burning paper (or some other actual commodity) the person is actually destroying capital that otherwise would have stayed in circulation.

[Lady Luck]

I die and leave my spouse 100% of my remaining assets. Yup, blind chance.

I die and leave my child 100% of my remaining assets. Yup, blind chance.

While I'm alive I put 100% of my assets into a trust that pays its income to beneficiaries whom I've designated. Yup, blind chance.

I guess it never was my money to begin with.

[DEM]

It's a source of wealth that is 100% the product of blind chance
___________________

If this is your criteria then why am I paying 35% in federal taxes on money I work like crazy to earn? Let me guess, it's because this is not your criteria and you just want to control the money regardless of how it is earned.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Taking Tony out of the filter was worth it for the total dismantling I just witnessed.

[T]

I still filter him, but I don't filter threads. So I get responses to trolls, but not the stupidity of the trolls themselves.

[Lord Humungus]

so, the government should get my dad's home too? The one he designed and built with his own money? Or should it be taken over by the government and used as they see fit? The same with his cars? What about the few acres of land he owns? Or is it just the cash?

Let's say my dad dies, leaving me only the house. Should I be required to sell it just to pay the a share to the government? If so, why is it fair that I'm suddenly being kicked out of a home that I've known for thirty years?

[Tony]

What exactly did you do to earn the house? Being the end result of just the right ejaculation?

[Rev. Blue Moon]

What did the government do to earn it? Send out the stormtroopers?

[Tony]

Make it possible so that you can have a house or wealth at all.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Make it possible so that you can have a house or wealth at all.

"We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

[R C Dean]

Make it possible so that you can have a house or wealth at all.

The Statist Fallacy on display:

Everything from the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.

Don't all the taxes that were paid while that wealth was being earned satisfy this, anyway?

[##]

Not to mention the property tax that will continue to be paid.

[Johann Amadeus Metesky]

Civil society and property rights predate the laws enacted to enforce those things.

Don't sell me statism based on the need for contracts to be enforced.

As for the Elizabeth Warren argument:

You can have two businesses that are identical other than the quality of their ideas. Both use the same infrastructure, both draw from the same labor pool, both are equally capitalized, both have equal recourse to enforce contracts through the courts, both use the same police and fire protection (all of those things, btw, are primarily funded on the local and state level, not by federal taxes). One business just has better ideas and you want to punish that success by taxing it.

Put another way, if the successful can only exist as successful by virtue of their use of the common wealth, what about the poor? Do not the 47% of Americans who pay no federal income taxes also use the roads, other infrastructure and public safety agencies?

[Tony]

I don't think civil society and property rights predate the concept of government, but it doesn't matter since without government it's just an assertion to be backed up with the threat of private force.

Yes people who have enough deductions to pay no federal income tax do use those services. But that's OK since the nature of state and local taxes and the ss payroll tax is that they end up disproportionately paying those. Taken all together our entire tax code is almost flat. I think worrying about paying in what you get out only goes so far. We all get benefits, most of them intangible, from law & order and a functioning state. We just need to pay for it in a way that doesn't burden people or restrict upward mobility.

[L13]

Sorry Tony, to reduce it to its simplest form, if I live in a pre-state civilization and am responsible for my own safety, then I am free to leave my property (poor as it might be at that point) to whomever I want. The only way someone can take it from me or my beneficiary is by force, pure and simple.

At its simplest, the state (clan, tribe, city, whatever) supports a system of justice to resolve our differences without violence, and failing that, it supports police / military to stop violence once it begins.

Yes, in any state we have to support those functions, either by volunteering, or tax, but to say that I owe food and shelter to someone who doesn't produce anything in return can only be based on some form of the socialist disease.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

What exactly did the poor do to earn state welfare? Being the end result of just the right ejaculation and their own bad choices?

[Tony]

Nothing. I pay for welfare so that I don't have starving children crowding my sidewalk.

[wylie]

BODIES PILLING UP IN THE STREETS@!!11ioneoneoneoneoneSOMALIA

[Red Rocks Rockin]

I pay for welfare so that I don't have starving children crowding my sidewalk.

You're in academia--someone else is paying that for you, which is why you support progressive programs. It's easy to be generous with other people's money.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

And I'll say it again, if the poor don't want to pay for the government services they expect, then fuck them. Money doesn't come from elves and wormholes.

[Tony]

No it comes from government printing presses.

[L13]

Do you give money to every bum you walk by? It's all the same.

[Lord Humungus]

I'm somehow reminded of the Russian revolution when the aristocrats and middle class where forced to move or take on 'guests'. Tony would be the guy with the gun, forcing others to do his bidding.

But remember, property is one of the strongest binders of family. It ties generations together. Why do you hate the family so much?

[Lord Humungus]

so let's say we have a farmer who owns 1000 acres of land, used for planting corn. He dies and leaves the land and farmhouse to his daughter.

She wants to continue farming. But instead, just because she is an 'issue from her father's loins', she cannot do so. Instead, the government gets it. I'll ask again, why do you hate the family?

[mitch]

So, you don't think a person should be able to dispose of his or her assets as he or she desires? That Boehner and Frank not only know better how to spend people's money, but have a moral right to spend others' money? How are you different than a guy who sees someone robbing an old lady and cheers on the mugger?

[Tony]

I believe in law and order and civilization as opposed to anarchy, yes.

[Lord Humungus]

so you believe in giving a small group of people the ability to decide matters of life, property and death?

And how exactly is this different than oh, communism? It isn't.

I don't think you'll find many subscribers to your newsletter. Heck, some of the most liberal people I know were born with silver spoons in their mouths. Some of the more libertarian or conservative earned their own money from scratch. None of them would be willing to give everything (or even a large percentage) to someone other than their children.

of course, why am I arguing with a sockpuppet?

[Tony]

All government does not equal communism. There, glad to have cleared that up for you.

You simply suffer from the mistaken impression that everything taxes pay for is yours by right. You think you are entitled to the biggest handout of all: civilization.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Government does not create civilization. Civilization creates government.

Your argument (like all of your arguments) gives the presumption that The People are the subjects of The Sovereign. That is not correct. The Government is the servant of The People. The State cannot take the powers delegated to it by The People and bootstrap a justification to perpetuate its own existence.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

You simply suffer from the mistaken impression that everything taxes pay for is yours by right. You think you are entitled to the biggest handout of all: civilization.

If his taxes paid for what he's receiving, then it's not a handout.

[Tony]

I'm glad we agree.

[However,]

the American style of Big Government is resembling fascism more and more as time goes by. That clears up the confusion over "What Barack Believes"

Maoist? Stalinist?, Corrupt enabler of corrupt banks and corrupt public and private unions? Mafia chief? Global emperor? International Warmonger? Domestic civil-rights trampler? Class envy instigator? The catch-all term is fascist. Who would have guessed that modern progressives would be a worshippers of fascism?

[Azathoth]

anyone who was paying attention.....

[cynical]

Bullshit, hard-to-quantify is not the same as random. You think no one has ever done anything for their deceased benefactor of financial value?

[Restoras]

Especially since it has already been taxed.

[Ska]

Aren't estate taxes great? After spending a lifetime of trying to earn money (and paying 20 - 40% of your earnings in taxes) and accumulate wealth, the government looks at the remainder and takes another 35% (or 50%, or whatever the estate tax ends up as). Sounds fair to me.

[Concerned Citizen]

You don't understand, wealth that is left to beneficiaries can accumulate, lifting families from lower to middle to upper class wealth over generations. Where is the gov't's fun in that? Poor people should have their needs met by gov't, so that no wealth can accumulate, and the poor can stay poor for generations, and vote for the liberals who will keep them poor and dependent. Kennedy clan excluded, of course.

[Tony]

So the people who are randomly born to wealthy parents get to raise above their station (not through work, mind you, but blind luck), and that's good, but the children of poor parents have to work hard and probably fail to raise themselves up, and that's OK too.

[Concerned Citizen]

How do I put this...Fuck You. Before liberals took over Washington, families accumulated wealth over generations, poor and wealthy alike. It was their fucking wealth, no one else's. Socialist Security put an end to many families accumulating wealth for retirement, and passing down what was left after they died. Self sufficiency, you idiot. People have been doing it for many years. Until liberals came along with their ideas.

[Tony]

Oh so your wrong ideas about everything are a product of a sorely misinformed understanding of history? Got it.

[Rockefellers, Carnegies, Fords]

Hahahahahahahahahha. Useful idiot, indeed.

[Right Thinking]

Not at all! Tony's not useful in any way!

[Mainer]

some people get to rise above their "station" ??

The elitist mask slips.....

[Zeb]

Dude, where do you get this "randomly born" shit? Most people are not randomly born. Their parents willfully make a baby, spend 20 years or so raising and educating it, spend a lifetime working and accumulating wealth with the intention of passing it on to the next generation (or not). That's not random chance. That is a deliberate plan.

[Tony]

So the offspring of a rich couple worked harder on the way out than the offspring of a poor couple?

Or are we supposed to do economics the libertarian way: "assume no children"?

[Restoras]

Your dishonesty is repugnant.

[Tony]

Much of the assets that pass through large estates has never been subjected to taxation--like "unrealized" capital gains (if a house appreciates in value but isn't sold until after it's inherited, then it was subjected to neither a capital gains tax nor an estate tax). Double tax avoidance is what you're offering.

[Tony]

Because there's no such thing as property taxes.

[DEM]

So what? When the assets are inevitably sold there will be a tax on the gain. Why must the assets be taxed simply because the initial owner died? What you want is to tax the money when earned, tax it when it is saved and generates any income, tax it when the owner dies, and then tax it again if the recipient sells the asset at a profit.

[Ska]

He's wrong anyway. Estate taxes are based on the fair market value of the decedent's assets on the date of death. That includes real estate and the unrealized appreciation in the decedent's property.

Of course I'd love to see you try and take a deduction for the unrealized loss in value of capital assets...

[Restoras]

Much of the assets that pass through large estates has never been subjected to taxation--like "unrealized" capital gains (if a house appreciates in value but isn't sold until after it's inherited, then it was subjected to neither a capital gains tax nor an estate tax).

See what your spoofer, or your schizophrenic alternate personality, just said.

Double taxation should be avoided. It's counter productive to capital formation.

[Zeb]

So tax the unrealized capital gains when they are realized by the heir. Why does that need to be taxed when the owner dies?

[Fluffy]

In more important news, CNN has switched over to CNN International today and Hala Gorani is still hot.

[John]

She is hot. But I bet she is an insufferable leftist.

[Fluffy]

I totally would not care.

[Lord Humungus]

duct tape is cheap.

[John]

Neither would I. I have a total thing for Semitic women.

[JW]

I had to google her to find out what she looks like. Meh.

[JD]

Yeah, this. I saw more attractive women on the bus this morning.

[Fluffy]

Pictures are not adequate.

You have to watch video.

[John]

Where does this douchebag think that money came from? Unicorns I guess. Not one of his is obviously smarter and more worthy ancestors starting a business and doing something productive.

There is probably no lower form of life than the trust fund leftist. His parents should have disinherited the little bastard and sent him out on the streets to find out what life was really like.

[Invisible Finger]

The funny thing is this idiot would rather give money to the government and have little to no say in where the money goes rather than merely give the money away to the exact parties of his/her choice.

[John]

He can't be expected to know what to do with that money. That is the job of top men.

[Invisible Finger]

And the top men gave the money to wall Street. So why protest? (I know, ego masturbation.)

[robc]

I made the same point, should have read down further.

I seriously think it is an aversion to control. If they control their own money, they are responsible for the choices they make.

[Invisible Finger]

It's an aversion to self-control and responsibility (basically the flaw of the ME generation and their offspring). And it's more egotistical to protest than to actually try to correct one's own mistakes.

That's where this whole movement is coming from - people who didn't bother to research Obama before voting for him on pure blind faith are now regretting their decision. But they still won't point the finger at themselves and their blind faith in government.

I certainly don't expect mobs of self-examiners, but we'll see if individuals eventually drop out of these protests and start doing actual work or if the things turn violent. And if they turn violent, if it's police violence or mob violence.

[Brandybuck]

I have a cousin who is a multi-millionaire. His kids had real jobs during school and college. He never handed anything to them on a silver plate except their dinner.

[Invisible Finger]

And your tax money will be funneled to Wall Street. You fucking idiot!!

[1%er SOROS....]

Funds OWS. Why?

[1%er WarMonger BARRY....]

Supports OWS. Why?

[Barack Obama]

Let me be clear: I am 100% warmonger.

[WarPig Barack]

They didn't teach math at any of the elite institutions I attended.

[Ilyich Lenin]

Two words: Useful and Idiots.

[Latest Headline]

O-bomba Flush With Cash from Financial Sector.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....l_politics

[Soros]

Big government makes currency manipulation easier.

[Andrew S.]

I do have to hand it to this person for being one of the few "rich" people who say "tax me more!" to actually put their money where their mouth is in that regard and not wait for the government to ask them for the additional money.

[On the other hand....]

...she supports Big Govt seizing her less well-off neighbor's meager income -- because it makes her feel good.

[PR]

she didn't put her money where her mouth is unless she gave it to the government.

[wylie]

and, as you pointed out above, if she gave it away in a tax-deductable fashion (and claims the deduction(s)), then she's actually keeping her money as far away from her mouth as humanly possible.

[wylie]

(until she spends some of it at the Zucatti Five Star Soup Kitchen)

[Red Rocks Rockin]

But there's really no evidence for that--she says she kept 20% and "gave away" 80%. Gave it away to whom? Her relatives? Random crackheads? Various charities? Political organizations? Or did she send that 80% to the Department of the Treasury?

In any case, her SWPL status-mongering is what's truly insufferable here. "I SUPPORT HIGHER TAXES SO I GAVE AWAY A HUGE CHUNK OF MY INHERITANCE!"

Why did she decide to keep 20%? Why not 1%? For that matter, why did she even bother to keep ANY of it, if she honestly felt she didn't deserve it (clearly, she and Tony both believe that the money was unearned)? Perhaps because it's easier for left-wing hypocrites like this to flatter their egos than live up to their principles.

[Colin]

What does Johnson expect to gain from this?

Does he really think any of these protesters would ever vote for him?

[Jeff]

He was probably stoned.

[Zeb]

I think at this point he just wants some more people to know his name.

[scape]

"?so civil libertarians don't work for me, for the poor."

That's right, we don't. But you want to reallocate the rewards of our labor just the same. Because we can't be trusted to donate or give to charity or help the poor as you did. I can't quite make out her sign; I think it says, condescending.

[Bill]

Ironically, she was taxed less and chose to give the money to charity, but she is against anyone else having that choice.

[Brandon]

She doesn't have a rational argument, so saying "_____ Doesn't work for me" she can avoid having to actually engage anyone who would challenge her preconceptions.

[Amakudari]

If someone feels she should be taxed more, shouldn't she be the first to send the undeserved money to the Treasury? Libertarians proclaim the superiority of private charity, and it's fair to judge individual libertarians on that basis, so what gives?

[David]

Did she give that 80% away to the government? She says she wants to be taxed more, though it's not clear if she meant in the past when she inherited the money or in general, but it sounds like she gave the money to charity. How dare she deprive the government of the revenue she believes it deserves!

[Yet another Dave]

For those that feel they don't give enough to the gummint, the IRS does accept voluntary donations above the required tax.

Personally, though, I prefer giving to the charitable organizations of my choice. For one, I like it that I get to pick who gets the money I earn, so it helps causes that I believe in rather than some bureaucrat deciding for me and thus spending it in ways I'm morally opposed to. I figure it's my money, a voice in how it's spent should be my minimum right. Not to mention that the gummint seems to have the anti-Midas touch, everything they come into contact with turns to shit. A dollar I give to the Red Cross just seems to go a whole lot farther than a dollar I give to Uncle Sugar.

On top of all that, I saw a poll a while back that listed Americans as some of the best, most generous and compassionate charitable givers in the world. Provided, of course, Uncle Sugar has left us some of our money to be charitable with.

[Invisible Finger]

I'll repeat: this idiot would rather give money to the government and have little to no say in where the money goes rather than merely give the money away to the exact parties of his/her choice.

I can guarantee some of my tax money will go to "causes" I don't support. I can also guarantee that all the money I donate to charity goes directly to causes I support (and after I give it away, it's not mine to have any say in how they use/abuse it).

Relying on the kindness of strangers seems to work better then relying on the kindness of bureaucrats.

[JW]

For all we know, s/he inherited $1,000 and kept $200.

What we do know is that it's a smug douchebag, projecting it's own insecurities and agendas onto the population at large and longing to punish them for it.

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

I have to wonder if she has kids. If she does, does she really feel that when she dies the State should get every last penny of the money and her children be left with nothing? I've never met a mother like that, and hope I never do.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

So, she begins her adult life with "Fuck You Dad!" and ends it with "Fuck You Kids!"

[PR]

it sounds like it spent the money on something that gave it pleasure. I gave away some of my wealth last week to amazon.

[DEM]

But I think if we rely on the kindness of strangers that the poor will keep getting screwed, so civil libertarians don't work for me for the poor."

___________________

"Keep" getting screwed. So the massive regulatory state we've developed isn't keeping the poor from getting screwed, which, presumably, is why she's out protesting, but she's damn sure that trying something other than massive, ineffective government is out of the question.

[.]

"So I decided to keep 20 percent for myself and give 80 percent away. But I think if we rely on the kindness of strangers that the poor will keep getting screwed, so civil libertarians don't work for me for the poor."

Translation:

"I'm a good person, unlike the majority of people. Except when they vote; then they're angels."

[Doctor Whom]

I voluntarily gave away 80% of my inheritance. Therefore, I should have been compelled to give away part of my inheritance. The poor cannot rely on the kindness of strangers, so they should rely on the kindness of politicans instead. How do you like my bulletproof logic?

[cmoney]

It's called putting one's self on a pedestal. Obviously she can be trusted, but what about some wall st hack?

Hopefully her charities of choice gave away 80% of that, and so on. We'd all be rich.

[Charity Chief Exec]

We are committed to keep no more than 90% of our donations to pay Staff Salaries.

[Fluffy]

If you're basing your economic beliefs on a morality of work, I don't see how inheritance fits in.

I base my economic beliefs on a morality of work and savings.

Collectivists hate savings, because savings gives people a space where they can resist the eternal slavery demanded by the "ideal" collective.

If we lived in some kind of perfect communist ideal where everyone had to show up and work every day at whatever task the collective assigned and in exchange they got their bare minimum needs satisfied, savings would be the enemy of that system. Because if I saved one grain of rice a day from the allotment the collective gave me, eventually I might have enough that when the collective assigned me a task I didn't like, I could say, "Fuck you guys, I'm taking the day off!" and I could eat my saved-up rice. And that is utterly intolerable to all collectivists, because the idea that someone could tell them to fuck off for even a day fills them with deep rage.

That's the real problem they have with inherited or saved wealth - the people who produced and saved up that wealth, or the people they pass it on too, can step outside of collective control - even the distributed collective control supplied by the market - and say, "No. Fuck you," and they can't bear that idea.

[Lord Humungus]

+ a kajillion

[Tony]

Then I'm sure they'll be OK with no longer having men with guns and courts to protect their claim to that stuff. We wouldn't want anyone getting a government handout.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, ? That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

[Fluffy]

Not at all.

I'm be perfectly happy to transform our system into a voluntary one.

Everyone who wants to delegate their right to protect their person and property to the state is allowed to, in exchange for agreeing to respect everyone else's person and property and making a contribution towards the maintenance of the system of court and police.

Everyone who wants to opt out is allowed to do so - but then would be denied recourse for crimes against their person and property in our courts.

Works for me.

[Tony]

Sounds like a nightmarish hellscape to me.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

A world where people deal with the consequences of their actions would certainly be hell on earth for you.

[Brandon]

Of course it does. See Fluffy's post above.

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

Sounds like a nightmarish hellscape to me.

But not one you would be compelled to join. If you read Fluffy's post and comprehend it you would notice that.

Or does it bug you that people couldn't be forced into your nightmarish hellscape?

[Tony]

So who regulates trade between these entities? What about water supply? What happens when one voluntary society decides it doesn't like another, and wants to invade? How do you account for new people being born into these "voluntary" societies? Sounds like a whole lot of trouble when you could simply accept the voluntariness conceit of the social contract.

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

All of those questions have been answered in the libertarian literature, but it really doesn't matter. As I said, you won't be forced to join. Live in a collective if you like.

[Tony]

I do. There are almost 200 of them to choose from. We live in your libertarian paradise. Don't blame me if nobody chooses to live state-free.

[Fluffy]

That's not really the point.

You're on a kick lately where you claim that police and courts are a "government handout", and that means anyone who believes in police and courts shouldn't complain about any other "government handout".

I'm just trying to demonstrate that you are applying entirely the wrong paradigm.

[Tony]

You can complain but don't feed me bullshit moralism about taxation. We disagree on the scope of the state, not the inherent right of it to tax.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

We disagree on the scope of the state, not the inherent right of it to tax.

If you believe a state is a living entity with rights, then I'm sure you have no problem with corporations having inherent rights as well.

[African Victims of ObamaWar.]

I'm dead so Obama's hellish death-drones don't matter to me any more.

You American progressives are too preoccupied with looting your next door neighbors to be concerned about us.

[JD the elder]

You know, what's really funny is that half the time, leftists claim that the rich don't care about society and government because they could just buy everything for themselves, and half the time they claim that the rich love society and government because it protects them from the mobs of peasants. It is truly an amazing argument that reshapes itself to whatever form is needed.

[DEM]

Typical liberal response which attempts to defend massive taxes and sopending on social welfare by painting critics as against police and fire trucks.

[The Federalist]

As has been mentioned numerous times, the people with this wealth paid taxes to provide for the courts and police.

What was left over after paying the taxes is being given to their children.

Who, if they report it as income, will be paying taxes as well.

Why do you keep saying that this wealth hasn't been taxed?

[Ray]

But I think if we rely on the kindness of strangers that the poor will keep getting screwed, so civil libertarians don't work for me for the poor."

In other words, people need to be forced to give to others.

[sevo]

"The inheritor did exactly zero work to earn it. If you're basing your economic beliefs on a morality of work, I don't see how inheritance fits in."

Well, shithead, wonderful claim you have there.
So from now on, no charity can keep the money donated to it?

[0x90]

Neither can the poor, because there is always someone poorer. Until they receive some charity. Then they're not the poorest anymore, and must surrender it to someone poorer. And so on and so forth.

[robc]

The percent who did the work earned it and can control who gets it.

Inheritance fits in, not because of the work of the inheritor but because of the work of the inheritee.

And dammit sevo, dont pull Tony quotes out of the threads, incif stops working.

[R C Dean]

If you're basing your economic beliefs on a morality of work, I don't see how inheritance fits in.

I'm basing my beliefs on the superiority of voluntary transactions over coerced ones.

You?

[Tony]

All coerced transactions are illegal already. Congratulations for being against illegal things.

Nobody is forcing you to stay in your country, state, or city. You are free to emigrate and find someplace with no taxes to live in. If you do want to stay, then I don't know why you should be shocked that you're asked to pay rent.

[lurker]

It's amazing how you convince yourself of two conflicting ideas.

1) When driven by the principle of avoiding taxes, people are capable of reaching one of the rare pieces of unclaimed land in the world, settling there, and making a hunter-gatherer living as rugged individuals

2) Even when driven by survival, people are helpless without the aid of government and are more likely to die in the streets than find a job, find a charity, or make the same hunter-gatherer living that the people who head out to uncharted islands can make with no problem

[Another Phil]

Because you and the mob aren't my fucking landlord, you pant load.

[cmoney]

Why did she keep 20%? By what right?

[?]

I'll repeat: this idiot would rather give money to the government and have little to no say in where the money goes rather than merely give the money away to the exact parties of his/her choice.

It might be a good idea not to believe that, since it makes no sense.

Anyone can give the IRS any amount of money they decide to give it, and the IRS will take it, and politicians will distribute it however they see fit. Each and every sainted cunt who says "I should be taxed more" is entirely free to be taxed more, in exactly the manner they say they want to be.

But by "I" they mean other people. Only force wielded against others, in the name of that "I," will satisfy the sadistic desires that "I should be taxed more" actually expresses.

B) Johnson is a fucking rube.

[GILMORE]

Meanwhile, protestors in Greece and fighting *each other* now...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15377398

Who to root for? The unionists or the anarchists?...

One remarkable thing I've noticed fromt the coverage of the Greek protests is the seeming lack of acknowledgement of *why* there's a problem in the first place...

I mean, some of the quotes by protestors are hard to even understand..."There is no way that we will stop this battle until this government falls, which is one of our demands," the president of the hotel union, Nikos Papageorgiou, told Reuters news agency.

yes...because people *love* to vacation in places with an overthrown government. Hotel business will surely skyrocket.

Fucking *luxury hotel* workers...? Where do they think their 'guaranteed benefits' come from?

I guess they have no problem with the rest of Europe paying their bills for the rest of the century.

[robc]

yes...because people *love* to vacation in places with an overthrown government. Hotel business will surely skyrocket.

Belgium went nearly a year without a government, did it hurt their tourism any?

[GILMORE]

I don't know, but Belgium wasn't broke.
I bet no one noticed Belgium had no government.

My point is that these guys seem to think their condition will improve by a) defaulting, b) installing a even-more-socialist regime... which as we all know, is a huge boost for tourism.

[T]

No government in a parliamentary system is different from overthrown in most contexts.

[R C Dean]

There's a difference between a peaceful interregnum in a parliamentary system, and a government overthrown by rioting mobs.

[Rev. Blue Moon]

Relevant

"It's as if the U.S. federal government turned over bunch of its powers to the states," said Andre Flahaut, president of the Belgian Parliament.

[Drake]

Is any of this real? Is this the sequel to "Idiocacy"?

[Rev. Blue Moon]

"Idiocacy"?

Joez Law!

[Raston Bot]

That GJ did not throttle her is proof alone that he should be President.

[Jeff]

That GJ did not throttle her is proof alone that he should not be President.

[Zeb]

What a stupid comment.

[Mr Whipple]

Here's what Howard Stern found at OWS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....sJPKMvWDmY

[Enjoy Every Sandwich]

This silly-ass protester reminds me of that guy in the bar in an episode of Firefly: "...I got words. Today is an asspicious day..."

[Gibreel]

She kept 20 percent? That's fuckin' outrageous! They should tax that 20 percent down to at least 1 percent to more evenly distribute the wealth. Why should anyone go homeless why she greedily keeps 20 percent of what she inherited? Her greed doesn't really work for me.

[Gibreel]

We really need another secessionist movement. Let these people who want the state to control everything live in their own sphere and leave the rest of us alone.

[Tony]

Does that mean the statists get the nukes?

[Gibreel]

No, we would still be able to defend ourselves against you rapacious fucks.

[Tony]

Sorry, you don't get government invented and maintained weapons of mass destruction. One, it would make you big fat hypocrites. Two, real America wouldn't trust you with them.

[Gibreel]

The current U.S. government could sell some of them off to us. This is the way of voluntary transaction that we follow, unlike you. We would only need enough to protect ourselves against you from stealing our earnings or whatever is and is not nailed down. I'm sure you would just try to steal the rest of the weapons from the U.S., as your last comment suggests; naturally, you would try to use force to keep us from trying to protect ourselves against you.

[Red Rocks Rockin]

Sure, right before the enviro-kooks on your side blow themselves up trying to dismantle them.

[Alan davidson]

"So I decided to keep 20 percent for myself and give 80 percent away. But I think if we rely on the kindness of strangers that the poor will keep getting screwed, so civil libertarians don't work for me for the poor."

She is perfectly clear: she had the CHOICE to keep or give away her wealth. But she does NOT want others to have that choice. Rather, she wants others to have their wealth SEIZED and distributed by the government at it sees fit.

Freedom and Liberty are anathemas to the Statist.

[Tom]

I'll tell you a secret. You can pay more taxes at any time without being forcibly compelled to do so by an out of control federal government. Just write the check.

[Banzaibob]

It is a good thing she donated the money instead of paying taxes. This allowed her to chose the charity she wanted instead of the federal government.

[Dave]

Hilarious comment section. Thanks for the break from the tedium I call my job.

[Michael J Green]

Remember guys, the only hope for the poor is either financial assistance from the government or financial assistance from private donations. They can't assist each other through voluntary, communal efforts.

Also remember that people like this woman are the ones who truly respect the poor and minorities.