1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungwow, less than a day old and already has 10 pages of posts.
Thread 132664
Originally posted by zeeblebotBecause the government needs money to function.
why not?
To get money it has to tax its citizens. It's not about denying anyone the right to keep anything, but the need of the government to take in revenues it needs to function.
We can debate appropriate tax levels until the cows come home, but the necessity for some level of taxation is a given.
Originally posted by sh76As is the ability to decide where and what to spend money on..... our money
Because the government needs money to function.
To get money it has to tax its citizens. It's not about denying anyone the right to keep anything, but the need of the government to take in revenues it needs to function.
We can debate appropriate tax levels until the cows come home, but the necessity for some level of taxation is a given.
Originally posted by sh76So you agree that attacks on tax increases by using a "right to property" argument are ridiculous?
Because the government needs money to function.
To get money it has to tax its citizens. It's not about denying anyone the right to keep anything, but the need of the government to take in revenues it needs to function.
We can debate appropriate tax levels until the cows come home, but the necessity for some level of taxation is a given.
2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSince the "right to property" tends to be formulated in absolute terms by conservatives then it still undermines it. Of course, this is obviously not a problem for you and me who are happy to make it conditional on being post-taxation on the terms you just mentioned.
You can view democracy as a market for collective goods. People collectively decide what collective goods to buy from their money, e.g. an army.