When Does Theft Turn into Taxation?

The Occupy Wall Street/Occupy Portland crowds are demanding that “rich people” pay their “fair share” of taxes. While it’s arguable that high-income taxpayers are paying well beyond their “fair share” already, perhaps we should take a step back and look at taxation in a different light.

I recently noted that a Portland City Hall staffer lists as his favorite quote a statement made by Atlas Shrugged author Ayn Rand:

“Everyone has the right to make his own decisions, but none has the right to force his decisions on others.”

So, do you have the right to take your neighbor’s car just because you decide that you want to drive it? No, most of us would call that theft.

What if you and three of your friends decide to take your neighbor’s car and drive it? Is that OK?

What if you and those same three friends decide to take your neighbor’s car and give it to a poor person who has no transportation? Does your noble intent make your actions OK?

What if you and three thousand people decide to take the car and give it to that poor person? How about thirty thousand people voting to making that decision?

So, at what point does the immoral act of theft become the moral act of taxation?

The occupiers, and all of us, might want to think about such questions before demanding that anyone give up something they own without their consent.


Steve Buckstein is Founder and Senior Policy Analyst at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in Economy, Individual Responsiblity, Initiative & Referendum, Taxes | Tagged , , , | 86 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Notsuccessful

    I love when people decide to take from those who have and give to those who don’t, as I am the recipient. I get everything I need for nothing.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    I would say theft becomes taxation when such taxation is beyond the scope of what government should rightly do and only that which government is able to do. In other words income redistribution, which currently is the largest sector of federal spending would be characterized more as theft disguised as taxation. Our government is involved in it not because only government is uniquely able, but because only government has the power to extract such wealth from the populous. Force is the motivator rather than ability.

    If a group of people decide to take from one in order to fund the courts, that is not theft, even if the group takes from only the top 1% of income earners and the other 99% pay nothing for such courts but avail themselves of such advantage as courts provide.

    The reason why is there is no personal gain. The money has been taken for a definable and reasonable cause of government – court funding. There has been no gain to the takers other that an essential function of government being funded.

    The takers have not enriched themselves, other than to the extent they have not contributed. They have not seen personal benefit, either in the form of direct payment to them, or funding of a charitable cause they care not to fund themselves.

    When such taking is to enrich a group at the expense of those taken from, that is when such is no longer taxation but rather theft. Such is not a function of government as there is no need for it. Were one wishing to fund another government has no place, he could simply hand over his money to another person and be done with the matter. Indeed, governments only contribution to the matter is to enforce such contributions by threat of force, thus the exchange is more correctly characterized as theft rather than taxation.

    To be sure, threat of force is also used in the payment of taxes for government function, such as the court system. However this is of a different nature as clearly government adds something in facilitating the exchange. A man could not readily start handing out money on his own in order to fund an impartial judiciary with at all the same ease he could fund charitable causes.

    If a man decided one day to help fund the health care, and give a stipend to, all persons over the age of 65 he could readily do so. It could be as easy as handing out $10 bills to every person over such age as he walks down the street. Should he wish he could just as easily gather together a group of like minded people and all do the same thing.

    Not so with those functions which are the just province of government. A man could not take it into his head to walk down the street and fund a court system, nor could he do the same with a system of national defense. He does not have the force of government to make people pay for such things, but far more importantly, there is no practical way in which he could organize such things.

    In short, when the use of government in taxation is solely because government has such force at hand to assure extraction, that is when taxation is likely theft. When such is used for no other purpose than wealth transfer, something no man needs government aid to do, but those who wish it need government power to enforce, that surely is theft. When government power is used to tax that for which governments are in place to fulfill, that is not theft disguised as theft. For no man could reasonably arrainge such endeavors without a government in place.

    • valley person

      What government should rightly do is determined by politics operating within our constitution. If you accept our form of government and the imperfect results of democracy, you get spending on things you or I might not like. That doesn’t make the legal levy of taxes theft.

      Lots of businesses get “enriched” by providing government services or goods. That doesn’t mean they are thieves.  

  • Bob Clark

    I’ve heard the Occupy XXX’rs were originated by a Canadian organization which has made anti semitic like statements in the past among other things.

    Seems like whenever times get particularly tough economically, envy rises amongst us all and the “usual suspects” are ushered up by contemporaries; forgetting this same sad, depravity making movie has been played over and over thoughout human history.  The Occupy XXX’rs refuse to come out and make their concerns clear, because this is probably what they are exactly about.  And its very sad to see local and state government leaders suggesting their support for this envious, covetous behavior.

    • Anonymous

      Bob, you might want to check “The Daily caller.” They have documented quite well how anti-Semitic OWS really is. They have a video there today of a protester screaming at an old man in a yarmulke, the “occupiers” epithets…including telling the old man to go back to Israel…are really quite illuminating. The OWS crowd seems to think all Jews are rich and run Wall Street.

  • Oregon engineer

    What type of anarchist are you.  You should not be reading such subversive books.  But isn’t it crazy that a book written in 1957 is today’s headlines.

  • Anonymous

    Steve, glad you got the answer to your question right…taxation is always theft.

    But, I doubt the “occupiers” will pay any attention to your story. They want everything handed to them and they don’t care how they get it. Free health care, free college tuition. $20 minimum wages (fpr those who actually work) and guaranteed incomes for those (meaning most of the “occupiers”) who won’t work.

    Doesn’t sound much like people who give a rip if taxation is theft, or if they do, well it’s just another illegal act and they already know how to commit illegal acts.

    • Founding Fathers

      “Taxation is always theft.”

      Really?

      So, how do you propose that government be financed? Or would you rather just do away with government altogether? That’s sheer lunacy.

      Tell you what, you’re welcome to move to that libertarian paradise, Somalia.

      • Anonymous

        Yeah doofus, taxation is always theft…especially the kind of taxation the “occupier” a-holes are demanding. Does that mean we shouldn’t pay any taxes…nope…I didn’t say that…you did. But we don’t need to pay the kind of taxes the “occupier” stooges would have us pay because they are too lazy to work.

        • Founding Fathers

          So you’re endorsing theft?

          I guess I assumed that you thought theft was wrong. Silly me, I thought you were civilized.

          In that case, in what circumstances is theft appropriate? Does it matter who’s doing the thievery, and who is having the thievery done to them? Do amounts matter?

          And how about the taxes the Iraq War stooges had us pay? Oh, wait a minute, wasn’t that one supposed to pay for itself, and “last five
          days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to
          last any longer than that,” as Donald Rumsfeld said. Gee, how’d that turn out.

          But that made some people, especially some people with close connections to the Bush White House, rich. How come you didn’t complain about that?

          • Anonymous

            Quit being such a jerk. You sure do like to put words in my mouth.

            I didn’t think much of Bush (although he was much better than Obozo) or Rumsfeld or the Iraq War. So, see how stupid you are?

          • Founding Fathers

            What words did I put in your mouth? You stated that all taxation is theft, but then you said that you don’t oppose all taxation. I simply came to the logical conclusion that you endorse at least some theft.

            Yes, I guess to you it seems like I’m being a jerk. It’s terrible when people actually think about the things you write, isn’t it?

          • Anonymous

            All the stuff about Bush. Geez, can’t you read? You also twisted my thoughts about taxation being theft to your own liberal devices. Congratulations, tyou’re becoming as big an a-hole as the “occupiers.”

          • Founding Fathers

             Didn’t your parents teach you manners? What’s with all the name calling?

            “Doofus.” “a-holes.” “Jerk.”

          • Anonymous

            I gotta call ’em like I see ’em. Your stupidity makes you a doofus…putting words in my mouth makes you a jerk and calling the “occupiers” a-holes is being extremely kind to them but about as far as I’m willing to go here. So, I’m not calling names I’m just telling it like it is. You liberal pukes love to seem so offended. I guess the truth huts.

          • Founding Fathers

            Joel, again, what words did I put in your mouth?

            I merely followed the logic of the words that you wrote. If you don’t like that, perhaps you need to pay closer attention to what you write.

          • just doing the math

            FF,
            Remember, this is Joel, and his potty mouth knows no limits.
            You will just end up in an endless cycle of arguments and
            name calling.

          • Anonymous

            Typical reply from a doofus, a-hole. How are things going in “Occupier” park anyway? Watch out for the fecal matter around the porta-potties and police cars.

          • Founding Fathers

             Wow! How much does the DNC pay you to be an obnoxious righty on the internet?

          • just doing the math

            You know, I really would not know. And there you go again with
            your preoccupation with feces.

        • Ardbeg

          What do you mean “I didn’t say that” (about paying taxes).  Saying taxes are the same as stealing sounds like your saying you shouldn’t have to pay taxes because it’s wrong or immoral.  You continue to use ‘doofus’ ‘a-hole’ and ‘occupier’ as ways to insult people. You are a sad, sad, bitter old man. Please (I have manners) crawl into a hole…………you know the rest.  I’m feeling a little guilty bringing myself down to your level but your such a f-stick I can’t help it!

          • Anonymous

            Go back and read the posts…if you can. I never said we shouldn’t pay taxes. I only stated that taxation is theft…especially what the “occupiers” want us to pay in taxes. 

            In case you hadn’t figured it out free tuition, free medical care, free annual wages for no work and $20 minimum wages all cost money. Where do you think that money would come from. My guess is it would be from tax money stolen from those who understand the need to work for a living.

            By the by, even 100 percent taxation on everyone making over $200 thousand a year wouldn’t begin to pay for everything the Obozo backed “occupiers” are demanding.

            Funny, you demean me for name calling, yet you call me a sad, sad, bitter old man (which I don’t thin you meant in a respectful manner) and upped the ante by calling me a “f-stick.” First, I’d say I’m middle aged not old…so you show what a ditzel you are on that account and second, I never use the f-word or even the f-initial online. So, you get the award for the name calling…you ignorant puke.

          • Ardbeg

            Joel, first let me apologize, I lowered myself to your level (the  name calling)and I promise to not let that happen again.  Too late at night, one too many scotches, blah-blah-blah.  I’ll make you one more promise that I hope I can keep: I won’t waste my time reading your portion of any post.  You never have anything of value to bring to the conversation.  You are pretty good at throwing out insults but I have yet to read anything from you that contributes to the debate or makes me think.  It always hate: ‘these people suck’, “I didn’t say that” (yes you did!),”Occupier”, ‘a-hole'(really Joel? is that really different that f-stick?), “doofus”, “jerk”, “You liberal pukes” and these are just the insults from this ONE THREAD! Good bye Joel and good riddance. Life is too short to waste it on a guy like you.  Good luck, I hope at some point you can find some peace in your life.  Ardbeg.

          • Anonymous

            Thank you, I don’t figure the rationale for arguing with liberals anyway. I don’t write to address you, I don’t go to Blue Oregon, or TPM or MMfA and argue with the habitues of those blogs. You shouldn’t be here and if you come here you should be respectful and hold your tongue  (fingers).

            For all the talk about bipartisanship, liberals actually want it all their way…what do you think passing Obamacare, unread, without a single Republican vote was all about. Democrats didn’t care, they just knew it was the Democrat way to vote. And that’s why I won’t moderate the way I write here. Like it, or not, bipartisanship is dead and Obozo and the Democrats killed it.

          • Founding Fathers

            Actually, Joel, if you went to Blue Oregon, you would find that most of the discussions are tough, yet polite. And both sides contribute. There rarely is the sort of name-calling that you see here from the righties.

          • Anonymous

            Actually, I do go to Blue Oregon (as well as TPM, MMfA, Huffington Post and a few other liberal blogs I have bookmarked) because even I need the occasional laugh.

            Yeah right, I’ve noticed the lack of name calling sifted in among the posts from people trying to show how smart they are. Without even realizing it they post the basic liberal dogma. What I don’t get is how you write something and never understand what you are saying.

          • 3H

            We shouldn’t be here?? Really Joel?  Do you own this blog?  Do you set the rules?  Until the actual owner of the blog says he doesn’t want liberals posting, then you have absolutely no say in it.  None. Zero. Zip.  

            Start your own blog, and then you can make the rules.

            And you, of all people. should not be lecturing anyone about being respectful.  If you don’t like liberals on this blog, then get the owner to make that change.  But I’m not surprised that you want other people to abide by rules that you never would.

          • Anonymous

            Well, I do have my own blog, more than one even. You’re welcome to visit and post…so long as you don’t post your liberal bile or anything political for that natter since none of them is a political blog.

            As for your not being here…just my opinion. I am allowed to have an opinion last time I checked. I know you Obozoites would like there to be no right of center opinion allowed anywhere (especially in Congress) but fortunately that still hasn’t happened and will be taken care of for good in November 2012. No more Obozo…it’s almost like a dream.

          • valley person

            ” No more Obozo…it’s almost like a dream.”

            Given the current crop of candidates opposing him, it probably is a dream.

          • just doing the math

            Ardbeg,

            Don’t feel guilty, this is what joel does. Name calls
            when you have a different opinion. People like joel
            do very little to promote the views of the right. I just
            read he stuff and it makes me want to be more blue.

          • Ardbeg

            Thanks, my plan is to ignore (skip) his portion of the posts.  He never does anything but whine like a spoiled child.  If you’ve read one of his post you basically are not missing anything because they are all the same.

          • Ardbeg

            Thanks, my plan is to ignore (skip) his portion of the posts.  He never does anything but whine like a spoiled child.  If you’ve read one of his post you basically are not missing anything because they are all the same.

          • Ardbeg

            Thanks, my plan is to ignore (skip) his portion of the posts.  He never does anything but whine like a spoiled child.  If you’ve read one of his post you basically are not missing anything because they are all the same.

        • valley person

          Taxation is always theft? Interesting. I guess that rules out government. You might try Somalia as your retirement destination.  No government is working great there.

          • Anonymous

            Did you miss the meeting VP? The poster who hides behind the name Founding Fathers (which he clearly isn’t, he doesn’t even believe in what they believed) used the exact same Somalia argument, If you’d gone to the meeting you’d know that the Somalia argument belonged to Founding Fathers and you’d need to come up with something else.

            As I explained previously…and I do so hate to repeat myself…in fact, go back and read my previous posts. I’ve already explained a couple of times why the “occupiers” are leeches.

          • valley person

            Yes, I missed the meeting. Been out of the country. Did you miss me?

            Your sweeping characterization of the occupiers you don’t know is not what I commented on.

            Its your concept of taxation as theft. plainly stated. If the government has to steal from you to fund public services, then you are obligated to resist or avoid paying no? I mean, why should you willingly pay a thief?  And your position has to logically extend to everyone else, so if we all refuse to pay we end up with no government. The only current long running example of that is Somalia, so I don’t have another good example for you.  

            The actual Founding Fathers included the right of the government to raise taxes in the constitution.  And the government they created levied taxes. So maybe you think they were thieves?

          • Anonymous

            Nope, didn’t even realize you were gone. Were you looking for a new home? Maybe Cuba? Or Iran? Or North Korea?

          • 3H

            Notice how he avoids the question and ducks and weaves.  He simply is unwilling to follow the logic of his own words.  All tax is theft. Simplistic and not even that elegant.   Simple slogans for simple minds.

          • valley person

            I admire Joel for knowing his debate limitations. 

          • 3H

            I’m not convinced it is a deliberate conscious decision.  I get the feeling that he is truly puzzled by why we would ask him about how government should function of all taxation is theft – the reasonable questions that follow from that belief.

          • valley person

            Avoiding or ducking is a reasonable response to being puzzled isn’t it? Anyway its better than name calling, which is the alternative. 

          • Anonymous

            I understand everything you jerks say. You just make it clear that you don’t have a clue as to what I’m saying. So I have to resort to calling you doofuses and jerks with some hope that you may get the message. Apparently though, even those words are way over your head.

            Why don’t you go to Blue Oregon, TPM or MMfA where they don’t have the intelligence to engage in a real discussion.

          • Founding Fathers

            We disagree with you, so name-calling is your only alternative? Amazing.

            If you’ll notice, you have avoided answering direct questions asking to clarify your positions, responding, instead, with vitriol. Are you paid by the DNC to act this way and discredit the right wing?

          • Anonymous

            No, the DNC can’t afford me. Actually I do this pro bono but I’m finding it takes way too much time away from what really matters in life…making money…so I’ll probably have to quit reading this stuff and responding to all of you liberal clowns and your ignorant arguments.

          • valley person

            Doofus is over my head? Maybe so. Maybe you are engaging in some sort of high level argument that I just can’t quite get.   That must be it. Thanks for clarifying.

            As for where I choose to waste my time, its between me and my analyst.

          • Anonymous

            Yes, apparently doofus is over your head. Sorry, that’s about as low as I can go…so I probably shouldn’t waste my time responding to your deficient diatribes.

          • Anonymous

            Actually, I’ve explained myself numerous times and rather well, if I do say so. The problem is all of you liberal twerps just can’t understand anything anyone says if it doesn’t conform to your perverted thinking.

          • 3H

            LOL.. perverted thinking?  You have no idea.  I don’t share those thoughts on this blog.

          • Anonymous

            Hmmm, but you do admit to having perverted thoughts. Oh, and you do share them on this blog…it’s called liberalism.

          • 3H

            Oh I do..  at least by the standards of uptight angry guys like you.   I think that’s what makes you so angry — other than the obvious fact that you can’t stand to have people disagree with you — your thoughts are so boring, mundane and pedestrian that you have to lash out.

          • Anonymous

            Funny 3H…but your comment is, as they say, “A day late and a dollar short.” That’s $13 TRILLION dollars short under Obozonomics.

          • 3H

            zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

          • Founding Fathers

            No, you haven’t explained yourself. You made a statement, “All taxation is theft”, and then when people pointed out that the obvious conclusion from that is that you want to do away with all government, you then made the weird assertion that, though you think it’s all theft, you don’t oppose all of it.

            And then you got all huffy when it was pointed out that you were now taking the position of condoning some theft.

            Then you got even further into the weeds, seeming to say that all taxation is theft, but what the OWS people are calling for is  really, really theft, and so some theft is okay, but the really, really theft stuff is really, really bad.

            No, you haven’t done a very good job of explaining yourself. But go ahead, continue to delude yourself that you have.

            And continue to resort to name-calling rather than reason and facts. It’s very impressive to those who haven’t made up their minds.

          • Anonymous

            Perfect example of what I was talking about. FF, your liberalism is getting in the way of clear thinking. You obviously are having trouble fitting my statements into your clouded world view.

          • Founding Fathers

            Again, when faced with reason, you respond with name calling.

            So sad for your parents to have raised such a person.

          • Anonymous

            I’m glad you admire me.

            What I don’t admire is a liberal goon squad that thinks it can gang up on the opposition and browbeat it into submission to its deluded view of what is.

          • Anonymous

            I’ve avoided no question. Taxation is theft…that doesn’t mean that taxes aren’t in some cases (very limited cases) necessary. What I have said…and made very clear to boot…is that the kind of taxes the “occupiers” are demanding is theft. 

            The “occupier”  clowns want to take the money from the haves and turn it over to the have nots. But the thing is they have not because they are unwilling to work for it. They think the world owes them a living. This is pretty mush the same principle as Obozo’s plan for income redistribution.Does that explain it well enough for you…or is even that too complicated? If you’re still having trouble understanding a pretty easy principle, let me know and I’ll try to put it in even more basic words.

          • 3H

            Oh, it doesn’t get any more basic than all taxes are theft.  Do you consider theft to me immoral?

          • Anonymous

            Why do you people insist on asking the same questions over and over. I’ve already explained that yes, the taxes required to pay for the “occupiers” agenda would be immoral.

          • valley person

            Occupier? You mean the one who was elected?

            Answer this Joel. How much have your taxes gone up under Obama? Warning, its a trick question. 

          • Anonymous

            Basic English lesson VP: If I had been referring to Obozo, I would have hyphenated occupiers (occupier’s). Since I wrote “occupiers,” I was clearly referring to the OWS, OP, or Occupy Wherever a-holes. Although occupier is a good way to refer to Obozo since all he is doing is occupying the Oval Office. Thankfully since Stim I and Obamacare he’s been able to accomplish little.

            As for my taxes, I should say it’s none of your business since it is none of your business. Let’s just say I have an excellent accountant.

          • Founding Fathers

            Do you know what a hyphen is?

          • Anonymous

            Yeah, (-,) how’s that? I clearly know the difference…you see the example two words later. Yes, I should have said “I would have used an apostrophe.” My bad, ten lashes for me.

          • Founding Fathers

            The thing is, the example that you gave had an apostrophe, not a hyphen.

          • valley person

            So every person collecting social security beyond what they paid in is a have not who is unwilling to work?

            What Obama plan for income redistribution? I must have missed the memo.

          • Anonymous

            So, what you’re saying is it’s still too complicated. I said nothing about SS. The deal with SS is that everyone of a certain age is guaranteed a payment…the government calls it insurance. It isn’t really insurance, it’s really more of an annuity but since the government calls it insurance that’s what we’ll call it.

            This, btw, doesn’t make it right. Insurance or annuity, it isn’t the government’s place to be requiring us to have it. Same goes for Obozocare.

            You never heard of “Joe the Plumber,” the guy who blew the whistle on Obozo’s plans for income redistribution? Or do you just ignore things that don’t fit nicely into your world view?

          • valley person

            Yes, everyone is required to buy old age insurance and everyone is hence entitled to it. Just like everyone is required to pay taxes and is entitled to services like police and fire and public education. Its called advanced civilization. You may think it isn’t right, which is your opinion. But SSI virtually eliminated poverty among old people.  And it is about the most popular thing government does. So get used to it.

            Yes, I’ve heard of not really Joe the not really a plumber. His 15 minutes have expired no?

            Obama’s “plan” was to let the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule for those making over $200K a year, allowing top rates to go all the way back up to where they were under Clinton, coincidentally the last time we had a balanced budget. The “income redistribution” was thus being redistributed to help balance the budget. That used to be a conservative position by the way.

            But as things turned out, Obama did not let the tax cuts expire. He extended them another 2 years. And he cut a number of other taxes, including SSI. You pay less today than you did when he was elected.

          • Anonymous

            You know, this is just getting tiresome. Every time I open my email there are six or eight or ten or twelve new comments from the liberal contingent and the thing is…I’M TIRED OF WASTING MY TIME TALKING TO A BUNCH OF KNOW NOTHINGS.

            You all just keep making the same stupid claims and I have to keep telling you over and over the same things. Well fine, you guys just keep on supporting the “occupier” a-holes. You can keep on claiming to be the 99 percent, when everyone knows. in fact, that it is more like the five per cent. You can keep on costing the City of Portland hundreds of thousands of dollars in police overtime and damage to city property.

            Isn’t that a fine use for public money so a bunch of wastrels can camp out in city parks and feel like they are accomplishing something when they are truly  accomplishing next to nothing.

            My last comment: VP, your take on history is fascinating…fantasy but fascinating. My advice to you: Start paying attention when you come to Oregon Catalyst. Instead of just being a snarky troll, absorb what’s posted here. You might actually learn something.

            Okay, I’m done. Oh, don’t get me wrong…I’ll still post here when the mood strikes but I’m finished dealing with your childish BS. Right now, I’m going to my Disqus profile and turning off the automatic emails when one of you posts your lies and insults to my posts.

          • valley person

            Aw. Poor Joel. Your taxes are in fact LOWER since Obama took office.  That is reality, not fantasy.

          • valley person

            Aw. Poor Joel. Your taxes are in fact LOWER since Obama took office.  That is reality, not fantasy.

          • valley person

            Aw. Poor Joel. Your taxes are in fact LOWER since Obama took office.  That is reality, not fantasy.

          • Anonymous

            Just trying to save space but I’ll be glad to answer the questions. In fact, I’ve already answered numerous times. You clowns just don’t seem to be able to pay attention…or maybe you are victims of public schooling and don’t read well. Whatever.

            Would I gladly pay a thief. Yeah, if he’s holding a gun on me and the government is essentially holding a gun on me and forcing me to pay taxes. The gun is called the IRS.

            As far as my position extending to everyone else, read the previous paragraph. You’ll get the idea.

            And while I figure some taxes are necessary…most aren’t and are thievery. The government already does too much and Obozo wants it to do more. I don’t need a nanny government telling me how to live my life, what I can eat and where I can enjoy life. And I’ll tell you a secret…neither do you. Frankly, I can’t understand why you want it that way.

            The question about the Founding Fathers was basically apocryphal. Actually most of the questions posed by you liberal dolts are apocryphal. 

            Clear enough?

          • 3H

            So, necessary taxes aren’t thievery?  That’s adding a level of sophistication lacking from your earlier comments.   I’m not entirely surprised, you frequently back-track from earlier statements.

  • valley person

    Well, a 35% or so top tax rate on income, with no taxes paid on SSI or Medicare after the first $100K, is a pretty good deal for the wealthy, particularly considering they have gotten virtually all the increase in income in this country over the past 30 years.  A small increase in their taxes, which is all anyone has proposed, is hardly confiscation of their car.   

    • Bosstweed

      Agreed. Those bastards should pay their fair share!!!

    • Anonymous

      1. The “occupiers” want 100 percent of their tuition paid, 100 percent medical care, an annual wage rather they work or not and a $20 per hour minimum wage for those who actually would work for living…which would be few of the Obozo backed scum bags.

      2. A 100 percent tax on everyone making over $200-thousand a year wouldn’t put a dent in the money necessary to create the “occupiers” dream society.

      As Mrs. Thatcher said. “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Now, if you’d  like, there’s nothing stopping you from turning over 100 percent of your paycheck to help support the likes of the “occupiers” and other slouches who won’t work.

      As for me. 9-9-9 works just fine. Sorry to support a  black candidate. I know it ruins your liberal puke argument that I only dislike Obozo because of his skin color.

      • valley person

        I have not seen that list of demands. What I have seen is that some of them want some relief from college debt, and others want jobs at living wages.  I haven’t seen anyone propose a 100% tax on upper income people. I haven’t seen any proposal for “socialism.”

        9-9-9 had the virtue of simplicity until Cain started messing with it. It has no other virtues. It does raise taxes on most Americans to help fund more tax cuts for the 1 percenters. Good luck with that.

        I’ve never made any argument about your opinion of Obama being based on his skin color. But you seem to need to attribute arguments to others that they don’t make, so you are consistent about it. 

        • Anonymous

          >>”…you seem to need to attribute arguments to others that they don’t make, so you are consistent about it.”

          Damn, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You liberal simpletons are constantly putting words in my mouth but you have the audacity to claim I do it. Well, at least you injected a little humor into your post. 

          Maybe you never specifically made the argument about Obozo’s skin color being a reason to not like him but how about liberal jerks like Janeane Garofalo or Keith Olbermann or Bill Maher who have all claimed the only reason for not liking Obozo is racism. I suspect you probably harbor the same view.

          No, even the “occupiers” are with it enough not to propose a 100 percent tax on upper income earners. But the fact is, it would take a tax of 100 percent, and a lot more, to come close to giving the “occupiers” their Utopia.

          You like the Internet, why don’t you Google the “occupier” demands? You’ll find everything I cited and a whole lot more. I found the list on the WaPo website. There was a list of, I think, 13 or 15 demands all of them pretty socialist… even from a liberal perspective. The demands for paid college tuition, paid health care  and a guaranteed annual wage all come directly from OWS.

          As for Cain, I take solace in the knowledge that you will not have a vote on the matter. Instead you can give your vote to Obozo…just like all of the other Democratic sheep.

          • valley person

            No maybe Joel. I never made the argument. Period. I wasn’t aware that others, including Olberman,  made that argument about you.  But they ain’t me. You can suspect whatever you want. I avoid attributing motives to people I don’t know. I just deal with what they say.

            I don’t know that those protesting are asking for utopia.  They are like the early part of the tea Party protests, which were generally against “big government” but lacked any specifics. Those were developed later as people got organized around the initial outbursts.  Maybe OWS will develop into something like that. Most likely not. At the moment their “official” web sit has no list of demands. They apparently have a “demands working group” that is coming up with something, but haven’t said what that is yet. I imagine in the end it will be a pretty tame, left of center mish-mash. Trotsky is long dead and buried.

             http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/o/occupy_wall_street/index.html?inline=nyt-org

            As for Cain, if he manages to get nominated and God willing, I will have a say in the matter next November. But I suspect Cain is going nowhere. He can’t seem to get his own story straight, and is arguing with his own positions. A sure sign of lack of experience in elective politics. He will flame out in a few weeks, Flavor of the month. Romney is the guy you will end up nominating.

          • 3H

            LOL.. you whine about other people putting words in your mouth, and then you do it yourself.   You truly are the gift that keeps on giving.

  • OregonShirley

    So, your statement is that the government should completely get out of the charity business?  No more foodstamps, welfare, or free healthcare right?  No more tax credits for electric cars, or hiring an extra employee? Or is it only the grass roots protest for change which offend you? 

  • Anonymous

    So, now the truth comes out. Who’s organizing OWS? Why it’s none other than the discredited group (and Obozo allies) formerly known as ACORN. What’s interesting is that they are raising money through door-to-door solicitations in NYC. Of course they are hiding the true purpose of their fund raising, telling their prospects that the money is going for a charitable cause rather to pay for “occupier” organizing.

    • Founding Fathers

      So a few people who used to be part of ACORN are involved in OWS. That doesn’t mean that they are “organizing OWS.”

      By the way, it turns out the video used to take down ACORN was fraudulently edited. Did you know that?

      • Anonymous

        Hmmmm, wrong twice in one short little post.

        1) It isn’t just a few people, it’s virtually the entire staff in the New York office and they are, btw, operating out of the ACORN office. So, it’s a whole lot more than a few people from ACORN, it’s almost everyone from the NY office and they are doing almost all of the fund raising for OWS.

        2) James O’Keefe says the tape was edited for time, not for content. The idea that the tape was “fraudulently” edited is a liberal’s wet dream. ACORN was just fine with helping out the teenage prostitution group and in more than one office.

        • Founding Fathers

          James “tried to lure a female reporter onto a boat in order to sexually humiliate her, but was foiled when the women he worked with outed his plan” O’Keefe has no credibility.

          But if that’s the people you want to hang your hat on, it says volumes about your character.

  • Pingback: test de paternité()

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)