Raise your hand if you own something that you don't "need." I'm always amazed when various people ask questions like "why does someone 'need' a 30 round magazine" or "why does someone 'need' a yacht."
The correct answer is that you don't "need" any of these things, but it's none of your business if I want them. You don't need a DVD player. You don't need shoes. You don't need a microwave.
Instead of talking about whether or not a business can depreciate the value of their private jet we should be asking why government gets to tax that asset to begin with.
If a company wants to buy a jet/forklift/CNC machine/etc why does the government demand a piece of the action?
Instead of asking if raising taxes in a down economy will "help create jobs" we should ask why government deserves to take more of what people earn.
9 comments:
"I'm always amazed when various people ask questions like "why does someone 'need' a 30 round magazine"
They mean why do you need a 30 round magazine when you don't have any savings for your kids, numb nuts.
Let me make sure I understand this:
You're fretting that billionaires you've never met and have absolutely nothing in common with might have to charter private jets instead of flying their own personal jets, and (with your "First they came for ... " headline) comparing their sad plight to Holocaust victims?
Im fretting that we are allowing a Marxist/Leninist leader to create a class warfare arguement to subvert our rights. Interesting that since Obama's election the number of limousines used by the administration has doubled but somehow a corporate jet is a crime.
Don't forget the law of unintended consequences. Some years back when the federal government created luxury taxes for yachts the sales dropped and hundreds of workers lost their jobs. It didn't bring in any more tax revenues it simply put people out of business
Miglavs, should we be worried about a person with a known criminal history who wants a 30-round magazine?
Screw the 30 rd magazine, I want a hundred round magazine. This will utilize my time more efficiently. I can load on the way to the range (outdoor range) which saves me time when I'm shooting. This time can be used in any manner I choose. I can enjoy the beauty of my current location or drink more beer. This sounds like a win-win situation.
I would like to ask Obama, why does his wife need to take their kids on vacation all the time and spend more of my tax money?
Ano 11:22,
I beleive there is already a law on the books about felony ownership or possession of guns. Are you suggesting that any person who commits a crime, any crime not have access to guns? Where do you draw the line? Parking tickets?
The class warefare hasn't worked in Oregon. Measure 66 and 67 have done little to help the economy or raise revenew for the state. What makes you think taxing the rich is the way out of our economic problems?
You obviously understand, 9:52. Welcome to Miglavia!
Are you suggesting that any person who commits a crime, any crime not have access to guns?
That's not what I said. Read my post again. I asked Miglavs a rhetorical question (to which I do not expect an answer.)
It astounds me that even as most Americans (including and especially the wealthiest) are now paying the lowest federal tax rates they've paid since the early 1960's, we STILL have right-wingers boo-hooing that "tax rates are too high!"
The political right hopes you forget that right now, the rich are paying even lower taxes than they paid under Reagan. In large part because of this, almost 90% of ALL income gains for Americans in the last 30 years have accrued to the wealthiest 3% of Americans. "Trickle-up" economics is alive and well in America, crushing the middle-class in the process.
And yet, astoundingly, the political right wants us to believe that the taxes these people pay are too high! You can't even make up this kind of absurdity.
The richest 3% have completely purchased our political system, gamed it to their advantage, and now even have uneducated, lower income people like Daniel doing their bidding by funding the types of reactionary politics that appeal to the Daniels of America! It's really quit a remarkable piece of manipulation on their part. And the Daniels of America have fallen for it hook, line and sinker.
What happened to the conservatives of 30+ years ago, who understood that with great wealth, came a greater obligation to society at large? That type of principled conservatism is dead. It's gone, replaced by a reactionary, populist conservatism that disdains education, intellectualism in general, science, and a vibrant civil society.
It's easier for Daniel to blame illegal aliens for job loss, than to blame the uber-rich who have largely off-shored work that can be done overseas cheaper. And while the standard of living for people like Daniel becomes ever lower, it's easier to blame illegals, than the ultra wealthy who are literally helping themselves to a great majority of this nation's wealth.
When did we become such a nation of rubes?
Post a Comment