It sounds inflammatory when you put it that way. All I meant was that in any society with taxation (which is all of them) no one gets to keep all their income. In that case, no, our money is not all ours.

>"our money is not all rightfully ours"
>
>This is what I object to.
>
>>I wouldn't call it sad so much as a fundamental difference in outlook. Please tell me which of these statements you disagree with (OK to choose more than one) --
>>
>>1. A government is necessary.
>>2. A government requires money to run.
>>3. The money has to come from the citizenry in one way or another.
>>
>>If you don't disagree with any of those, I don't see how you make a case that we should be able to keep all our income.
>
>I don't disagree with those statements, but that doesn't mean I should be taxed based on how much I earn. Sales taxes, corporate taxes, federal use fees, tariffs, etc can all be used without punishing people for successfully accumulating wealth. Wealth building through investment and savings should be encouraged.
>
>We are staring down the barrel of a $3.1 trillion budget. That's 20% of our GDP going to the government. Not to mention the time and money spent on accounting both personal and corporate.
>
>As I said before, please go out and vocally back the Dem candidate by repeating "our money is not all rightfully ours".
>
>>
>>>>No, our money is not all rightfully ours, not in any modern society. Not in mine, not in yours, not in Europe, etc. etc. etc.
>>>
>>>This is just sad. I don't believe I have ever seen a greater argument for better economic education in this country than this one statement. Do me a favor. Regardless who wins the Dem primary, join their campaign and utter this phrase at every event you can attend.