>Hey again,
>
>>>>First, not all wealthy people are directly employing others. Some are living on investments, or on the wealth accumulated by their ancestors.
>>>
>>>OK I have to totally disagree with that on several levels. First off if they live a wealthy lifestyle then they are employing others to maintain that lifestyle. Landscapers for the property. Nannies for the kids....financial experts to manage the portfolio. And if it's wealth accumulated by family then, at some point, the family engaged others in the process of accumulating that wealth. Last I looked money doesn't spring from a well in the ground.
>>>
>>>>Second, typically, those who are employing others are also taking advantage of lots of the things that society provides. For example, companies selling lots of products are shipping them somehow and that's likely to involve something that taxes pay for, whether it's roads or airports or ...
>>>
>>>I agree in theory. But here we get into specifics. The company that ships products all over the place is paying more for that shipping,right? If I mail a thousand letters I am paying a thousand times more than you who are mailing one letter. I need a better example to debate this point. Think this one through again and come up with a more cogent argument.
>>
>>Sure, they're paying for it. But things like roads, and airports, and so forth aren't mostly being paid for by he piece. They're investments the country or a state or a county has made in their area. Ditto schools--they're an investment. I'm talking about infrastructure. No business makes a lot of money without using the infrastructure investments we make as a society.
>
>Infrastructure is paid for by taxation, for sure. But why be disproportionate about it? As a libertarian, I'm a fan of use fees as opposed to general taxes that way those who use 'em pay for 'em.

I read an interesting piece on the idea of a use tax the other week, but I can't turn it up right now. It was a new way of looking at taxation for me. I do worry about such a tax being regressive in the same way sales tax is regressive, but it might be possible to find a scheme that's fair.


>
>>>
>>>>I stand by my original statement. If you have more, you have more responsibility. "More," of course, doesn't have to be more things. It could be more brains or more something else.
>>>>
>>>
>>>And therein lies our fundamental disagreement. Tamar, you are making the classic Marxist argument whether you realize it or not. If you're OK with that, fine, but it's antithesis to the values the country was founded on. We were founded on equal opportunity and equal responsibilities. I challenge you to show me where in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, or for that matter the Bill of Rights, is this precept of yours. Please, enlighten me. Let me give you a headstart - it's not there at all. So this opinion of yours runs counter to our founding principles de facto.
>>>
>>>As the saying goes I don't agree with your opinion but would defend your rights to it. But, strictly speaking, it's un-American structurally. And there is nothing you can point to in our founding literature that says otherwise.
>>
>>I disagree with your assessment that it's unAmerican. I think the people back then simply understood that individual responsibility varied with individual ability. That's why John Adams, for example, spend much of his adult life living away from the wife he loved--he perceived service to his country as a responsibility, and knew he had ability he had to share.
>>
>
>You're not providing an equivalent example. Yes, Adams and others have made great personal sacrifices to do what they thought was best for the common good and they should be revered for that. But that's not jiving with your thesis. The difference is that these men (and women) gave themselves to the greater good voluntarily. What you are suggesting is raising taxes on the wealthy which is not voluntary and some studies show actually decreases charity and volunteerism. Tamar, you cannot enforce civic responsibility and pride with the barrel of a gun. If you do, it's no longer a responsibility it's an obligation enforced by penalty of the law. Don't you see the difference?

You suggested that thinking that those who have more, also have more responsibility was unAmerican. I pointed out that some of our most revered Americans operated exactly that way.

I'd also argue that those who are making a lot of money are taking more advantage of what we all provide through taxation, so it's reasonable to tax them more. You actually seem to agree, since you said favor a use tax.

Tamar