You're out of control. Re-read the thread, as this issue has been addressed.

The short of it is that I realized a long time ago that people don't read these posts very carefully except when they want to deconstruct an argument. Then, they pay so close attention to each line, that they miss the real point the poster was trying to make.

I made it very clear that I was referring to people who own the vast majority of the capital. Bill Gates does not own a huge proportion of the capital relative to the people I was talking about. You got so riled up that you missed the part where I was specifically referring to that class. Since my entire argument is that we ought to pay attention to assets moreso than income, you should have concluded that I thought those two posters were placing themselves in the top asset holder category. The majority of the people in the class they are talking about pay a significant portion of the tax bill. It's the background money that isn't getting tapped--the capital that corporations and a tiny slice of our population control.

As to your splitting hairs over whether I should have stated, don't have to work rather than don't work, I think you're just picking at things to provide reasons to yourself to prove that your disagreement with my position is due to rational reasons rather than ideological ones.

No you are right, I did not read all of the posts, I did not realize there were so many I had not seen, I saw yours and quoted you without looking at the other responses.
On the other hand I was told once that you should not even BE taxed on your wages and only your income which would be defined as money made in investments and so forth. The years of IRS bullying has made it possilbe to collect taxes on wages while technically being unconstitutional. talk about having to really trim down on spending then.

now you're talking about a different definition of income. how would wages not be a part of one's income? and there is nothing unconstitutional about income tax. it is not mentioned in the constitution and is therefore not protected by it.

Harry, I would think that a legitimate position would be that since it isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, that it's actually a right retained by the people. I understand the Constitution to be a bare minimum for the government, not the people's rights. That's possibly what phyzix might have heard someone basing their argument on.

while i agree with you, if i'm not mistaken, the constitution says that anything not specifically mentioned in it is retained by the people unless the states or fed govt. make a law about it. at least that's the interpretation i've always had from my american govt. class.

In a nutshell: The constitution doesn't grant rights, it limits them.

uhm, are we reading the same constitution?

if this thread's gonna be brought back from the tfp graveyard, this post in particular was way too cocky. I'm trying to change my image yo.

allright, that wasn't really fair. The whole "The constitution doesn't grant, balh blah blah" sounds like what you were trying to say..sortof.

In a free society, as ours, rights are "inalienable". They aren't the governments to give away. The consitution defines certain rights, and places limits on them.

The "right to free speech" is more of a declaration. It's defined so limits can be placed (i.e. - no yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater). We didn't need the consitution to tell us we were allowed to speak our minds, we needed it to define it, for the sole purpose of placing limits on it.

I'm tired.

Many of the mouthpieces for the "myth of the self made man" are completely self delusional. The economic opportunities afforded by the American system were not created by you and in many cases were subsidized by others, horror of horrors: Republicans taking a handout. For a much more detailed discussion of this I would refer you to this site http://www.responsiblewealth.org/pre...tAlone_pr.html It discusses the infrastructure that supports and guides the economics of the country and how the wealthy are subsidized and nurtured by this system.

Off topic a little, with regard to matthews comment ...

This is what makes the US a different kind of place than almost every other country in the world. The government doesn't know best, you do. The government doesn't allow you to do certain things, it only places limits on what you can do.