lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:


Yes, allowing people to keep what they earn is dreadful. Arbitrary caps on wealth are so much fairer and so invigorating for the work force. Such a heavy burden lifted.
What one truly earns is defined differently between us.  You believe the market determines this alone.  I believe society overall determines what you should keep.

JohnG@lt wrote:

And you've proven nothing except that you're a grasping, fearful, twirp who is covetous of what other people earn but isn't willing to put in the work to receive it. The gulf between where I stand and you stand is so vast that we'll never see eye to eye. You want government to control everything because you're lazy and think it will make your life easier while maintaining your standard of living. I, on the other hand, know the truth.
And you've proven nothing other than the fact that you're an ideologue of the libertarian capitalist persuasion.  We most certainly will not see eye to eye because you're an idealist, and I'm a pragmatist.
I think this probably the most disturbing opinion I have ever read from you Turquoise.

Actually saying keeping what you have EARNED is idealist and wealth redistribution is pragmatic.

Excuse me while I go throw up now.
Unless you can run government without an income tax at all, there will always be income redistribution.  As long as government budgets are as large as they currently are, you have to have an income tax of some sort to fund them.  That's why it's practical.

The vast majority of societies throughout the world (including ours) determine how much you should keep -- not the market alone.