MachZer0,
I'm sorry, but truth is not established by posting one line zingers. The uninformed might be impressed, but does this zinger hold up to scrutiny? Simple examination can show its fallacy. But alas, I find it hard to get you to address those questions.
Here for instance is a line of questioning I asked you several times on this thread, and you avoid:
Suppose a poor man without insurance shows up at a hospital with a life-threatening but treatable condition. Would it be okay for the government to pay to treat that person in that hospital, financing it through taxes on others? Would that violate your conscience to force tax money to go to helping that man? Would you rather leave him to die in the streets rather than force people to pay taxes to help him?
And you avoid that question every time I ask. And I can see why you avoid it. For if you say it would be Ok to use tax money to help this man, your entire argument that it is never right to use tax money to give something to the needy disappears. But if you say this act of compassion is not moral, your philosophy is exposed for the barrenness it is. And so you ignore the question, yes? And instead you come back with a few more one line zingers, as though that resolves it, yes?
The question does not go away. This is a very real situation that happens everyday. People arrive at emergency rooms with no insurance and no means to pay. Since Nixon it has been the law that the hospital needs to treat this man, with the government ultimately on the hook. What should we do in this situation? If nobody else will help, should the government leave him out on the streets to die?
The founding fathers declared their intentions that the people should get to decide what government will be like so that it will best effect their safety and happiness. Your form of government does nothing to help the safety and happiness of this man dying outside the emergency room, does it?
Ok, now to your quote. How shall we define what a man earns? Here is an example. A man robs a million dollars from the bank and invests it in a business that brings back $200,000 a year profit to this man. How much is that man earning?
Another example: A man makes a deal that he will manage somebody else's business and get to keep 30% of what he earns by running the company. He makes $200,000 a year. How much of that earnings does he get to keep? Should he not be forced to keep his end of the bargain?
Another example: The people of the United States decided they owned the land and set up government to enact their will. That government has a deal that you can live and work here, but you need to pay the applicable taxes. A man works here and makes $200,000. The IRS says he only gets to keep $140,000 and owes the rest to them. That was the deal. You live here, you are subject to the taxes. How much does he get to keep of the money he earned? A deal is a deal.
And after the government gets the money it is owed, we then get to decide what to do with it. And if we decide to use if for Medicaid so we can feed and shelter an elderly woman with no other means for survival, we can do that.
So yes, it is greed for a rich man to earn money here and not want the government to take some of it, and no it is not greed for the people to expect people to live up to their end of the bargain and pay our government what they owe.
So do you now understand why it is indeed greed to want to nullify one's lawfully owed tax burden and keep all the money one "earns", and it is not greed for the government to take what the law says he owes?
