My money: I deserve to keep it all

posted at 4:00 pm on September 18, 2011 by J.E. Dyer

I may decide to use some of it for the purposes I assign to government

This is being framed as a deeply silly public argument, because it is being argued on the terms of the left.  It’s being argued, in other words, the way kindergartners argue such things.  “I deserve…”  “You don’t deserve…”  “It’s not fair…”  “MOM!!!!!!!  Billy’s touching me!”  “Am not!” “Are too!”  Etc, etc.

If any of us doesn’t deserve to keep everything he has earned, then that man is a slave.  Alternatively, he is less than human; he has no moral standing, and no unalienable rights inhere in him.  He is like a farm animal.

Of course we all deserve to keep our own money.  If it is ill-gotten – stolen, swindled – then it’s the crime that deprives us of it, not any inherent function of the armed authorities to prowl the land in search of “undeserved” bank balances.

The question of what we “deserve” boils down to which came first, the individual human with rights, or the state.  America was founded on the principle that the individual human with rights comes first.  Any idea that violates that principle is counter to our founding idea.  It is not possible to reconcile with our founding principle the idea of collective schemes in which we make some modification to “what we deserve.”  We either deserve to keep all our own earnings – money – wealth – goods – or we do not have unalienable rights.

Now, what we decide to do with our own money will inevitably involve government functions of some kind.  People have to have a government in some form.  A certain minimum set of public services is essential to corporate human life.  The American founding idea is that we the people decide what government will do, and we decide how much money government will have to do it with.  Then we contribute out of what is inalienably ours.

In the American idea, the state doesn’t operate on the basis of “what we deserve.”  It operates on the basis of law: definitions adopted by due process, and objective circumstances.  “What we deserve” is outside the scope of the state’s competence to decide.  If we enter relationships in which someone else decides that for us, they are voluntary; e.g., employer paying or promoting employee, fan-base keeping pro sports or the music industry profitable.

The percentage-based income tax and the practice of payroll withholding have combined for a century now to obscure in our minds the simplicity of our founding principles.  But the founding principles were very clear.  Modern interlocutors can seek to change the argument, toss red herrings around, and get us in full 6-year-old mode talking about “deserving” and “not deserving” according to whether we are Leona Helmsley or Mother Teresa, but the bottom line is that a man whose title to his money is considered – as a first principle – subject to the whim of his neighbor, is a slave.

America was founded on the principle that individual rights precede and constrain the state.  As far as government is properly concerned, we all deserve to keep 100% of our money.  The question of what we decide to do with it, and how the functions of government figure into that, is a separate and subordinate topic.

It is impossible to live as free men and women otherwise.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Amen!!!!!!

Rational Thought on September 18, 2011 at 4:05 PM

FDR fully believed that ‘rich’ Americans did not deserve to keep any of their money earned over $25,000/year.
He trumpeted this belief quite loudly.
Others tried to nervously laugh it away.
But he was damned serious.
Obama is just like him in that respect.
Both destroyers of the American dream & prosperity.
Both very evil dastardly men.

Badger40 on September 18, 2011 at 4:08 PM

I was LMAOROTF the other day when I read that SUPER-liberal elitist, Norman Lear was NOT going to send any money to the Obama campaign this time around. Instead Norman WOULD DECIDE how his money was used to get The One re-elected. Can you imagine that? A flaming liberal like Norman deciding that he knew better than anyone else how to spend HIS money.

Of course the absolute hypocrisy of the idea will never cross Norman’s Kool Aid addled liberal mind.

GarandFan on September 18, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Maybe, it is time to remove from those who have not read the constitution the ability to tax “We The People” at their discretion. Lets repeal the income tax and then tell congress that they can only tax us using the Amendment process. I can see ten percent of what I spend going to government, but I refuse to work when, 60 to 70 percent of what I make goes to taxes.

My finances are now arranged to keep from paying taxes. Just like a Demoncrat.

kraftykeltic on September 18, 2011 at 4:10 PM

Don’t TAX it……….just REGULATE it.

DOTUS-Economics.

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1163749703001/epa-considers-regulating-farm-dust?test=MM

Farmers want to keep their farms (and their income).

http://www.foxbusiness.com/topics/regulation-nation.htm?test=MM

it’s so bad now that Fox has a specific area that deals with just the regulations coming from the DOTUS and the Administration/Congress.

If he gets re-elected, you’ll wish for the day you could keep 50% of your income.

PappyD61 on September 18, 2011 at 4:11 PM

Amen.

AshleyTKing on September 18, 2011 at 4:12 PM

It’s simple. You deserve to keep all of your money – unless you spend it. It is consumption that needs to be taxed, not income. The money required for taxes to keep the society running, is taken out of consumption taxes. That’s how America ran for almost 200 years.

Roads and bridges are paid for with gasoline tax.

Police and fire and local services are paid for with property taxes.

National defense is paid for with sales taxes.

With this system, the richer, who consume more, will pay more tax. But never more, as a percentage, than any other citizen.

Everything else is unnecessary. America became quite prosperous without any additional federal bureaucracies or taxes to support those bureaucracies.

There is NO need for an income tax. And especially no need for an income tax structure that punishes those who earn more and rewards those who earn the least, which is insane considering that human nature holds true the axiom that you tax what you wish to discourage and subsidize what you wish to encourage.

keep the change on September 18, 2011 at 4:13 PM

In the early 1900′s, we still did not have a income tax. Let us thank the progressives of the 1910 and up, for screwing over the american workforce and being greedy SOB’s.

upinak on September 18, 2011 at 4:16 PM

When the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913, the top rate of at 7%. Like everything else,you give the government a tool and an inch , it will take it coast to coast and run it to the ground. In 1960, the top rate was a confiscatory 91%. And that was before state and local and property and sale taxes. I wonder how anyone will think of that as legitimate. And presently , with 47% of the population paying no taxes, and the most of the burden fall onto the producers, I wonder how it can stand equality under the law. No only are the producers paying the bill, they got maligned at the same time as not paying enough.

If the mugger did not rob me of everything in the wallet, I am supposed to be grateful, and say that he is giving me money?

bayview on September 18, 2011 at 4:20 PM

Until the Federal Gov’t can PROVE that they are as capable as the avg. citizen in regards to their finances, I say we tell’em to Screw. It’s OUR country, it’s OUR gov’t, and they are beholden to US, not the other way around. While I do not see that happenning, I still feel that it should be said.

viviliberoomuori on September 18, 2011 at 4:24 PM

The percentage-based income tax and the practice of payroll withholding have combined for a century now to obscure in our minds the simplicity of our founding principles. But the founding principles were very clear. Modern interlocutors can seek to change the argument

Yea, don’t you just HATE when people make changes to “founding principles”?

America was founded on the principle that individual rights precede and constrain the state.

If you were a wealth white land owner, natch. In that way, how much have things really changed?

If it is ill-gotten – stolen, swindled – then it’s the crime that deprives us of it, not any inherent function of the armed authorities to prowl the land in search of “undeserved” bank balances.

On one hand you want the government preventing people from “taking” what’s yours, but on the other hand you want to government to limit that action to suit your personal interest. What if we said “wealth management funds taking 8% commissions from pension funds, especially ones they tank, is tantamount to theft”? Is there anyone in a position to stop large corporations run by the mega-wealthy from turning the average citizen into a serf? You’re so afraid of the dirty masses taking YOUR money (which is backed by the government, not Goldman Sachs, last time I checked) that you don’t seem to entertain the idea that you may, just may, be taking the money of the dirty masses. Just because the wealthy are currently in a position of overwhelming power doesn’t mean they are just.

America was down and out, and the wealthy picked the flesh like vultures. Now, America’s trying to get back up on her feet, and she needs that flesh back. If you don’t like it, go ahead and live in China where these same paragons of individual liberty have shipped all their jobs too. Because nothing says freedom of individual as much as doing business in a slave society!

Oh and finally, the author seems to (rightfully) so deplore a government that treats its citizens like slaves. But tell me, when most of the countries wealth is consolidated into the hands of a few, what’s to stop that same situation from arising, where the small number of people who control so much wealth buy any necessary election and rule over the people like gods? Or is that ok, since they are just exercising their rights as a privileged class, and everyone else should be so lucky as to live in the same time period as them?

Rainsford on September 18, 2011 at 4:32 PM

That’s how America ran for almost 200 years.en.

keep the change on September 18, 2011 at 4:13 PM

And who, exactly, ran America for 200 years? People who look like you, I’m sure.

Until the Federal Gov’t can PROVE that they are as capable as the avg. citizen in regards to their finances, I say we tell’em to Screw. It’s OUR country, it’s OUR gov’t, and they are beholden to US, not the other way around. While I do not see that happenning, I still feel that it should be said.

viviliberoomuori on September 18, 2011 at 4:24 PM

You’re so close! Government, by nature, is nothing more than a giant check. It’s a vehicle for the masses to check the minority and the minority to check the masses. When one group of people so destroy the economy that it starts negatively impacting the masses while benefiting those who did the destruction, it’s the duty of the government to set things right. That function is something that fascists ignored.

Rainsford on September 18, 2011 at 4:36 PM

Who gave the federal government so much power?

“Mr. Speaker–I have as much respect for the memory
of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings
of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but
we must not permit our respect for the dead or our
sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of
injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go
into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power
to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every
member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of
our own money as we please in charity; but as members of
Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the
public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us
upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr.
Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the
war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never
heard that the government was in arrears to him.

“Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We
cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this
money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance
of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I
have said we have the right to give as much money of our
own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I
cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay
to the object, and if every member of Congress will do
the same, it will amount to more than the bill
asks.”
Col. David Crockett

US Representative from Tennessee

Speakup on September 18, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Dyer, this is one of your best. Well done. And thank you for writing it.

Weight of Glory on September 18, 2011 at 4:51 PM

Amen that this post. I only wish I could have said it better. When the government or anyone else takes money or property from me they ARE stealing. Stealing a part of MY life because it took a part of my time, my life to make that money etc. Yes when the government “steals” money from me in the form of taxes, or what ever they are taking a part of MY life, and in every respect of the word turning us all into slaves! Unfortunately far too many people out there think taxes are “patriotic” & you should give a part of your life to the state! NAZI a-holes!!!

Confederate on September 18, 2011 at 4:53 PM

And who, exactly, ran America for 200 years? People who look like you, I’m sure.

LOL! Who ran America? America was “ran” by the constitution and the elected representatives of the people. If they looked like me, that is a bad thing? I’m not bad looking, you know.

keep the change on September 18, 2011 at 4:53 PM

But tell me, when most of the countries wealth is consolidated into the hands of a few,

You mean lefty icons like Bill Gates and William Buffet, the two richest men in America? Even I, a right-winger, who finds their thinking without merit, do not begrudge them their money. They’ve earn it fair and square, and I have no claim to it.

keep the change on September 18, 2011 at 4:57 PM

“Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?”
Matt 20:15

BitterClinger on September 18, 2011 at 5:03 PM

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You have a right to life and liberty etc, but without government to restrain evil those rights are mere ideals, practically.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Notice how the fact of our rights is immediately bolstered by their means of exercise: governments. Because they are instituted among men by men, i.e., by those who shall be governed by them, we deduce that powers not granted by them to the government are unjust. Welfare, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, SS, federal loan guarantees to cronies, etc.

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government,

We don’t need a civil war or revolution to alter our government, we have the constitutional amendment process to institute new government, or reform the present one. laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

“Safety” speaks to life and liberty, and “happiness” to the pursuit of happiness. In other words, we’re back to square one.

Our problem is not that we are slaves, but that most of us are lazy, or have wrong priorities, or aren’t paying attention. We need to repeal the income tax, dissolve the Federal Reserve, and the direct election of senators, then strip the federal government down to Art. I Sec. 8 compliance, and we’ll be fine. We can do all of that. So long as we have this right, we are not slaves, despite JE Dyer’s melodrama.

A slave has no right to the fruits of his own labor. It is the possession of someone else. We still have the right to the fruits of our labor, despite the high taxes we pay and the misuse made of those monies.

As to the notion that we don’t have a right to keep all of our money, it’s a poor choice of words, but unless we want anarchy, it’s basically true. Other examples: you have the right to all of your money, but unless you spend some of it on food you will starve, or, unless you spend some of it on lodging, you will be homeless. Theoretically you have the right to the fruits of your labor, but you can’t eat money, and you can’t defend yourself against roving bandits alone.

We do not have a right to anarchy, therefore, we do not have the right not to pay taxes.

Akzed on September 18, 2011 at 5:09 PM

“Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?” Matt 20:15 BitterClinger on September 18, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Today’s gospel lesson, in many churches. True, but you must also render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.

Akzed on September 18, 2011 at 5:10 PM

We do not have a right to anarchy, therefore, we do not have the right not to pay taxes.

Akzed on September 18, 2011 at 5:09 PM

Straw man much? Where in J.E.’s piece does she argue that we shouldn’t pay taxes?

gryphon202 on September 18, 2011 at 5:12 PM

We do not have a right to anarchy, therefore, we do not have the right not to pay taxes.

Akzed on September 18, 2011 at 5:09 PM

But we pay taxes merely by existing. You can’t buy food or shelter without paying taxes. The question of How Much Money Do I Keep is a question about Income Tax. And there’s the rub. Everyone has the right to 100% of what they earned, because they earned it legally. If you don’t have a right to all that you earned, why did you work for it all? There is no imperative in the constitution to work for the greater good of the state. That wiseguy idea came much, much later when the state became so voracious that it required that it confiscate wealth to sustain itself.

keep the change on September 18, 2011 at 5:17 PM

And who, exactly, ran America for 200 years? People who look like you, I’m sure.

Rainsford on September 18, 2011 at 4:36 PM

Looks like you might be a bit of a bigot.

Jason Coleman on September 18, 2011 at 5:18 PM

gryphon202 on September 18, 2011 at 5:12 PM

The right that he claims that we have to all of our money assumes it. It’s not a straw man, it’s the logical and necessary consequence of assuming that we have a right to 100% of our earnings.

Akzed on September 18, 2011 at 5:19 PM

keep the change on September 18, 2011 at 5:17 PM

I think an even better question to ask would be:

Where in the constitution does it say anyone else, government or private, gets to decide what we deserve and why? It’s one thing to pay for government services that I use. But if I actually did that, I’d pay a minute percentage of the taxes I pay now, and next-to-nothing to the federal government.

gryphon202 on September 18, 2011 at 5:20 PM

But we pay taxes merely by existing. keep the change on September 18, 2011 at 5:17 PM

Ok then, you have a right not to breathe.

Akzed on September 18, 2011 at 5:20 PM

Well said.

AH_C on September 18, 2011 at 5:20 PM

bayview on September 18, 2011 at 4:20 PM

Income tax rates hardly ‘inched’ up… the top tax rate was 70% by 1920….

Melon came in as Sec. of Treasury under Harding/Coolidge and cut it back to 25%

phreshone on September 18, 2011 at 5:23 PM

If we went to a national sales tax in place of income tax and withholding, we would not have the right to buy a TV without paying the federal government a tax.

Think of it another way: a welfare queen who pays no taxes does not have a constitutional right to the checks she gets, any more than she has a right not to pay the taxes we do. How did she obtain the right not to pay taxes, and to get government checks? Bad legislation, not divinely endowed special rights.

Akzed on September 18, 2011 at 5:25 PM

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? ‘No!’ says the man in Washington, ‘it belongs to the poor.’ ‘No!’ says the man in the Vatican, ‘it belongs to God.’ ‘No!’ says the man in Moscow, ‘it belongs to everyone.’

A man chooses; a slave obeys.

We all make choices, but in the end, our choices make us.

TABoLK on September 18, 2011 at 5:30 PM

t’s the logical and necessary consequence of assuming that we have a right to 100% of our earnings.

Think about it. If I only have a right to 8 out of 10 dollars I work for, why did I work for the other 2 dollars? Why not stop working at the 8 dollar point? If you maintain that it is my duty to work for those extra 2 dollars – for the greater good of the state – then what about all the people who don’t work, or work only part-time? Are they not robbing the state of money that they should be contributing?

This is the crux of the matter and why socialism doesn’t work because it maintains two diametrically opposed beliefs that a) we each owe to the state the fruits of our labors, but then says that b) nobody owes anything to the state really, because you are free not to work, and in fact, the state will subsidize you.

The only fair way to gather tax monies for public good is to tax consumption – not production. Why punish production and labor, when it is production and labor that produce the wealth? Income tax punishes work. The more you work, the more you pay. Then why work?

keep the change on September 18, 2011 at 5:30 PM

Ok then, you have a right not to breathe.

Akzed on September 18, 2011 at 5:20 PM

Does this make any sense? And how does it apply to the debate in question?

keep the change on September 18, 2011 at 5:31 PM

If we went to a national sales tax in place of income tax and withholding, we would not have the right to buy a TV without paying the federal government a tax.

Yes, but at least then we would pay taxes of our free will by deciding to buy that TV. And more to the point, HOW MUCH tax we pay is a function of how much TV we wish to buy, not how much we earn, or how many hours we work. Why should that be a consideration at all? We make that decision, not the government. Which is the only moral way of collecting taxes from a citizenry.

When you tax income, rather, you are saying that you must work for free for a certain time to support the government. That is a philosophy alien to the how the country was founded and in fact, was a system not put into place to any real effect until after WW I so all those years from 1776 to 1917 were income tax-free. And those were America’s glory years if anything, proving that YES you can run the world’s most successful economy and society without resorting to socialism.

keep the change on September 18, 2011 at 5:39 PM

The only fair way to gather tax monies for public good is to tax consumption – not production. Why punish production and labor, when it is production and labor that produce the wealth? Income tax punishes work. The more you work, the more you pay. Then why work? keep the change on September 18, 2011 at 5:30 PM

I addressed that. I’ll repeat it: if you have aconsumption tax (which I favor) then you have no right to buy taxed items without paying the tax. Hence, you do not have a right to keep that tax money AND buy the TV.

Akzed on September 18, 2011 at 5:40 PM

Looks like you might be a bit of a bigot.

Oh stop it…look at the pictures in a history book of those who founded this Republic.

Twana on September 18, 2011 at 5:41 PM

Does this make any sense? And how does it apply to the debate in question? keep the change on September 18, 2011 at 5:31 PM

Here’s the whole exchange:

But we pay taxes merely by existing. keep the change on September 18, 2011 at 5:17 PM

Ok then, you have a right not to breathe.
Akzed on September 18, 2011 at 5:20 PM

He said paying taxes was a fact of life, which it is, like breathing. Ben Franklin agreed.

Akzed on September 18, 2011 at 5:42 PM

Gotta go get me game face on for the Eagles game. Keep it real.

Akzed on September 18, 2011 at 5:44 PM


And who, exactly, ran America for 200 years? People who look like you,

I’m sure.

Rainsford on September 18, 2011 at 4:36 PM
What an extremely bizarre thing to say.
That’s like, freaking crackers.
But thanks for the laugh.

Badger40 on September 18, 2011 at 5:48 PM

I addressed that. I’ll repeat it: if you have aconsumption tax (which I favor) then you have no right to buy taxed items without paying the tax. Hence, you do not have a right to keep that tax money AND buy the TV.

Akzed on September 18, 2011 at 5:40 PM

I addressed that argument. And I said that at least then HOW MUCH tax we pay is based on consumption, not the fact that I earn X amount of dollars which is fundamentally illogical. If I chose to buy a small TV, because I want to keep more of my money, I can do that.

keep the change on September 18, 2011 at 5:52 PM

Whoah. Since when did using the strong command do that to a comment?

Badger40 on September 18, 2011 at 5:52 PM

But we pay taxes merely by existing. keep the change on September 18, 2011 at 5:17 PM

Ok then, you have a right not to breathe.
Akzed on September 18, 2011 at 5:20 PM

Non-sequitor.

keep the change on September 18, 2011 at 5:53 PM

The American founding idea is that we the people decide what government will do, and we decide how much money government will have to do it with.

ONLY within the construct of the Constitution (Article 1 sec 8, 9th and 10th Amendments)

Amendment X on September 18, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Why should I be taxed as if I am a millionaire at the time I earned it if I chose not to live that type of life? (If I had that kind of a job).
So I keep all my earnings in a sack in the closet…Am I wealthy?
You look at my checkbook balance and notice all the zeroes. Do I own a corporate jet? I choose not to. My choice.
I labored for an employer. The employer benefited and spread the wealth around. His/her choice. I helped.
I choose to keep my money in a sack and not consume…much. Am I wealthy and should be taxed as so?

Electrongod on September 18, 2011 at 6:24 PM

When Bill Clinton passed a “millionaires tax” back in 1993, there was an exception for Hollywood celebrities and sports figures.

When Barbra Streisand sang at the MGM Grand in 1993, the head of MGM was paid less for the year than she got for a week. Guess who had to pay the millionaires tax ?

Of course, the unintended consequence of that “millionaires tax” was that corporate executives capped their salaries at $1 million, and made up the rest with stock options. This lead to the largest transfer of equity in the history of the world, as these executives acquired from the stockholders roughly 10% of the Fortune 500 through stock options over the next 10 years.

J_Crater on September 18, 2011 at 6:29 PM

keep the change on September 18, 2011 at 5:30 PM

What is even worse,taking your example one step further—–Not only is the two dollars coming from your ten. The government is not even taking one dollar from many of the others. So we are working extra to pay for the privilege of “taking care” of others. Someone has to pay for the EITC,food stamps,lunches,subsidized power, ad fkn. nauseum.

arnold ziffel on September 18, 2011 at 6:35 PM

And who, exactly, ran America for 200 years? People who look like you, I’m sure.

Rainsford on September 18, 2011 at 4:36 PM

Looks like you might be a bit of a bigot.

Jason Coleman on September 18, 2011 at 5:18 PM

It’s largely a generational difference. The ‘greatest generation’ of WWII believed in saving and investing. On the other hand, baby boomers are a generation of borrow and spend. This difference in outlook is magnified at the national level in our fiscal policies and running deficits over the past 10 years.

bayam on September 18, 2011 at 6:54 PM

Thanks, J.E., for bringing some clarity. Yours is a clean, clear analysis of the issue.

petefrt on September 18, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Akzed on September 18, 2011 at 5:10 PM

But how much to Caesar? As Hermin Cain pointed out, God only asks for 10 percent.

BitterClinger on September 18, 2011 at 7:23 PM

But how much to Caesar? As Hermin Cain pointed out, God only asks for 10 percent.

BitterClinger on September 18, 2011 at 7:23 PM

…and warned the people that if they insisted on having a king (which they did), they would pay that 10 percent as slaves to him [the king].

gryphon202 on September 18, 2011 at 8:05 PM

Please. If any of you really believed you deserve every cent of the money you earn, you’d be voting Ron Paul, because he’s the only one who wants to get rid of the income tax and replace it with NOTHING. You neocons make me sick.

iamse7en on September 18, 2011 at 9:35 PM

Please. If any of you really believed you deserve every cent of the money you earn, you’d be voting Ron Paul, because he’s the only one who wants to get rid of the income tax and replace it with NOTHING. You neocons make me sick.

iamse7en on September 18, 2011 at 9:35 PM

You mean the same Ron Paul who wrote for Lew Rockwell, who called the constitution a document of tyranny? No thanks.

gryphon202 on September 18, 2011 at 9:55 PM

A question raised by Walter Williams et. al:

If it would be immoral for me to steal from another person to give to a third party in the name of charity, why do we assume that government can do essentially the same thing and call it “moral?”

gryphon202 on September 18, 2011 at 10:04 PM

J_Crater on September 18, 2011 at 6:29 PM

At those income levels, many companies will offer deferred-income plans to executives which can make a lot of your salary go poof, if you so elect.

slickwillie2001 on September 18, 2011 at 11:47 PM

Oh stop it…look at the pictures in a history book of those who founded this Republic.

Twana

Which doesn’t change the fact that his statement was bigoted.

This difference in outlook is magnified at the national level in our fiscal policies and running deficits over the past 10 years.

bayam

We’ve been running deficits for a lot longer than 10 years, even if you believe Clinton’s mythical surplus.

You neocons Jeeeeeewwws make me sick.

iamse7en

Fixed it for you. Now run along and rewrite the laws of physics to explain how fire can’t melt steel, or something.

RONPAUL!

xblade on September 19, 2011 at 2:49 AM

Stand up and take a bow, Sir.

{^_^}

herself on September 19, 2011 at 3:11 AM

My money: I deserve to keep it all

Yea? Then tell it to the divorce lawyers.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on September 19, 2011 at 3:29 AM

a man whose title to his money is considered – as a first principle – subject to the whim of his neighbor, is a slave.

This — RIGHT HERE — is why I call Democrats / Leftists Copperheads. They are still what they always were: the party of slavery. And just as we had to fight a Civil War to throw off the Copperhead 1.0 yoke in 1861, we will have to fight another one to throw off Copperhead 2.0.

SDN on September 19, 2011 at 8:41 AM

You see, I love the phrasing of the original question: Of the money I EARN, how much do you think I DESERVE to keep?

It’s a rhetorical question, and a brilliant one. Because, the only proper answer is – all of it. The question exposes and mocks anybody who answers differently.

But, even better than that – the ones who answer differently don’t know they’re being mocked.

J.E. – of course, you’re right. But what are we going to do about it?

Pablo Snooze on September 19, 2011 at 10:01 AM

And who, exactly, ran America for 200 years? People who look like you, I’m sure.

Rainsford on September 18, 2011 at 4:36 PM

And who, exactly has run America into the ground in a mere 2 1/2 years? Is it someone who looks like you?

Well guess what? I don’t care who he looks like! He’s destroying America.

Only racists like you care what someone looks like.

Squiggy on September 19, 2011 at 3:29 PM