tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11556657.post8216091292162727457..comments2023-10-08T05:44:25.657-06:00Comments on Dakota Voice: Obama Raises a Red FlagDakota Voicehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01386070103210525597noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11556657.post-87552883375119912842008-10-29T12:45:00.000-06:002008-10-29T12:45:00.000-06:00More excellent points, Dr. Theo. Thanks!More excellent points, Dr. Theo. <BR/><BR/>Thanks!Bob Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10413354616356999953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11556657.post-33269924566048966622008-10-29T08:30:00.000-06:002008-10-29T08:30:00.000-06:00Very well said, Mr. Ellis. I'd like to add a word...Very well said, Mr. Ellis. <BR/><BR/>I'd like to add a word or two in response to Braden's comments. He argues that wealthy individuals became that way because they benefit disproportionately of government services. I totally disagree. Well-over 80% of police, ambulance and fire calls come from lower socio-economic groups. Municipal social services are in place almost exclusively for the "Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11556657.post-78795400525182799272008-10-28T17:14:00.000-06:002008-10-28T17:14:00.000-06:00I think you're still missing the overriding point:...I think you're still missing the overriding point: private charity is a great thing; forced charity mandated by the government is bad for the source and the destination of that "charity."<BR/> <BR/>The wealthy have indeed benefited by society...but they did not do so in a pillow-festooned vacuum. They benefited because they worked hard, took risks, used their creativity and generated wealth for Bob Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10413354616356999953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11556657.post-55634920461783668682008-10-28T12:42:00.000-06:002008-10-28T12:42:00.000-06:00I think you're missing the most important point fr...I think you're missing the most important point from Smith. "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."<BR/><BR/>Progressive taxation is based on the concept that the wealthy have benefitted most from society, therefore they should contribute the most to maintain it. The Bradenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10784157451472501605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11556657.post-66125005775459576662008-10-28T12:12:00.000-06:002008-10-28T12:12:00.000-06:00You've been reading the liberal talking points aga...You've been reading the liberal talking points again.<BR/> <BR/>Smith was talking about the necessities of life, such as housing, and the taxation of such. As he mentions, housing comes in great varieties of size, luxury and extravagance. The value of such homes is obviously more than a basic no-frills home, just as the value of a Cadillac is higher than a Chevy. It makes some sense that the Bob Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10413354616356999953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11556657.post-9896551940450815252008-10-28T10:02:00.000-06:002008-10-28T10:02:00.000-06:00This gets back to the progressive tax issue, which...This gets back to the progressive tax issue, which oddly enough, was proposed by one of the earliest proponents of capitalism, not communism.<BR/><BR/>"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, Bradenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10784157451472501605noreply@blogger.com