So, if I call someone a dickhead or a mafiosa, that makes it so. Redd, you are clutching at straws here. The law is plain, it's been pointed out to you numerous times. Just because you don't want to believe it, will not make it dissapear. Pay up you old fuck and quit bitching. Wait untill Obama recinds the Bush tax cuts, ~LOL~, I'll be able to hear your scream all the way in Nevada,~LOL~.
Yes, quickly followed by people like me screaming, when we realize the kind of damage such an action will do to the economy. It is bad enough that the government at all levels takes 40% - 50% out of the economy and then dumps back in where it wouldn't go before.
Kind of like trying to make a river to flow backwards, which actually happens in very fucked up circumstances.
Though I think the problem is that people that are concerned with wealth and income are too busy trying to figure out how to tax it, instead of trying to make sure that such money continues to move. It doesn't matter if some one has $3 - $4 Million sitting in a bank account if the bank is then able to use that $3 - $4 Million to make loans to people that need it.
It doesn't matter if some one adds $1 Million to their bank account if the bank then lends out that $1 Million.
Or even if some one buys a $1 Million dollar car made by 10 people in Italy giving them each $50,000 with the company they work for taking the balance to pay other employees, or to develop new products (and thus employing other people.)
The idea that wealth is static is absurd. Money moves around (unless it is stored in mattresses or buried in yards. Then it is completely taken out of the economy.
To think that it is possible to move wealth from the top to the bottom ignores the fact that normally the wealth does that on its own, moving from the top to the bottom (and then back up) in a repeating cycle. When the government takes money out of the top and puts it directly into the bottom it screws the middle out of the cash that would have passed through their hands as it moved up and down and around.
It's like the government is deciding to dam up a river at its source, bottle the water and ship it to a city at its mouth, the land between the source and the mouth are not going to have water.
Of course, the government, does allow a little bit of money to trickle from it source through the middle, but even there it continues to try moving the money down faster than it would move on its own, before starting on its way back up, or around.
... you can't address Schiff's points ... your professor can't ... you are right ... in one respect ... you're done.
