So, government would have no say in the business realm?
- correct. Nor in money.
Picking winners and losers, I would agree, but to say government has no authority is anarchy.
- no, it's freedom, you can say freedom is anarchy and I have no problem with that, why do you?
And politics is not automatically about stealing people's money.
- it is. It is automatically about stealing some people's money tu pay for something that those people would not give money to on their own in the same way.
Politics are increasingly being used to create a divide, but not for the reasons you state.
- politics is always about creating a divide. Try and find politics that are not creating divide, that type of politics does not exist. Politics is about taking from some and promising others something for it, it's always about creating a divide.
The wealthy are the divide creators, and that in service of maintaining and advancing their wealth.
- actually AFAIC the wealthy in a free market capitalist economy reduce the divide by building businesses that make your money go further and reducing the divide. The divide is created by the politics of greed and promise of free stuff and promise of theft from those who have more to provide the loot to those who don't have as much regardless of how the wealth is generated.
A, money should not equal speech.
- it is speech. It is political speech first of all, money is the speech of the politicians who offer to steal and offer something for nothing to those, who would give them the political power. Once that it is the case, those with money will try to protect themselves from those, who want to steal from them, and those with money will use money to buy more votes, to buy more speech. De facto money is speech, always was, always will be, not because of any court rulings, because of what the world is.
B, those who make more money are the ones benefiting from our legal system. They have more to protect, use more services, etc.
Paying more seems fair to me.
- you mean those with more means should expect to pay more disproportionately so that those with fewer means will not mob together to steal from them?
You think this is also 'fair'? Well, it's realistic that those with more to protect will spend more to protect it. What you are doing though, you are equating disproportionate (so called 'progressive') taxation with 'justice'. The interesting thing is that you seem to have convinced yourself on this subject enough not to see the immorality of that stance.
C, taking the government budget, dividing by the number of citizens and expecting each to pay that amount? really?
- first of all that is Constitutional (capitation tax), secondly that is not even the subject I am bringing up. I am talking about the immoral nature of marginal income and wealth taxes, not absence of truly Constitutional taxation principles.
Could that work? Why would you expect that? This fails on practicability as well as on fairness.
- 'fairness' can never be achieved in the eyes of those, who want to steal more from those who have more. As long as somebody has much more than you do, you will always say it is unfair to tax you and not them, even though objectively are completely outpaying you in the size of taxes they are paying in every way, in absolute amounts, percentage wise, in everything.
Pure and simple. Might as well go back to Warlords and Kings
- Strawman argument. how about going back to Constitutional taxation, capitation and excise taxes? Seems impossible to you? That's how US of A was built before 1913 in the first place and became the dominant economic power, manufacturer of cheap, high quality goods and biggest creditor nation. USA no longer manufactures, over the last 40 years it became the largest debtor nation in history of the world and it is now bankrupt in reality.
QE4 will be coming soon of-course. Fed will not raise interest rates, the world will raise it for them and it will be much more painful that way. Collectivism has destroyed the healthy free market capitalist economy that USA used to have prior to 1917.
Why is this so? Excepting that greed among those who have want it so, what principal makes this necessary and definite.
- once the politicians no longer view a person as a target to steal from, that person doesn't have to protect himself by buying political power.