So Ironic It Hurts to Breathe
Apparently democrats represent the richest regions in the country:
Democratic members of the House of Representatives now represent most of the nation’s wealthiest people, a sharp turnaround from the long-standing dominance that Republicans have held over affluent districts.
…
Democrats now represent 57% of the 4.8 million households that had incomes of $200,000 or more in 2008. In 2005, Republicans represented 55% of those affluent households.
Have the rich even hear of charity? Why are they so keen on increasing state power to tax themselves to do good when they could simply just give their money to charity. Anyway, this trend is not likely to last especially with the kind of policies liberals have been putting forth recently.
October 20th, 2009 at 3:25 am
I’m not sure why it’s ironic that rich people are starting to realize that they have a social obligation towards the rest of us. It’s certainly a pleasant surprise and a reversal of the norms, but I’m not sure why it’s ironic.
October 20th, 2009 at 11:59 am
The democratic party is known as the little guy fighting against the rich. Its ironic because the democratic party now represents the rich.
You seem to forget that state action always involves coercion. Its not a social obligation when its mandated by the state. Social obligation leads to charity, state mandate leads to taxation.
October 20th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
So? You could barter and not have to pay taxes, but you love the convenience of a service the state provides you (currency), too much to do that. Everyone uses currency anyway because even that -one- of the services the state provides is useful enough for them to be willing to pay taxes to receive it. When you consider all the other nice things the state gives you on top of that, like roads, bridges, police protection etc.? Its a pretty darn good deal.
October 20th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
I don’t understand your point relative to this post.
October 20th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
“You seem to forget that state action always involves coercion.”
Is it really coercion to choose to take advantage of services the state provides (currency) in exchange for the costs it levies against you for such (taxes).
October 20th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Coercion means its not a choice. The use of the word ‘choose’ is problematic.
October 20th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
“Coercion means its not a choice.”
Yes. That’s my point. You are calling it coercion when there -is- a choice.
October 21st, 2009 at 12:50 am
Guys with guns take my money. How is that a choice?
October 29th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Currency is a service the state provides. You can choose not to avail yourself of that service.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
But you still have to pay for it, regardless.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
You don’t. In absolute terms, the state literally can’t take money from you if you have none to take.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
False.
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=188095,00.html