GuyInTaiwan wrote:cfimages wrote:GuyInTaiwan wrote:
Of course you're talking about socialism. You're making a false distinction about people speculating based upon whether they speculated on one house or many. You're saying that someone who speculated with one house should be treated differently than someone who speculated with many precisely because in the former case, they only had one house (i.e. were comparatively poorer). You're distinguishing justice based upon wealth. That is socialism.
No one is suggesting centralized ownership. No one is suggesting everything be run by the state. No one is suggesting that private business is not allowed. Having some minimum safeguards - in this case a roof over your head - is not socialism.
Of course it is. You're redistributing the economic consequences of one person onto others.
That's not socialism, that's the modern tax system. Completely different.
cfimages wrote:It's nothing to do with punishing the rich.
A bold-faced lie. Five posts before writing that, you wrote this:cfimages wrote:Tax the profits of the greedy who cheated the system and won. Whatever is necessary.
We all know that you have a massive problem with people who are wealthy, as I have already pointed out above. Let's have a final answer from you on this question, with no wriggling. Is it possible for someone to become wealthy in a legitimate way? Should such people have to bail out anyone else (from any socio-economic group) if they are, indeed, in no way culpable for any wrongdoings?
Taxing the profits is not punishing the rich. If someone clears $10 million this year and then with an increased tax clears $9 million next year, they haven't been punished. They're still rich.
I have no problem with wealthy people, I don't know where you get that idea from. Plenty of people get rich legitimately. All power to them. They still need to make the requisite contributions to society though.
You didn't answer the question, and yes, if the rich have to pay increased tax so someone can avoid the consequences of their actions (losing their house), then they are being punished.
Saying I have no problem with rich people answers the first part (your wrong assumption) and saying that there's a need to make requisite contributions answers the second.
Punishment is defined as
Merriam Webster wrote:1: the act of punishing
2a : suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution
2b : a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure
3: severe, rough, or disastrous treatment
Leaving aside 1, 2a doesn't apply because there's no suffering, pain or loss serving as retribution. 2b doesn't apply as there's no offender, and 3 doesn't apply as severe, rough or disastrous treatment is not evident.
So I repeat, the rich are not being punished if they need to pay extra tax.