If you are filthy rich and have no need for work, that's okay because you make your money by way of capital gains and dividends – unearned income.

Yet, if you are middle class, you have to work and earn income.

Unearned income is taxed at 15%. Earned income is taxed much higher – especially when you lump in FICA and Medicare.

But you have the same rule for everyone, so it must be okay. Ha! That is not the SAME rule for everyone. It is a disparate rule favoring the rich and preserving their wealth.

You have no estate tax like we used to, and that rule is the SAME for everyone. Ha! The vast majority will never have enough wealth to ever get the benefit of the phase-out.

Now, something tells me that the rules should be crafted to where everyone shares largely in the benefits. You are a sucker, and I didn't make you one.

You said:
"Property rights are not inviolate. Any concept that property rights are inviolate is the antithesis of a Republic."

based on notions like:
"We are angered at the general feeling of oppression, but we argue "wealth must be preserved at all costs" as if to not recognize that it is the wealth that buys and controls the government which oppresses us."

Much of what you said here makes sense, but a lot of it does not. For instance, a "republic" without property rights is socialism. That is not a republic. Individual rights including property rights are at the root of any genuine republic.

Allow me to take issue with some of your notions.

Who is the "we" who argues "wealth must be preserved at all costs"??? And to *whose* wealth are you referring when you assign this to "we"?

*WE* are individuals. I never argue that "wealth must be preserved at all costs", which is distinctly different from property rights, aside from being self-contradictory. I argue for property rights, not the preservation of ownership of wealth obtained by fraud or theft, such as your statement infers.

Please first understand what property rights are. Do not equate ill-gotten gains with rightfully gotten gains.

I try to build and preserve my own wealth, modest though it may be. No one has the right to take any of it from me. Others do the same. That is done by the grace of property rights. There are no contradictions or problems here. Yet you are concluding that the *assumption* of property rights is invalid since your logic is faulty and goes backwards, from your apparent acceptance of conclusions readily available from THEIR MSM and THEIR schools. Let us instead start from valid assumptions and work forward.

Whatever rights we have, we ALL have those rights. (“Where one man is not free, no man is free” – M. L. King, Jr.) NO ONE (individual, group or govt) has the right to remove / violate the rights of another. Your right to remove any right of another is his equal right to remove the same from you. Where does that go? The ONLY way that anyone loses their OWN rights is to violate the rights of someone else.

If you eliminate property rights in order to remove ill gotten wealth that buys govt favor from the hands that seek that favor, YOU JUST ELIMINATED YOUR CLAIM TO ALL YOUR OWN PROPERTY, and YOUR RIGHT to own any property. Try living without ANY property.

Due to such misunderstandings, you have evidently accepted as history the nonsense taught by minions of the same people about whom you complain. Who bought those govt favors? You call them the “wealthy”. Not all wealth is ill gotten, but some is.

Let us take the example of the Federal Reserve, the root cause of so many problems today. (Read “Creature from Jekyll Island”, G Edward Griffin) The Fed was sold to us on the claim that the “free market had failed”, e.g., the Panic of 1907, and other previous panics / recessions / etc, as though the market, meaning supply and demand, is somehow inherently unstable. In fact all of those panics resulted from inflating the currency supply via fractional reserve banking, resulting in the inevitable, unavoidable panic, crash and recession, that occurs when people realize that the bank does not have what it claims to have. (Money is currency, currency is not necessarily money. “Paper money” is not money, it is currency. Precious metals are money.)

(continued below)

I think neither of your taxes are fair. There should be a single flat tax or no income tax of any kind.

Did you not see the Buffet video I posted on the facebook page of TAC?

If you're Behemoth Corp. and have nationwide business, you still seek profits, do you not? But what when you are so big that it is harder to grow demand? People in the US can only drink so many Coca-Colas or afford to buy so many GM cars, or smoke so many cigarettes.

Even though you might try to grow supply, you still look for cost-cutting measures. If you have regulations from each of the states, that means you have 50-sets of regulations. Some tend to be a little more "pro consumer" than you might prefer. So what do you do?

You go to Washington! There, you can go through one channel and one set of laws! You have your laws made in Washington because (1) it is cheaper and easier to buy 1 legislature as opposed to 50 legislatures, and (2) you can get a one-size fits all law that sets the standard pretty much the way you want it. Now, to get this standard, you have to have some regulation against yourself. You can't overtly have the legislature give it all away. So, you put some regulations in there – ones that are okay by you. Cost-effective ones that protect profits and operate to PREEMPT any state from passing contrary laws that might screw your game.

Tim: Why did the rich lobby for health care? It's a mandate to buy a product. As an attorney, I'd LOVE to lobby for a law that said, "Though shalt always keep attorneys on retainer just in case."