http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/0...-compensation/

http://janeqrepublican.wordpress.com...ialists-first/

Just look how dull your axe is! You should sharpen it:

Excellent idea. There's no reason they should make so much more than anyone else, right? Secondly, they should be taxed extremely heavily, since they can afford it, the cornerstone of many taxation arguments.

Please show where "Hollywood" has claimed that everyone should make the same amount of money. You are pretty good at insinuating hypocrisy, but not very good at demonstrating an actual basis for your insinuations.


Beyond discussing your failures, "They" are taxed in a manner equitable to all other industries that enjoy similar profit margins and salaries.

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

Excellent idea. There's no reason they should make so much more than anyone else, right? Secondly, they should be taxed extremely heavily, since they can afford it, the cornerstone of many taxation arguments.

In our capitalist system:

a) The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.

b) It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public
expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more
than in that proportion.

Clearly, your fringe opinions on taxation show you are not a capitalist.

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

Excellent idea. There's no reason they should make so much more than anyone else, right? Secondly, they should be taxed extremely heavily, since they can afford it, the cornerstone of many taxation arguments.

No Goat, you have it all wrong. Hollywood is mostly far left so they can make as much as they want. It is only when the corporations pay their CEO's a high salary that it is wrong. Of course the same goes for sports figures like Tiger Woods that make an obscene amount of money. That is O.K. too. Only businesses should keep the money down low.

Maybe if they did that, Failifornia wouldn't be rated worse off than Greece anymore.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f...gan-chief.html

Originally Posted by peterp1964

In our capitalist system:

a) The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.

b) It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public
expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more
than in that proportion.

Clearly, your fringe opinions on taxation show you are not a capitalist.

Please provide the source for these 'capitalist' ideas.

How is holding an opinion on taxation shared by a large proportion of the nation, 'fringe'?

I love your freudian slip, Statist.."The subjects of every state"

http://headlinehollywood.com/tax-the-celebrity-rich/

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

Please provide the source for these 'capitalist' ideas.

How is holding an opinion on taxation shared by a large proportion of the nation, 'fringe'?

I love your freudian slip, Statist.."The subjects of every state"

if you're a capitalist you should know the source for these ideas. Otherwise
you're like a Christian who has never cracked the Bible.

as to "my" Freudian slip...lol...goes to show what you _really_ know about
capitalism...I can see now how it would be easy for an AM radio demagogue
to have eat anything he/she puts out hook line and sinker (and fishing pole
and fisherman and the whole fishing boat too).

Originally Posted by peterp1964

if you're a capitalist you should know the source for these ideas.

You cannot or will not present them?

as to "my" Freudian slip...lol...goes to show what you _really_ know about capitalism...

I know people who actually support capitalism as defined by capitalists would never refer to citizens as 'subjects', Statist.

Originally Posted by peterp1964

In our capitalist system:

a) The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.

b) It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public
expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more
than in that proportion.

Clearly, your fringe opinions on taxation show you are not a capitalist.

Don't believe Adam Smith was talking about us at the time he wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776. He would be considered an early progressive and was the first to present a progressive style tax concept. Karl Marx also quoted some of his views on labor.

Now how exactly does this relate to capitalism?

I am quite sure you can explain such, but it will be interesting to hear.

Though it would be funny to see all the hollywood liberals squirm, this is a pretty silly idea, in all actuality.

Any fiscal conservative that supports this is being hypocritical.

Not to mention, all it would be doing is putting more money in the pockets of big hollywood production companies. Ever wonder why it costs you $30 bucks to go to the movies anymore? It's not the movie star salaries that are doing that...

Originally Posted by MtnGoat

You cannot or will not present them?

I know people who actually support capitalism as defined by capitalists would never refer to citizens as 'subjects', Statist.

you don't recognize the quotes ? and you call yourself a capitalist ? lol...have
you ever read anything other than Randian nonsense ?

if you are presenting quotes, you need to present them as quotes.

this is why I asked you to present your sources...to define what it is you are doing.