Chris Redfern Chairman of Ohio Demcrat Party says we should feel "good inside" because our taxes go to help pay everyone else's bills before we can even pay our own. Redfern equates law enforcement and environmental protection with taking care of the "least among us." Redfern says left to thier own devices Americans wouldn't care for the "least among us." Listen to the whole interview at www.wspd.com along with the Waniewski and Don Czerniak interviews from this morning.
Waniewski admits there is no paperwork signed which gives us control of Southwyck once the asbestos is removed. Czerniak talks about the grievances brought by AFSCME Local 7 against the city for Erie Street Market work.
Redfern On 1370 WSPD Says "Those With Most" Should Pay More
By fred - Posted on August 27th, 2008
Tagged:
![Syndicate content](/misc/feed.png "Comments for \"Redfern On 1370 WSPD Says "Those With Most" Should Pay More\""){kind=small}
"Redfern On 1370 WSPD Says "Those With Most" Should Pay More"
Yeah, Adam Smith said the same thing in the Wealth of Nations:
"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."
Capitalism.
Always try to use the full quote so It's not taken out of context. "A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. 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." [14] It says nothing here about confiscating funds earned by one's labor before the laborer has said money in hand.
I am surprised that you said that. You always take things out of context. Especially when it comes to the mayor.
But Steve - please specify some examples when Fred has done this.
I realize your last anti-maggie posting you were asked to provide the same info about her to which you refused, but I figured what the hell, I'll ask anyway.
If he would outsource Don's job to an employment agency, which would hire Don to fill the opening, he would not have payroll taxes withheld. His take home pay will increase, but he will be responsible to pay his taxes in a lump sum to the IRS by April 15th of the next year. There's no real advantage for Don in working as an independent contractor since interest earned from the non-withheld taxes will be offset by the loss of healthcare and other benefits given to Clear Channel employees.
But that is what Adam Smith was saying in the section pink slip quoted. Even if taxes are not withheld from our paycheck, we still withhold them ourselves. Smith realized this and noted the effect our mental processes had on the rental market in his era, and the effect can be seen today in how consumers react to sales taxes.
---------
"Show me a man who lives alone and has a perpetually dirty kitchen, and
five times out of nine I'll show you an exceptional man." -Charles
Bukowski
It says nothing here about confiscating funds earned by one's labor before the laborer has said money in hand.
So then you're ok with the idea of progressive taxation? (you couldn't tell it by your original post) To you, it's just that one form of "confiscation" is better than another?
Chris Redfern is one of the dumbest moonbats alive today. His ideas about law enforcement expose him for a charlatan - he has no real experience with law enforcement, particularly in Toledo.
Redfern, like most liberals views human beings not as "created equal endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. . . ." Instead, Redfern sees mankind's value, meaning and purpose in life as being derived from whatever material possessions people may or may not own. Redfern perceives inequality between those who have and those who do not.
Whether this perception of inequality between the "haves" and the "have nots" is real or imagined, it is unlikely that Redfern will see that government is part of the problem Rather he sees government as the only solution.
His solution is to use government as an agent through taxaxtion policy in order to force people to give to the "least among us."
The problem is that Redfern redefines the meaning of charity. By definition charity is goodwill, benevolent, generosity, love toward others.
To say that people won't give on their own, therefore government has to force them to do it involuntarily with the threat of criminal penalties no longer fits the definition of charity.
The government's use of force is not goodwill, it's not benevolent, it's not generous and it's certainly not very loving--it's extorition. Those who are genuinely charitable do not redistribute that which was not theirs to freely and willfully give away.
Charity, as a virtue is an outward expression of an individual's internal beliefs about the meaning, purpose and value of human life. It cannot be imposed on people externally. To do otherwise, is another form of "lipstick on the pig" syndrome.
No matter how much the liberals like Redfern use taxation as a vehicle of wealth redistribution to help the "least among us", he has no right to call it charity--it's theft carrying with it the threat of penalty under law.
now he shows he has no brain
well done, again, Chris!
{s applause