Hillary Clinton: Foreign Countries Need To Tax Wealthy. Do you agree?

"I don't defend that. Yet it happens to be a function of humanity and history."

All manner of depravity happens to be a function of humanity and history. That doesn't mean we should keep practicing depravity. Should we murder, rape and maim because these happen to have been a 'function of humanity and history'?

"Almost every European country had to learn the hard way that the rich have a responsibility to the poor - for it is not a "right" to be rich - but something permitted by God and the people."

I am aware of no religious text which suggests that God mandates forced labor. Are we supposed to be responsive to the needs of the least of these, yes, but nowhere does God mandate that we force others to be charitable in our stead. Wanna give to the poor? Fantastic! Just don't force others to do it.

"If that responsibility is not taken seriously then the mob has a tendency to rise up and take it all - including life."

That human beings have a tendency to take what does not belong to them is a given. That doesn't make it right. Neither does it mean we should codify such activities. When an action is wrong one labels it as such. One doesn't excuse that action by calling it 'taxation' or 'fairness.' ESPECIALLY when there are other ways which society can employ to raise the funds necessary to take care of the needs of the poor--all of which don't require forced labor.

In a society that punishes the honest by "shooting the messenger" and defends the right to take advantage of the stupid or uneducated, I am unable to defend anything.

I don't say any of it is right. it just "is".

I understand your position, but I don't employ the 'it just is' defense in regard to depravity. THAT something 'is' doesn't mean it can't be CHANGED or eliminated.

And when it comes to ending forced labor I'm all FOR 'change.' :-)

In a way we are all "enforced labour" unless we inherit and are part of the "landed" classes.

Even then there are ways to reduce the level of ownership which others assert over us. A 'rich' person can elect to reduce his/her income or standard of living to a point where s/he is either not taxed (owned) at all, or is taxed (owned) at a much lesser rate.

If I were 'rich' I would do everything in my power to ENSURE that others could not own me against my will. If that meant I had to live like a pauper, then that would be what it meant. I would rather produce nothing than to have whatever I produced be confiscated. And that wouldn't be MY loss, but the loss of a society which was stuck on stupid.

Yet effectively that is the system we have....

If you are playing a game where the bank "takes" whether you win or lose, how does the game end?

Irrespective of the player government, corporate, or the banking system...

A power pyramid where only those at the top are "free".

"Yet effectively that is the system we have...."

Like I said previously, I don't employ the 'it is what it is' defense. I do not subscribe to the tenets of learned helplessness. I am aware that, one way or other, 'what it is' is of OUR making. We can elect to change it any time we get good and ready.

"If you are playing a game where the bank "takes" whether you win or lose, how does the game end?"

By not playing. I didn't use a bank at all for over fifteen years, and only just recently opened an account to exchange one form of paper for another.

"A power pyramid where only those at the top are "free"."

Under such a system, only those at the BOTTOM are free. Everyone else has something to lose, and is bound by the desire to keep it (or amass more of it). Paradoxically, the slavemasters are the most enslaved of all.

In any case, 'what is' is of (Y)OUR making.

It is a good philosophy that forgets one thing - the interconnectivity of the system.

I do not forget or ignore the interconnectedness of the system. I also don't use it as an excuse for MY inaction. :-)

Yes, we're all connected. But we're also individually identifiable and, at least to X degree, autonomous. We can act collectively OR individually. There are advantages to both modes of action provided that either one is not forced on another.

Such is the continuing struggle since the year dot.

Call it what you will: Individualism vs Collectivism, Capitalism vs Communism, even religions based on those differing theologies.

At the end of the day it is selflessness or selfishness.

Pretty much. :-\

It is not her business. She can't even do her present job properly!

Whilst I am unable to judge her ability to do her job, there is a global debt and financial crisis, so it is a valid comment.

Perhaps governments around the world should look at their functions in society, seems they are getting greedier and greedier. We have been more successful when our government has left us alone, Successful people over the years came here to do business because our government was less intrusive. Today we are growing closer and closer to governmental control and dependency, today we are growing weaker as an economic leader.

Up until now, unfortunately the only way to combat greed and to encourage fairness is to have complete transaction transparency. Nothing hidden government corporate and personal.

People only keep things secret when it is illegal, or they are ashamed of it.

That may mean a lot of French migrating here.

Hahahahaha - but if they bring their money would that be such a bad thing?

Pretty Stupid!

I do not mind free speech, but politicians on about tax paying its their avoidance to paying that is the worst part, dont you think a fair rate of tax for all.
Do you think that 75% is fair, i do not think a woman cleaning a toilet should pay more % of her money on tax than someone who has a good accountant.who earns 100 time more, but take away the incentive and what happens.

Fair?

Which would you prefer fair or total global economic collapse?

All people should have the right to free speech, but vermin politicians on about a certain crowd of people paying more taxes, i think they should put their own house in order first before they lecture us on taxes or tax avoidance in their case!

She needs to mind her own phucking business!!!!

Actually, I think Hillary and obama should both go to hell.

The President is offering any country that wants to, to tax the wealthy in the US. In keeping with the Democrats approach to economic stability and growth, the President is promoting a plan to tax the wealthy in the US at an effective rate of 200%.

Hillary Clinton is the Secretary of State of the U.S. right now. She seems to think she's the Secretary of State of the Planet. Other countries have their own ways of doing things, which are none of her business.

Is she really now trying to tell other countries what to do with their money?
wow

Her business how?

I could not give a RIP what they do. It is what WE do that concerns me.

Since when is that her business?

Maybe she has the same ailment Obama has,King/Queen syndrome.