,,,also, how we live and what we do and why. That may not be a formal definition, but it explains what philosophy in part pertains to. You challenge me by asking "And why didn't they move there back when taxes were higher?" Do you realize how much is 2% of 50 Billion? That comes to 100 Million Dollars. That's not from your income and in addition to your income taxes. You would have to sell part of your belongings every year to come up with such an amount.
You need to study what I wrote. I addressed a basic human instinct, a need (no, even stronger), an obsession to protect our possessions. When we pay taxes, we pay income taxes, and that is what you are referring to. We allow society to have its share of the profits for providing the forum which allowed us to do something of value to someone else in our society. The transaction could only be made because of the orderly society within we live. The other party or parties paid an amount most likely with the understanding that we would pass on society's share to the government. In some cases, an estimated amount may be withheld and paid by the payor. But what is left after taxes becomes our property. That is and should be ours to keep and cherish or do with as we please.
We talk so much about the Second Amendment. In reality, the wording of the second amendment of the constitution does not grant a right to bear arms. Think about it. It merely acknowledges that there may be a right to bear arms, and the constitution dictates that whatever right exists, as it may be limited or not by laws of the several states, that right shall not be infringed by operation of the federal government. Nobody is perfect not even the NRA or the Supreme Court.
Now, look at amendment five of the constitution: "No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." If you take these words without misconstruing them in lawyerly fashion, if you take something and give just compensation, you have a "Quid pro Quo". What that meant was that the Government could take land or other property under "eminent domain", hence with compensation. But it also says that the federal government cannot tax property. The way I look at life (philosophically), I believe when one advocates taxing wealth, such person has crossed the boundary from socialism to communism. And I also believe that people who support those who advocate taxing wealth share politically the same philosophy. From what I read I thought that I was way short on what on one usually estimates in normal distributions of five to ten percent of left and right fringes on a normal curve. That is why I estimated a higher percentage of followers.
Summarizing, I only know of one European country for sure that does not tax property. And they did not move when taxes were higher because they generally accepted the fact that if the Union offers them the opportunity to do business nationwide it is not unreasonable to share. That's similar to paying someone who offered to do a service for you and you accepted.
= new reply since forum marked as read