There are many people who are apparently incapable of conceptualizing the idea of economic power separated from political power. To the liberal, leftist and socialist, they are of course one and the same, since in their world the State IS economics.

The way I see it is that your plan leaves me and my descendants living with their socio-political lives governed by a few wealthy families and individuals and some form of more or less disguised economic slavery. I believe yours would result in some enormously wealthy people, a very small middle class, and an enormous underclass.

Of course the government, which lives on confiscated wealth, will tell you this every chance they get. It's amazing how terrified leftists are of someone gaining too much wealth, but are completely happy with someone gaining nearly limitless political power over them. Right now I consider Tom Daschle a much greater threat to my life and property than Bill Gates, since Daschle has the power to destroy my life and work with a whim, but then you probably don't understand what I'm talking about.

And what in the hell is "economic slavery??"

I think mine would allow for wealthy people, create a large, vibrant middle class, and leave a smaller underclass.

Please enlighten me as to how confiscating the wealth of the "too rich" and dumping it into government programs creates a "vibrant middle class." Unless you assume that they all work for the government. Maybe that's the whole idea, eh? And it's not like the middle class isn't getting a third of their income skimmed off as well.

Mine would leave you free to do whatever you wanted in a free world with $100 million or so in your pockets.

A free world, as long as I stay within the limits of success laid out for me. So, is $100 million the glass ceiling for my productivity and creativity? Everything above that goes to whoever has the most political pull? Why not $50 million? Why not $100,000? Who decides? Does the number get voted on? Does Ted Kennedy get to pick the number since he is apparently better and wiser than I am? If not him, who? Just out of curiosity, how come the government can never have "too much wealth?"

Once it has been established that my "owners" can cut my income off pretty much anywhere they want to, why should I consider any amount of wealth safe from them? And then what after the money? Do they get to decide if my house covers too much land, or that I shouldn't have more than one car? Does the fact that I eat meat use up too much farmland? I have heard leftists advocating restrictions exactly like this, with the mantra, "no one gets two cars until everyone has one."

You are either the property of the state, or you aren't. There is no middle ground. Although I don't believe in taxation, I pay my taxes. But I'll be damned if I'll help them pretend they are doing me a favor.

Your plan would take away that which may make life easier to live for the vast majority of people - freedom. Mine would have a chance at preventing that.

Jesus Christ on a tricycle, WAKE UP. Economic wealth is no threat to your freedom. A nearly-limitless concentration of political power is. Bill Gates, for all his economic power, can't keep me from buying a Mac or a Linux system. The lowliest $20,000/year zoning official in my city can fine or jail me for cutting a tree down on my own property. Bill Gates has to persuade me. He can't enforce his will with a gun. This is the root difference between economic and political power, and it's why they should be separated like church and state, and for the same reason.

I sure as hell won't convince you, and am not really trying. The brainpaths just aren't there. But maybe I can convince others who read this stuff.

Again, a "simple gentlemanly disagreement" between someone who advocates slavery and someone who is a potential slave may not be feasible.