There is no possible reason why someone would refer to the government in the second person;
Sure there is
It’s easier to type and that’s just how people speak
I have said clearly many times in this thread that the government does have a right to take people’s money.
Just the argument here is
I say it’s the persons money that is being taken away from them by the government
You seem to say
It’s the governments money that the person somehow got a hold of and that person needs to find out how much the benevolent government allows him to keep
For the record I also said that though I’m not a particularly big fan of the current taxation system, I don’t have any better idea.
So I don’t know why you feel in not forthcoming and clear in what I feel about this issue
Could it be you didn’t bother to read my posts?
Meno
Firstly I was trying to simplify my position for Neville with a parable as he seems to have cognition difficulties
Secondly you’d be wrong an way
Each one took 50 that the other an kid gave gotten
You could have asked better
What if I’m the only shoe store?
But the answer would be every dollar spent on shoes is not spent on candy
I was just illustrating competing for someone else’s dollar in an open market versus getting a gift
And yes I think there should be no gift tax at all
Don’t ask me about lottery
Lottery r is an arbitrary game from the government who’s rules have been set by the same government
You don’t like the rules, don’t play
Everyone knows lottery winnings are 1/3 of advertised amount