If you're more interested in replying with Wikipedia links than understanding what I'm trying to ask, I don't think we can have a productive conversation.
How am I supposed to respond? Here is what you said:
So you're against the income tax?
Control + f, "income tax"
Arguing a straw man is precisely what you did. I said I think it's a bad idea to tax copyright ownership, and you responded by claiming I'm against income taxes.
I'm sorry, but that's just an absurd way to argue. In no way did I make any statement remotely close to arguing against income taxes. That doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand.
If you're truly interested in a public conversation, then respond to what I actually said.
I said I think it's a bad idea to tax copyright ownership, and you responded by claiming I'm against income taxes.
I wasn't actually claiming anything. I was just asking based on your reply to innguest's post. It wasn't supposed to be an argument related to the tax on copyright. But fair enough, I apologize.
In any case, I still think you've stopped reading the second part of my post too soon. I wasn't saying you were arguing against the general idea of taxes, but against a tax [on copyright]. All I meant is, even if the tax is bad for poor people, you can simply make it only apply for people with higher incomes and corporations. It's not actually a good argument against a tax [on copyright].
Straw man. I said nothing of the like.
How can (s)he not afford to pay, if it's "a fraction of what they make from profits from that work"?
Because poor people don't have very much money? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the question.
In any case, that sounds like a poor objection to the general idea of a tax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man