Talk:Legal plunder

Untitled
Removed the heavy-handed implication-by-inclusion of "Software Patents" in the "See Also" list to just "Patents." Patents are by definition a government monopoly on an idea -- this is a legal monopoly. The ability to use a patent to rent-seek is a feature, not a bug, and is in no way whatsoever unique to software patents. Patent trolling is more prevalent with software patents, which merits Patent Trolling as a good item on the list. But Patent is a better inclusion by far than Software Patent as the idea of legal applies more generally to all patents — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.199.114 (talk • contribs)
 * Good. Thanks. bobrayner (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Opening is a bunch of gibberish
This whole part is a bunch of gibberish. It is meaningless, biased and unsourced.

The functioning of the state generally consists of providing public services indivisible, funding them with tax whose level is measured at a general level, with the apparent tax burden or the tax burden legal and individual level with the effective tax rate or with the total tax rate or the tax wedge.

The taxation performs several functions including the most important one is to implement policies of income redistribution in a spirit of social cohesion if the taxes applied are progressive.

The legal plunder can be considered a form of income redistribution from the poor to the wealthy conducted by the State mediate the application of its laws that implement the function regressive taxation.

I've removed it. If someone would like to rewrite this in an unbiased (and understandable) manner and add sources, feel free.

Photon_man62 (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"Legal plunder" in not "Tragedy of the commons"
Legal plunder in different from Tragedy of the commonsConigliomannaro (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)