Newsflash: people with relevant skills/qualifications that can find well-paid jobs which are in demand, or start up a successful business, tend to have more money than people who don't understand basic finances. Thus, they will have a higher quality life. That model in of itself works and is fair, as it encourages people to improve themselves and contribute to the economy.
Trying to reduce the quality of life of someone who can look after themselves in order to prop up the needy or, more likely, the lazy, doesn't work.
What may work is if you stop insisting on taxing the shit out of people, letting the government waste the money on lesbian dance theory degrees, and instead just teach people how to make a living without relying on welfare. People should be responsible for themselves unless they are legitimately retarded or a child.
Maybe not piss all your money away on garbage, not have children you can't look after and get a job. That usually helps.
__________________ “The galaxy must experience the pain of death and the rapture of rebirth as I have. I will bring chaos. It is time for war.”
No, there's a difference between forcing someone, at the threat of violence, to do charity and people willingly doing charity. People who try to violently force others to do charity are assholes. The Chodiest of Chodes.
Again, I'm not saying anything about forcing people to do charity. Just to pay taxes and for the government to use taxpayer money to help the needy with healthcare and social security programs. And only morons think taxes are a form of violence.
Lol let us be clear: it's not charity if it's forced.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
I've posted links to this already: don't pay your taxes, you go to jail and/or prison. If you believe you're in the right, and you resist being put in jail, violence happens.
Only an idiot thinks that you can get away with paying your taxes without incurring violence from the government.
Check it out: it's against my religious beliefs to be forced to do charity.
If you resist in that case you are the one instigating the violence. The tax itself isn't a form of violence, theres merely the possibility if you try punching a bailiff. That possibility exists in almost every aspect of life. Living in society requires you to follow rules. Don't like it, go live on an island.
Taxes aren't charity, dumbass.
__________________
Last edited by Nephthys on Dec 19th, 2017 at 09:20 PM
Taxes are absolutely the Govts use of authority over you to TAKE your money for the "common good." It is force, all taxes are a use of force to take money from its citizens.
Apparently it passed the House and is being sent to the Senate.
Resisting your assets being seized by force = instigating violence? That's retarded. If you don't agree to being taxed, but the government still want a slice of your pie, they will still take it. I'll leave you to work out the word we use for that.
You must be retarded if you think it's possible to relocate to an island without being forced to pay taxes somewhere down the line.
Taxes aren't charity, they're taking money from people who are self-sufficient and giving it to people who aren't, by force, unless you want to be ostracised from society.
If I start my own business, sell a product to a customer, and they give me something of a value, e.g money, that should be my money. The government, using it's monopoly on lawful use of violence, forces me to cut them in, even though they had nothing to do with the transaction. That's essentially theft.
Whether you agree with this theft or not is another debate, but whether or not it's theft at all is without question.
__________________ “The galaxy must experience the pain of death and the rapture of rebirth as I have. I will bring chaos. It is time for war.”
I bet Fantasy Island is an island you could get to without being forced to pay taxes. Assuming your fantasy was to live on an island where you aren't forced to pay taxes.
__________________ Chicken Boo, what's the matter with you? You don't act like the other chickens do. You wear a disguise to look like human guys, but you're not a man you're a Chicken Boo.
So if a person disagrees with the taxes on moral, ethical, or religious grounds, they are not allowed to refuse. They get put in jail or prison. AKA, violence.
Thanks for agreeing with me. Wasn't this a fun game where I talk you into agreeing with me when you originally disagreed?
You're right, taxes are forced charity for those who do no wish to pay taxes for charity. You may not like it but there are people who exist out there who have different political beliefs from you. Some people are...wait for it...libertarians. Some people are very liberal and believe in personal freedoms and rights quite a bit.
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
What being concerned about people's rights from infringement instead of trying to force everyone to conform to the behavior I'd like to see is a misplaced sense of priorities.
I mean I don't disagree that they should pay taxes just as anyone else pays taxes... so no. As it currently stands though they're paying almost all of the income taxes the government takes in. I have no problem with taxes being proportionate to the amount of property one has, but you're not advocating for proportionality here.
Oh just because they're rich **** them? We should take away their property at a disproportionate rate to their earnings because we think we deserve it more than they do?
Also have you ever heard of capital flight? The US having a lower corporate tax rate makes the US economy more inviting to businesses which is an economic boon.
Yeah they are real problems, which is why I'm a proponent of voluntary charity work rather than the ineffectual government systems that are coercive via threat of force and inherently require involuntary infringements on people's property.
Neph I already told you I participate in and advocate for charity work.
Also what a retarded metaphor you've used. My refusal to redistribute wealth does not equate to me oppressing poor people. Me oppressing poor people would require me to actively be infringing on their rights, which is not something I'm doing by not supporting wealth redistribution.
As far as "solving the actual issues" goes the war on poverty and increasing welfare spending in the US has done **** all to actually reduce the poverty rate.
(please log in to view the image)
And also the US is continually sinking further and further into debt with entitlement programs accounting for over half of our government spending.
So no from an ethical point of principle that actually gives a shit about people's rights, it doesn't work. From the practical goal of "lifting a finger to solve these issues" it doesn't work. From a consideration of whether we can actually afford these government programs or whether it's just gonna sink us further into a debt that's gonna come around and bite us in the ass someday, it doesn't work.
Go on, keep telling me I'm despicable for not wanting to infringe on people's rights, and how I'm despicable for not supporting programs that are plunging my nation further and further into debt at an increasing rate without actually doing jack shit to reduce poverty.
Also it's nice to know that you're so intolerant of disagreement that you think anyone whose not economically left wing is a deplorable, I can only imagine the kinds of productive discussions you'll have with people on the other side. Are you going to call them racists and sexists too while you're at it?
The primary role of the state is to protect your rights because without your life liberty and property you have nothing. A system of government built on negative rights, on protection, has a clearly defined and objective framework that protects each individual and can ensure justice on an individual level. A system of government built on the notion of positive rights can justify any abuse of the individual so long as it is deemed to serve the greater good, which is exactly the kinda bullshit thinking that lead to some of the greatest atrocities in human history.
I am a Liberal, not a Marxist, I fundamentally object to your view of government.
You call a 40% tax rate on the highest income bracket a "minor inconvenience"? Damn your head must really be lodged far up your own ass to think that.
What euphemistic language. It's not the fault of rich people being successful that poor people are poor, it is the fault of wealth redistribution programs that people's property rights are infringed upon for something they'll see no return on.
The government that protects everyone's rights instead of delineating between them based on class or identity group is the one that deserves to exist.
Because he was an individualist and not a collectivist?
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Misleading graphic. The Federal Poverty Rate is calculated using pre-tax income, and excludes vital benefits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, Food Stamps, Housing Assistance and Medicaid. The Center on Budget and Policy Prorities estimates that about 10 million are lifted out of poverty thanks to the EITC alone, and about 5 million children as well.
Strong welfare states are both essential and desirable, and not just for moral reasons. And such welfare states require progressive taxation because charity just won't cut it.
Last edited by lazybones on Dec 20th, 2017 at 12:55 AM
Well, this is a half truth. While it is true that absolute poverty measure does not include the earned income tax credit nor the child tax credit, the Supplemental Poverty Measure does and it still paints a dreary picture.
(please log in to view the image)
While does this does depict a greater drop in poverty, it does not contrast the decline in previous years. The poverty rate was already falling drastically before The War On Poverty was implemented. In fact, the biggest drops on this chart transpired during the welfare cuts of 1996.The SPM does show that poverty has dropped, despite the lukewarm results what it does not show is the fact that such drops are simply due to government handouts. We can use the Anchored Supplemental Poverty Measure Before Taxes and Transfers to assess welfare's success. This measure shows people's ability to earn money without the taxes and subsidization.
We have spent 22 trillion dollars in an attempt to prevent poverty. GDP has grown immensely since 1967.
The incentive structure created by the welfare state has discouraged economic recovery and has turned government into a post to lean on rather than a trampoline upon which to jump off of. We can contrast this startling number with poverty declination in the past. Real income in 1990 was 15 times greater than it was in 1900. Real per capita income was over four and one-half times greater in 1990 than in 1900. Not only have real earnings increased drastically so has poverty. 56% of families were poor in the year 1900. In 1947, despite the economic troubles of the Great Depression and WWII, the poverty rate had gone down to 27%. This number decreased way before the War on Poverty even began. One more note regarding the SPM, California has the highest SPM out of any state in the nation. California has one of the biggest welfare states in the nation. You also seemingly purported that welfare without the state is not enough. I already mentioned the decrease in poverty in the 1900s, but this topic reminds me of an article published by FEE. It very clearly addresses this conundrum: https://fee.org/articles/welfare-wi...-welfare-state/
KMC Community Forums
Dec 19th, 2017 08:01 PM
