Analysis of Trump''s Tax Plan

Originally posted by Robtard
And now you're?

A taxation-is-theft, unregulated-free-market-will-solve-everything edgelord who just discovered Ayn Rand.

Taxation is an infringement on people's right to property. If it's a sacrifice to protect people's rights as a whole I'm fine with it, but taxation for the sake of wealth redistribution isn't something i support.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
A taxation-is-theft, unregulated-free-market-will-solve-everything edgelord who just discovered Ayn Rand.

So 2nd year of college, is what you're telling me 😛

I have a question.

Are we hating on Trump’s Tax plans because it’s bad? Or because we have this hate for anything Trump?

Now, be very careful with you’re answer.

Originally posted by Robtard
So 2nd year of college, is what you're telling me 😛

I was thinking 18 or 19-year-old college freshman or sophomore, whose favorite book in high school was Catcher in the Rye, and just discovered the campus Libertarians.

So future house speaker?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Here's an idea... why not cut government spending? Why does this not cross the minds of people complaining about the deficit in Trump's tax plan? Stop pouring inordinate amounts of money into entitlement programs.

Edit: Not social security though since people have paid into it

Also, government spending contributes to economic growth as it is part of the GDP equation. Considering the already meager economic benefits of Trump's tax plan, any government spending cuts would likely depress the few positive effects and make the whole thing a pointless endeavor.

www.businessinsider.com/trump-tax-reform-bill-goldman-sachs-text-analysis-2017-12

Now, that's not to say that we shouldn't cut government spending when it is genuinely wasteful and can be diverted to real quality tax cuts. But when you've got a tax plan like Trump's, which would result in negligible-negative economic growth from the outset, cutting government spending would only slow the economy.

I've asked that myself. I'm all for cutting spending, if it makes sense.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Taxation is an infringement on people's right to property. If it's a sacrifice to protect people's rights as a whole I'm fine with it

taxation for the sake of wealth redistribution isn't something i support

"Wealth distribution" is a meaningless buzz word for "government things I don't like".

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Taxation can't be an infringement on peoples' rights to property because property rights don't exist without government enforcement you jackass.

The political ideology that founded the United States was predicated on a notion of negative rights not positive rights. The concept of negative rights holds that rights are inalienable, inherent to each individual is an ethical right they have to life liberty and property. The concept of positive rights is that rights are only what government determines them to be. The former is a framework around which an idea of what government is meant to do can be constructed, and the latter is an ethically relativist answer that can ethically justify anything as long as the state power deems it so... as such it's pretty clear why I ascribe to the former rather than the latter because I am not an ethical relativist.

In the classical liberal view, rights exist independently of government, the government just exists to enforce those rights. This idea proposed in Locke's Treatises of Government is the social contract, the sacrifice of some rights in order to create an entity to protect the rest of your rights on the whole.

If you'd notice in my post that you quoted I don't have a problem with the government taxing me in order to protect my rights.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
"Wealth distribution" is a meaningless buzz word for "government things I don't like".

Don't hand wave arguments from principle just because those principles aren't in alignment with your political goals.

Taxation can't be an infringement on peoples' rights to property because property rights don't exist without government enforcement you jackass.

So rights are derived from the state. Does the right to life no longer exist without the state? It is also a false assumption to assume that government is the only mechanism in which our rights can be defended?

"Wealth distribution" is a meaningless buzz word for "government things I don't like".

If I fashion something with my energy, time, and ideas do I have the right to that product? If the answer to that question is yes, then, therefore, taking my money is immoral.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I was thinking 18 or 19-year-old college freshman or sophomore, whose favorite book in high school was Catcher in the Rye, and just discovered the campus Libertarians.

God, what a chode you turned out to be.

Your definition of a chode is someone who has different political views?

A person who see's more value in a rich mans right to hoard his treasure than to use it to help the needy and helpless is a huge chode, yes.

And you dare to call yourself a Christian.

Originally posted by Nephthys
A person who see's more value in a rich mans right to hoard his treasure than to use it to help the needy and helpless is a huge chode, yes.

And you dare to call yourself a Christian.

There's a difference between thinking that rich people shouldn't help poor people, and thinking the government shouldn't force rich people to help poor people. In that religious group on campus I mentioned I've actually volunteered to help drive around town and give homeless people food and clothes.

I think hateful speech is immoral too, but I find the notion that the government should use force to enforce that moral standard to be disgusting and an overreach of government power. Just because I believe someone should have the freedom to make a choice doesn't mean I think whatever they do with that choice is a good thing. I also morally disapprove of casual sex, but I absolutely am revolted at the government legislating that standard. I also think people have a moral obligation to be honest human beings, but that doesn't mean the government should criminalize lying.

The government doesn't exist to compel all forms of moral behavior, it exists to protect people's rights.

Also BTW it's by this exact line of reasoning that some people I know who morally disapprove of "gayism" (to use the LeGenD terminology) term still think gay sex and gay marriage should be legal. I'm not one of those people since I don't have a problem with gayism.

Originally posted by Nephthys
A person who see's more value in a rich mans right to hoard his treasure than to use it to help the needy and helpless is a huge chode, yes.

And you dare to call yourself a Christian.

You’re ****ing funny! No one has the right to force someone else to give away their riches to the less serving, unless they chooses too.

Doesn’t matter if that person worked, or earned said riches from family.

It's like, people wanna acknowledge the government as some wish granting fairy instead of an instrument of force and ignore the fact that it doesn't just magically generate whatever outcome they want with no cost to people's liberty or property.

Originally posted by Nephthys
A person who see's more value in a rich mans right to hoard his treasure than to use it to help the needy and helpless is a huge chode, yes.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I think rich people absolutely should use their wealth to help poor people. I do believe inaction when you have the power to help people is immoral. Take someone like Bill Gates for example who does philanthropy work, I think that's what rich people should do. I just don't believe it's moral to use force to compel wealth redistribution, nor under the purview of what government should be from a Lockean perspective.

There's a difference between thinking that rich people shouldn't help poor people, and thinking the government shouldn't force rich people to help poor people. In that religious group on campus I mentioned I've actually volunteered to help drive around town and give homeless people food and clothes.

I think hateful speech is immoral too, but I find the notion that the government should use force to enforce that moral standard to be disgusting and an overreach of government power. Just because I believe someone should have the freedom to make a choice doesn't mean I think whatever they do with that choice is a good thing. I also morally disapprove of casual sex, but I absolutely am revolted at the government legislating that standard. I also think people have a moral obligation to be honest human beings, but that doesn't mean the government should criminalize lying.

The government doesn't exist to compel all forms of moral behavior, it exists to protect people's rights.

Also BTW it's by this exact line of reasoning that some people I know who morally disapprove of "gayism" (to use the LeGenD terminology) term still think gay sex and gay marriage should be legal. I'm not one of those people since I don't have a problem with gayism.

Oh cry me a ****ing river. Your problem is that you have a serious misplaced sense of priorities. You're worried about people having to pay slightly more taxes more than you are about the people actually suffering and dying. Rich people and corporations having to pay taxes isn't some grand injustice. They'll live and thrive and they'll do so a lot better than any of us will. People dying from preventable illness or injury or suffering from extreme debt or poverty are real problems, not your whingefest about "the use of force."

Which I'm sure makes you feel like you're a super great guy. Meanwhile you won't lift a finger to solve the actual issues that lead those people to those streets in the first place and instead actively argue for less of a safety net for them and more weight to the boot holding them down.

I wasn't making a point about the government enforcing morals, I was merely commenting on your own despicable sense of morality.

No, government exists to create and support a society for the benefit of the people living in it. A state that fails to support its citizenry indicates a flawed system. A system of rights only exists for the benefit and protection of the people in the first place. If a few of the most privileged of those people and powerful corporations have to be minorly inconvenienced to relieve the great suffering of a great many people then so be it. Thats how a government is supposed to function. A government that protects the comfort of a few at the expense of the pain of the many scarcely deserves to exist.

Also Locke was a ponse.

Originally posted by SquallX
You’re ****ing funny! No one has the right to force someone else to give away their riches to the less serving, unless they chooses too.

Doesn’t matter if that person worked, or earned said riches from family.

Everyone pays taxes you twit. You do it too. Or you will when your balls are finished dropping. The problem is when people have too much while other have too little. Theres nothing immoral about people who have more having to contribute more for the good of society.