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.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.
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.Maybe not piss all your money away on garbage, not have children you can't look after and get a job. That usually helps.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Nephthys
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.
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. 😐
Originally posted by dadudemon
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.
Originally posted by Nephthys
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.
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.
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.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.
Originally posted by NephthysYou must be retarded if you think it's possible to relocate to an island without being forced to pay taxes somewhere down the line.
Don't like it, go live on an island.Taxes aren't charity, dumbass.
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.
Originally posted by Nephthys
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.
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.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Oh cry me a ****ing river. Your problem is that you have a serious misplaced sense of priorities.
Originally posted by Nephthys
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.
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.
Originally posted by Nephthys
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."
Originally posted by Nephthys
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Nephthys
I wasn't making a point about the government enforcing morals, I was merely commenting on your own despicable sense of morality.
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?
Originally posted by Nephthys
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.
I am a Liberal, not a Marxist, I fundamentally object to your view of government.
Originally posted by Nephthys
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.
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.
Originally posted by Nephthys
A government that protects the comfort of a few at the expense of the pain of the many scarcely deserves to exist.
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.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Also Locke was a ponse.
Originally posted by EmperordmbMisleading 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.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.
https://www.vox.com/2015/9/16/9337041/supplemental-poverty-measure
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.
Originally posted by lazybones
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.https://www.vox.com/2015/9/16/9337041/supplemental-poverty-measure
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.
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.
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.
Shortly after the War on Poverty got rolling (1967), about 27% of Americans lived in poverty. In 2012, the last year for which data is available, the number was about 29%.
We have spent 22 trillion dollars in an attempt to prevent poverty. GDP has grown immensely since 1967.
U.S. real GDP (RGDP) per capita (in 4Q2013 dollars) increased by 127.3%, from $23,706 to $52,809. In other words, to stay out of poverty in 1967, the two adults in a typical family of four had to capture 26.9% of their family’s proportionate share of RGDP (i.e., average RGDP per capita, times four). To accomplish the same thing in 2012, they only had to pull in 12.1% of their family’s share of RGDP. And yet, fewer people were able to manage this in 2012 than in 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-without-the-welfare-state/